Noah's Ark worked! It is possible for 8 people to manage 16,000 animals."
"SOMEWHAT LESS THAN HALF OF ALL (RM) DATES AGREE WITH 10% OF ACCEPTED VALUES FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE BIOSTRATIGAPHIC POSITIONS."
This avereged equation was evaluated by scientist John Woodmorappe. It reveals about a 95% error rate for radio metric dating. Many have critisized John Woodmorappe's study, but no one has given any other figures from the literature for the exact percentage of anomalies.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Anomalies%20of%20radiometric%20dating
Thanks for the spelling corrections on the earlier posts. I appreciate correct grammar.
Many atoms (or elements) exist as numerous varieties called isotopes, some of which are radioactive, meaning they decay over time by losing particles. Radiometric dating is based on the decay rate of these isotopes into stable nonradioactive isotopes. To date an object, scientists measure the quantity of parent and daughter isotope in a sample, and use the atomic decay rate to determine its possible age.
For example, in the 238U-206Pb series, 238U is the parent isotope and the others are daughter isotopes. 206Pb is the final daughter isotope and the one assayed in radiometric dating.
In order to calculate the age of the rock, geologists follow this procedure:
where:
The decay constant has dimensions of reciprocal seconds. In the special case in which parent and daughter atoms are present in equal quantities, the age of the specimen is the half-life of the parent isotope:
Radioactive Decay SeriesThe various isotope dating methods rely upon several assumptions. They are:
The first assumption, that the amount of the daughter isotope in the original rock is known, is the weakest assumption. For example, K-Ar dating assumes that there was no argon in the original rock. But if there was argon in the rock when it originally formed, then the age calculated will be millions of years too high.
To understand this, recall the above formula. The greater the amount of daughter isotope, the greater the apparent age.
The proportion of argon to radioactive potassium in the sample today is observable, and the decay constant of potassium is readily calculable by measuring the amount of argon produced from the decay of 40K after a specified time. But the age of the rock and the proportion of argon to radio-potassium in the sample originally are not observable. As any first-year student of algebra soon learns, a single equation with two unknown variables cannot be solved. In fact, the above formula is far too simple, because it assumes that the amount of daughter isotope was zero at start. The formula below is a proper model that admits the possibility that some daughter isotope was present when the rock formed:
where D0 is the amount of daughter isotope present at start. In order to simplify the formula, scientists generally assume that igneous rock contains no argon when it forms, because the argon, being a noble gas, would escape from the cooling lava.
This assumption has been repeatedly falsified. Fresh volcanic rock is routinely found to have argon in it when it first cools.[3][4] In these cases, lava of a known age of no more than several thousand years (and in one case, no more than ten years) had argon in it when it formed, so that the rock was calculated by K-Ar dating to be millions of years old, even though it was known to be only thousands of years old.
"Calibration" and disregarding "Out of Place Fossils"Numerous fossils have been found in strata inconsistent with the evolutionary model of Earth's history.[5] These out of place fossils would seem to pose a problem for radiometric dating methods which are still calibrated based on the position of fossils (relative dates) in the geologic column. However, these fossils are not problematic if one simply disregards their existence.
If the date generated by isotope dating analysis agrees with the conventional interpretation of the geological column, paleontologists will accept it as valid. A date that disagrees with that interpretation is dismissed as an anomaly. This is not an example of malfeasance, but rather the result of assuming that the theory of evolution has been proved reliable, and therefore these seeming anomalies are due to contamination or other causes of analytical error. These out of place fossils or rocks are not considered a reason to question the theory. This makes independent testing of these dating methods impossible, since published discrepant dates are rare.[6]
Types of Radiometric Dating * Carbon-14 dating: Uses the ratio of 14C to 12C to determine the age of biological remains. Contrary to popular belief, Carbon-14 dating gives solid evidence for a young Earth.[7] * Helium diffusion: This dating method, developed by creationists, is based on the rate of Helium diffusion from zircons, which gives many rocks a maximum age of 6,000 +/- 2,000 years.[8] * Potassium-argon dating: K-Ar dating was used for a long time despite being challenged by creationists for its faulty assumptions and data. It is no longer defended as reliable, even by uniformitarian geologists, because it is entirely dependent on the assumption that igneous rocks never have any argon when they initially cool, and that assumption has been repeatedly demonstrated to be false as igneous rock of known age has been "dating" to ages far older than its actual age, because there was Argon in it when it formed.[3][4] * Concordia dating: Concordia dating rests on the same assumptions as K-Ar, namely that there was none of the daughter isotope (in this case Lead) in the sample when it originally cooled. Like the assumption in K-Ar, however, this assumption is also unfalsifiable, making this method equally unreliable.[9] * Isochron dating: Isochron dating was introduced as an attempted substitute for K-Ar dating, after K-Ar's faulty assumptions were exposed. However, isochron dating bears faulty assumptions of its own. It assumes the homogeneity of the sample when it originally formed, an assumption which is always false in whole rocks, and unfalsifiable in minerals.[10] """1. For some trees, including bristlecone pine, ponderosa pine, and douglass fir, double rings are rare and easy to spot with a little practice. A bigger problem is missing rings; a bristlecone pine can have up to 5 percent of its rings missing. Thus, dates derived from dendrochronology, if they are suspect at all, should indicate ages too young.
What Talk Origins does not tell you is that the extra rings make up at least 20% of the total, this leaves an error of at least 15% too old."
and somehow the people who do the datign wouldn't be aware of the missing or extra rings....riiiigth..
you accuse these scientists of gross incompitence bigdog....
"Not surprising since dendrochronology is used to to calibrate carbon-14 dating. Not only that but carbon - 14 dating is used in tree ring matching. As a result the two are not independent dating methods, but are actually mutually dependent."
no they aren', there are more ways to calibrate C14 dating man.
"The raw radiocarbon dates, in BP years, are calibrated to give calendar dates. Standard calibration curves are available, based on comparison of radiocarbon dates of samples that can be dated independently by other methods such as examination of tree growth rings (dendrochronology), deep ocean sediment cores, lake sediment varves, coral samples, and speleothems (cave deposits)."
you sir didn't do your homework.
"What Talk Origins does not tell you is that the extra rings make up at least 20% of the total, this leaves an error of at least 15% too old."
i did not see that claim based and i did not see an explination as to HOW 20% of the rings are extra.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/biblical-chronology-bristlecone-pine
this is where the idea comes from i believe...
whatcha know....it's Woodmorappe! now why don't i find the suprising....
"Could the genetics of BCPs, nowadays so strongly resistant to multiple ring growth per year, have allowed for such growth in the early post-Flood period? It would not be easy to test this hypotheses, if only because BCP generation times are so long."
the moment you read that any tree expert will do a facepalm.
"The challenge is not simply to reduce 8,000 years of rings to 4,000 years of actual time. In order to march in step with C-14 dates, which themselves were inflated at first, there must have been over 5,000 BCP rings generated in under 1,000 years after the Flood, followed by the remaining 3,000 rings generated in the expected 3,000 years. This would have required 5 rings consistently per year for the first post-Diluvian millennium, which, on a sustained basis, is almost impossible. However, if the more-realistic 1–2 rings per year had deployed in higher-order sequences that allowed the BCPs to crossmatch in an artificially-compressed format, then there could be a 5,000 tree-ring chronology generated in 1,000 years of real time. After about 1,000 B.C., the BCPs must have turned to the one-ring/one-year growth that characterizes the present. Otherwise, the recent part of the BCP chronology would be out of step with C-14 dates, which it is not."
translation: "the challange is to conjur op some system so the facts agree with my beliefs"
"It has long been known that individual tree rings can be changed, during growth, from the climate-signal-dictated size to a different size as a result of some disturbance. This disturbance (for example, insect attack, earthquake, release of gas, etc.) can make the ring either smaller or larger. If these disturbances occurred at sufficient frequency, and reappeared in sequence in other trees at later times, the actually-contemporaneous trees would crossmatch in an age-staggered manner, thus creating an artificial chronology."
so lets propose these things accured really frequently and in large number, so that the entire BCP cronology is distorted...
no dice. any1 with half a brain regarding ecology will know why.
"The 8,000-year-long BCP chronology appears to be correctly crossmatched, and there is no evidence that bristlecone pines can put on more than one ring per year. The best approach for collapsing this chronology, one that takes into the account the evidence from C-14 dates, is one that factors the existence of migrating ring-disturbing events. Much more must be learned about this phenomenon before this hypothesis can be developed further."
at least he's honest about his claim being most likely BS and that it should NOT BE BLINDLY COPIED.
but i still need to find a "20% of the rings are double's" cliam...better keep searching.
Walter E. Lammerts (1904-1996) graduated from Riverside Polytechnic High School in 1922. He earned both his undergraduate degree and and doctorate in horticulture from the University of California, Berkeley. In 1935, he contracted with Armstrong Nurseries and established the company's plant research facility. He was a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles from 1940-1945 and during that time he helped Knott's Berry Farm establish its berry program.
Working with Los Angeles newspaper owner Manchester Boddy, Lammerts developed a plant research program at Descanso Gardens in La Canada, California. He later continued plant research in Livermore, working for Germains/Amling DeVor.
Lammerts passed away on June 4, 1996.
http://content.cdlib.org/view?docId=kt0m3nd5k5&chunk.id=bioghist-1.2.2&brand=oac
so THIS "Dr. Walter E. Lammerts has a doctorate in genetics,"
is a downright lie. un understanding og genetics is handy when studying horticulture, BUT HORTICULTURE=/= GENTICS.
http://creationwiki.org/Walter_Lammerts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horticulture
Lammerts, Walter E., "Are the Bristlecone Pine Trees Really So Old?" Creation Research Society Quarterly, volume 20, September 1983, pp. 108-115.
this is the article that cliams a large percentage is double rings, which would compress the chronology to 5600 (STILL before the flood)
if someone could find the the article that would be nice.
all that is mentioned is "extra rings" not mentioning the amount. and the tests where done in a lab by someone with an ulterior motive, so i would like a peer reviewed scientist to also do those tests (so link me a peer reviewed paper of someone who did the same tests)
DendrochronologyThe discipline of deriving age by studying annual rings in trees has posed a different problem for creationists, as this dating method does not make use directly of accelerated decay. By using dendrochronology scientists have dated certain living trees to having ages of around 4600 years.( 8) This finding showed the current model for C-14 dating to be incorrect, so scientists recalibrated their C-14 model based on this tree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Phantym/Creation_science_rewrite_proposal#fn_.28_10.29_back
"The existence of this tree is not a significant problem for creationists, since such a dating would correspond to the dating they give for the flood. However, the further work, where dead trees in the same region were compared to paste together a chronology dating back approximately 10000 years is more a significant challenge.
A certain degree of wiggle-room was found when Aardsma first found that trees can produce multiple rings in a wet year ( 9). In the lab Lanmerts was able to show that trees can also show extra rings in short drought periods ( 10). Even with this wiggle-room, creation scientists accept that this puts the minimum age for life just barely within a range they are comfortable with [10].""
One Dr Snelling is a young-earth creationist missionary who follows the CSF's Statement of Faith to the letter. The other Dr Snelling writes scientific articles on rocks at least hundreds or thousand of millions of years old and openly contradicting the Statement of Faith. The CSF clearly has a credibility problem. Are they aware they have an apostate in their midst and have they informed their members?"

http://www.rae.org/johnw.htm
John Woodmorappe is the author of three acclaimed books:
Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study
Studies in Flood Geology
The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods
Noah's Ark worked! It is possible for 8 people to manage 16,000 animals. Learn about animal keeping methods, global catastrophes, ancient menageries, etc.
The global Flood and geologic catastrophism are seen as unconventional science. To others, the work of this pro-Biblical scholar as a key to understanding Bible mysteries and other secrets of antiquity.
Biography and Testimony of John Woodmorappe:
Life was a challenge for John Woodmorappe from the very beginning. Born in the USA to Polish immigrant parents who had lost everything in World War II, he had to adapt to a new language and culture. In addition, John has a neurological disorder called Tourette's syndrome, which causes him to have spells of torso rocking and finger wiggling. But the grace of God has given him an extraordinary ability in the area of scientific research.
John has had an insatiable curiosity in scientific matters ever since he was a toddler. At age 10-11, he could identify tens of trees in the neighborhood, and even knew the Latin names of most of them. His friends said he sounded like a priest. An 80-year old retired botanist would visit him, and they would go on walks together to talk about and examine different trees. By junior high, he was going to the state fairs with his science projects. Next, he went to one of the most academically demanding high schools in the whole nation.
Far from being a fundamentalist, John Woodmorappe had not been raised to believe in Scriptural inerrancy in any way. Nothing drove him to unconventional science. He attended a college-preparatory Jesuit school, which was liberal theologically as well as politically. There he was taught that Genesis was myth and that organic evolution was a proven fact of science. Not knowing any better, he accepted it.
In his sophomore year, he took an advanced biology course. After organic evolution, John studied ecology, and was taught all the scare-stories of radical environmentalists as proven fact. Having learned that DDT and other organic chlorocarbons accumulate in the biosphere because they do not break down, John Woodmorappe wrote his teacher a paper. He suggested that scientists breed bacteria, after subjecting them to radiogenic mutations generation after generation, in progressively greater concentrations of DDT. Finally, we would have a strain of bacteria that not only breaks down DDT but also is dependent on it. When released into the biosphere, these bacteria would consume all the accumulated DDT. The teacher replied that this would probably not work, unless perhaps millions of years were available. This planted the first seed of doubt towards organic evolution in John's mind, because it showed that the notion of natural selection culminating in unlimited variation is something less than factual.
While a freshman in college, a member of Campus Crusade for Christ won John to the Lord. He eagerly went for follow-up. During one of these sessions, he asked some offhand questions about organic evolution, the global Flood, etc. The Crusade staff man lent him a copy of the GENESIS FLOOD (Whitcomb and Morris 1961). John studied this, and more. John became fascinated at what he saw. When he was first exposed to Creationist research, he went into "creation shock." This leads to such thoughts as: "Why did no one ever show me this before? I never realized that evolution was so full of holes! I never imagined that there are qualified scientists who question or reject organic evolution. And to think that the global Flood actually took place."
As earlier in life, John Woodmorappe was intensely curious. He wanted to go deeper. He decided to major in both geology and biology because of the pivotal role of these two disciplines in the study of origins. Then again, he had geology in his blood, as his grandfather had been a geologist who had owned an oil well (at Boryslaw, now in the western Ukraine). He ended up with a BA in Biology, a BA in Geology, and an MA in Geology. Woodmorappe is constantly learning new things on his own, and conducting scientific research. He now has numerous publications, including the following three books:
http://www.rae.org/johnw.htm