Irreducible complexity

[Magnificat]

Link?

Rock layers may be flipped but that does not mean they are out of sequence. Fossils may burrow into older sediments and get buried there but that does not mean they are out of sequence. Both cases are easily recognized by scientists.

The whole idea of a geologic column is simply ridiculous. Here. Educate yourself. Your ignorance offends me.
Geological Column and Inherent Problems - Creation Studies Institute

You read the website of an anti-science group and you think you know more than trained scientists? That offends me.

You site is replete with errors and straw men. Here's just one example:

The Geological Column concept also relies on the presupposition that long periods of time elapsed between each stratum.
​

That is absurd. Certainly some formations take a long time (e.g., chalk cliffs of Dover are the remains of diatoms that settled to the sea floor over an enormous time period) but some are almost instantaneous (e.g., flood deposits and volcanic eruptions). Both these cases are well documented by science.

It is education and knowledge, not ignorance, that offends you.

It is not absurd. Why else do evolutionists use the fossils to date the layer they are found in?

Simple answer? They don't. They also use parts of the layer itself to date the fossils.

Still waiting for you to post a link to support your claim that they have found fossils out of sequence.

I just did a Google search for "fossils out of sequence", and found some websites that said that, but interestingly enough, they were all in support of creation theories.

Well DUH. Atheist scientists are not gonna publish anything that contradicts their pet "theory". Now, the question is can you refute them? I think not. But feel free to try. BTW. Turn that around. You only find anti creation articals on atheist websites. See how that works?

 

[Magnificat]

The point of the OP was that something as simple as a car was designed yet you want us to believe that something trillions and trillions and trillions of times more complex: a functioning cell, was just throw together outback by proteins slamming into each other

Don't those complex organisms evolve one feature at a time? No one is positing that a full grown human was accidentally created by random crashing cells.

Magnificat has shown they know zero about mechanics, cars, or spirituality.

That is nothing but your opinion.

Yeah, it is my opinion. One that I formed from reading this thread and the kind of crap you try to defend.

But, you may know more about religion than I may have originally figured. Why do I say that? Because you and religion both like to move the goalposts and change the rules of the game when you are shown that your analogy isn't the greatest. Religion defends their dogma and view of God against all other positions of view, and when proven wrong, they simply change the narrative like you have done.

Once again, that is nothing but your opinion. My goal was to prove that something can be irreducibly complex. And I have done so.

No you haven't. One of the reasons is that you said all cars with gas engines require radiators. Volkswagon, Porsche, and Harley Davidson (just to name a few) are gas powered engines that are air cooled, meaning they don't have radiators. One of the "irreducible complexities" that you had stated cars have was a radiator.

You'd be better off coming up with a different example than cars if you want to be able to somehow prove your point.

Lets clear something up here. Are you claiming that it is impossible for something to be irreducibly complex? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Magnificat]

It is not absurd. Why else do evolutionists use the fossils to date the layer they are found in?

If a geologist already knows the age range of a fossil and he finds that fossil in a rock layer, it is likely that that rock layer was formed within the age range of the fossil. Likewise, if you know the age of a rock layer, it is likely that the fossils in it are of that same age.

I guess you didn't know that you cant date sedimentary rock layers. that's why they use fossils to date them.

 

[ABikerSailor]

No Magnificent Scat, I am saying that you don't know what you are talking about because of the example you used. If you wish to continue with this, come up with a better example, preferably something you know more about than cars and mechanics.

 

[WinterBorn]

Don't those complex organisms evolve one feature at a time? No one is positing that a full grown human was accidentally created by random crashing cells.

Magnificat has shown they know zero about mechanics, cars, or spirituality.

That is nothing but your opinion.

Yeah, it is my opinion. One that I formed from reading this thread and the kind of crap you try to defend.

But, you may know more about religion than I may have originally figured. Why do I say that? Because you and religion both like to move the goalposts and change the rules of the game when you are shown that your analogy isn't the greatest. Religion defends their dogma and view of God against all other positions of view, and when proven wrong, they simply change the narrative like you have done.

Once again, that is nothing but your opinion. My goal was to prove that something can be irreducibly complex. And I have done so.

No you haven't. One of the reasons is that you said all cars with gas engines require radiators. Volkswagon, Porsche, and Harley Davidson (just to name a few) are gas powered engines that are air cooled, meaning they don't have radiators. One of the "irreducible complexities" that you had stated cars have was a radiator.

You'd be better off coming up with a different example than cars if you want to be able to somehow prove your point.

Lets clear something up here. Are you claiming that it is impossible for something to be irreducibly complex? Is that what you're saying?

Funny that you want others to answer your questions. But you refuse to answer anyone's questions.

You claimed that fossils have been found out of sequence. Post a link to support that.

3 or 4 days ago, you claimed that there are things that are neither energy nor matter. I have repeatedly asked for examples and you have steadfastly ignored me.

 

[WinterBorn]

It is not absurd. Why else do evolutionists use the fossils to date the layer they are found in?

If a geologist already knows the age range of a fossil and he finds that fossil in a rock layer, it is likely that that rock layer was formed within the age range of the fossil. Likewise, if you know the age of a rock layer, it is likely that the fossils in it are of that same age.

I guess you didn't know that you cant date sedimentary rock layers. that's why they use fossils to date them.

Not true. They can date them, but are limited. They can only go back to around 50,000 years. Not useful for dinosaurs. But also debunks your claim that they cannot date sedimentary rock layers.

They use layer above and below to date the sedimentary layers older than 50,000 years. And, the fossils themselves can dated on their own.

 

[Magnificat]

No Magnificent Scat, I am saying that you don't know what you are talking about because of the example you used. If you wish to continue with this, come up with a better example, preferably something you know more about than cars and mechanics.

After you answer my question. Are you claiming that something cannot be irreducibly complex? Yes or no.

 

[ABikerSailor]

It is not absurd. Why else do evolutionists use the fossils to date the layer they are found in?

If a geologist already knows the age range of a fossil and he finds that fossil in a rock layer, it is likely that that rock layer was formed within the age range of the fossil. Likewise, if you know the age of a rock layer, it is likely that the fossils in it are of that same age.

I guess you didn't know that you cant date sedimentary rock layers. that's why they use fossils to date them.

Actually, they use isotopes other than carbon to date the rock layers, because carbon isotopes are only good for dating things 50,000 years old or younger. If they want to date things older than that, they use other isotopes that last longer, and because those isotopes don't exist in dinosaur fossils, they use the ASH LAYERS at the top, and at the bottom of where they found the bones because ash does contain the isotopes required.

You got it exactly backwards Magnificent Scat. In the cases of bones that are too old for carbon 14 dating, they use the surrounding rock layers to date the bones, not that they use the bones to date the rock layers.

Like I said, go back to things you know a bit more about.

How Do Scientists Determine the Age of Dinosaur Bones?

The most widely known form of radiometric dating is carbon-14 dating. This is what archaeologists use to determine the age of human-made artifacts. But carbon-14 dating won't work on dinosaur bones. The half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, so carbon-14 dating is only effective on samples that are less than 50,000 years old. Dinosaur bones, on the other hand, are millions of years old -- some fossils are billions of years old. To determine the ages of these specimens, scientists need an isotope with a very long half-life. Some of the isotopes used for this purpose are uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40, each of which has a half-life of more than a million years.


Unfortunately, these elements don't exist in dinosaur fossils themselves. Each of them typically exists in igneous rock, or rock made from cooled magma. Fossils, however, form in sedimentary rock -- sediment quickly covers a dinosaur's body, and the sediment and the bones gradually turn into rock. But this sediment doesn't typically include the necessary isotopes in measurable amounts. Fossils can't form in the igneous rock that usually does contain the isotopes. The extreme temperatures of the magma would just destroy the bones.


So to determine the age of sedimentary rock layers, researchers first have to find neighboring layers of Earth that include igneous rock, such as volcanic ash. These layers are like bookends -- they give a beginning and an end to the period of time when the sedimentary rock formed. By using radiometric dating to determine the age of igneous brackets, researchers can accurately determine the age of the sedimentary layers between them.

 

[WinterBorn]

No Magnificent Scat, I am saying that you don't know what you are talking about because of the example you used. If you wish to continue with this, come up with a better example, preferably something you know more about than cars and mechanics.

After you answer my question. Are you claiming that something cannot be irreducibly complex? Yes or no.

After you answer my question from 3 or 4 days ago. What is there that is neither energy nor matter?

 

[ABikerSailor]

No Magnificent Scat, I am saying that you don't know what you are talking about because of the example you used. If you wish to continue with this, come up with a better example, preferably something you know more about than cars and mechanics.

After you answer my question. Are you claiming that something cannot be irreducibly complex? Yes or no.

Depends on what you are talking about. Is the thing living or inorganic? Are you limiting it to multiple celled organisms, or are you going to include single cell organisms as well? The question you asked cannot be answered as you have asked it because there are too many variables that can show up.

As far as what is the simplest living thing that cannot be reduced any more? Look to sea sponges. All they really have is a system for circulating water via pores and canals. No lungs, no eyes, no legs, no skin. Is that simple enough for you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.

Battery
So you want to turn your car on? Obviously, this is the big boy you're going to need to get everything going.

Axle
Another important part of any car. How are you going to keep the fun rolling without these?

Brakes
Having trusty brakes is essential to driving a safe car. When you start to hear those things squeak at red lights, it might be time to head into the shop and get some new ones.

Pistons
These are best when they're pumping smoothly and quickly. Built to handle all those gasoline explosions, these are where your car gets its horses.

Fuel Injector
The successor to the carburetor, this little thing gets the gas from the fuel tank into the engine.

Radiator
The radiator is part of the system that keeps your car's engine from overheating. Here, the engine coolant has time to give off heat into the air before it goes back into the engine to pick up...more heat.

Transmission
Here's where the power turns into movement. The transmission takes the energy generated in the engine and transmits it to the connected wheels.

Spark Plug
The spark plug is what you use to get the car started. It uses an electric spark to ignite fuel in the engine's ignition chamber.

Now, can anyone tell me which part you can remove and still have a car that you would trust your life in? Take your time. I'll wait.

All the mutations that resulted in a car without one of these parts died out.
Can't make any baby cars with no fuel injector, wink-wink, nudge-nudge.
Say no more, say no more.

 

[Magnificat]

It is not absurd. Why else do evolutionists use the fossils to date the layer they are found in?

If a geologist already knows the age range of a fossil and he finds that fossil in a rock layer, it is likely that that rock layer was formed within the age range of the fossil. Likewise, if you know the age of a rock layer, it is likely that the fossils in it are of that same age.

I guess you didn't know that you cant date sedimentary rock layers. that's why they use fossils to date them.

Actually, they use isotopes other than carbon to date the rock layers, because carbon isotopes are only good for dating things 50,000 years old or younger. If they want to date things older than that, they use other isotopes that last longer, and because those isotopes don't exist in dinosaur fossils, they use the ASH LAYERS at the top, and at the bottom of where they found the bones because ash does contain the isotopes required.

You got it exactly backwards Magnificent Scat. In the cases of bones that are too old for carbon 14 dating, they use the surrounding rock layers to date the bones, not that they use the bones to date the rock layers.

Like I said, go back to things you know a bit more about.

How Do Scientists Determine the Age of Dinosaur Bones?

The most widely known form of radiometric dating is carbon-14 dating. This is what archaeologists use to determine the age of human-made artifacts. But carbon-14 dating won't work on dinosaur bones. The half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, so carbon-14 dating is only effective on samples that are less than 50,000 years old. Dinosaur bones, on the other hand, are millions of years old -- some fossils are billions of years old. To determine the ages of these specimens, scientists need an isotope with a very long half-life. Some of the isotopes used for this purpose are uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40, each of which has a half-life of more than a million years.


Unfortunately, these elements don't exist in dinosaur fossils themselves. Each of them typically exists in igneous rock, or rock made from cooled magma. Fossils, however, form in sedimentary rock -- sediment quickly covers a dinosaur's body, and the sediment and the bones gradually turn into rock. But this sediment doesn't typically include the necessary isotopes in measurable amounts. Fossils can't form in the igneous rock that usually does contain the isotopes. The extreme temperatures of the magma would just destroy the bones.


So to determine the age of sedimentary rock layers, researchers first have to find neighboring layers of Earth that include igneous rock, such as volcanic ash. These layers are like bookends -- they give a beginning and an end to the period of time when the sedimentary rock formed. By using radiometric dating to determine the age of igneous brackets, researchers can accurately determine the age of the sedimentary layers between them.

That might sound plausible, except for one thing. Radiometric dating is based on assumptions.

 

[ABikerSailor]

It is not absurd. Why else do evolutionists use the fossils to date the layer they are found in?

If a geologist already knows the age range of a fossil and he finds that fossil in a rock layer, it is likely that that rock layer was formed within the age range of the fossil. Likewise, if you know the age of a rock layer, it is likely that the fossils in it are of that same age.

I guess you didn't know that you cant date sedimentary rock layers. that's why they use fossils to date them.

Actually, they use isotopes other than carbon to date the rock layers, because carbon isotopes are only good for dating things 50,000 years old or younger. If they want to date things older than that, they use other isotopes that last longer, and because those isotopes don't exist in dinosaur fossils, they use the ASH LAYERS at the top, and at the bottom of where they found the bones because ash does contain the isotopes required.

You got it exactly backwards Magnificent Scat. In the cases of bones that are too old for carbon 14 dating, they use the surrounding rock layers to date the bones, not that they use the bones to date the rock layers.

Like I said, go back to things you know a bit more about.

How Do Scientists Determine the Age of Dinosaur Bones?

The most widely known form of radiometric dating is carbon-14 dating. This is what archaeologists use to determine the age of human-made artifacts. But carbon-14 dating won't work on dinosaur bones. The half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, so carbon-14 dating is only effective on samples that are less than 50,000 years old. Dinosaur bones, on the other hand, are millions of years old -- some fossils are billions of years old. To determine the ages of these specimens, scientists need an isotope with a very long half-life. Some of the isotopes used for this purpose are uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40, each of which has a half-life of more than a million years.


Unfortunately, these elements don't exist in dinosaur fossils themselves. Each of them typically exists in igneous rock, or rock made from cooled magma. Fossils, however, form in sedimentary rock -- sediment quickly covers a dinosaur's body, and the sediment and the bones gradually turn into rock. But this sediment doesn't typically include the necessary isotopes in measurable amounts. Fossils can't form in the igneous rock that usually does contain the isotopes. The extreme temperatures of the magma would just destroy the bones.


So to determine the age of sedimentary rock layers, researchers first have to find neighboring layers of Earth that include igneous rock, such as volcanic ash. These layers are like bookends -- they give a beginning and an end to the period of time when the sedimentary rock formed. By using radiometric dating to determine the age of igneous brackets, researchers can accurately determine the age of the sedimentary layers between them.

That might sound plausible, except for one thing. Radiometric dating is based on assumptions.

You didn't read the posted information, did you? Radiometric dating is done using the half life of certain isotopes. Carbon 14 is only good for around 50,000 years or less, which is why they use other isotopes like uranium 238 and 235 and potassium 40. Those half lifes are fairly accurate for dating, which is why when they find fossil bones that are older than 50,000 years, they test the layers of rock AROUND the fossils, because the bones themselves don't contain the required isotopes.

Like I said Magnificent Scat, stick to things you know about.

Btw........................the reason I call you Magnificent Scat is because you are probably one of the bigger turds I've seen on these boards.

 

[Magnificat]

It is not absurd. Why else do evolutionists use the fossils to date the layer they are found in?

If a geologist already knows the age range of a fossil and he finds that fossil in a rock layer, it is likely that that rock layer was formed within the age range of the fossil. Likewise, if you know the age of a rock layer, it is likely that the fossils in it are of that same age.

I guess you didn't know that you cant date sedimentary rock layers. that's why they use fossils to date them.

Actually, they use isotopes other than carbon to date the rock layers, because carbon isotopes are only good for dating things 50,000 years old or younger. If they want to date things older than that, they use other isotopes that last longer, and because those isotopes don't exist in dinosaur fossils, they use the ASH LAYERS at the top, and at the bottom of where they found the bones because ash does contain the isotopes required.

You got it exactly backwards Magnificent Scat. In the cases of bones that are too old for carbon 14 dating, they use the surrounding rock layers to date the bones, not that they use the bones to date the rock layers.

Like I said, go back to things you know a bit more about.

How Do Scientists Determine the Age of Dinosaur Bones?

The most widely known form of radiometric dating is carbon-14 dating. This is what archaeologists use to determine the age of human-made artifacts. But carbon-14 dating won't work on dinosaur bones. The half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, so carbon-14 dating is only effective on samples that are less than 50,000 years old. Dinosaur bones, on the other hand, are millions of years old -- some fossils are billions of years old. To determine the ages of these specimens, scientists need an isotope with a very long half-life. Some of the isotopes used for this purpose are uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40, each of which has a half-life of more than a million years.


Unfortunately, these elements don't exist in dinosaur fossils themselves. Each of them typically exists in igneous rock, or rock made from cooled magma. Fossils, however, form in sedimentary rock -- sediment quickly covers a dinosaur's body, and the sediment and the bones gradually turn into rock. But this sediment doesn't typically include the necessary isotopes in measurable amounts. Fossils can't form in the igneous rock that usually does contain the isotopes. The extreme temperatures of the magma would just destroy the bones.


So to determine the age of sedimentary rock layers, researchers first have to find neighboring layers of Earth that include igneous rock, such as volcanic ash. These layers are like bookends -- they give a beginning and an end to the period of time when the sedimentary rock formed. By using radiometric dating to determine the age of igneous brackets, researchers can accurately determine the age of the sedimentary layers between them.

That might sound plausible, except for one thing. Radiometric dating is based on assumptions.

You didn't read the posted information, did you? Radiometric dating is done using the half life of certain isotopes. Carbon 14 is only good for around 50,000 years or less, which is why they use other isotopes like uranium 238 and 235 and potassium 40. Those half lifes are fairly accurate for dating, which is why when they find fossil bones that are older than 50,000 years, they test the layers of rock AROUND the fossils, because the bones themselves don't contain the required isotopes.

Like I said Magnificent Scat, stick to things you know about.

Btw........................the reason I call you Magnificent Scat is because you are probably one of the bigger turds I've seen on these boards.

Your ignorance is appaling. Allow me to educate you. This confirms what I said.
Assumptions of Radiometric Dating

 

[WinterBorn]

It is not absurd. Why else do evolutionists use the fossils to date the layer they are found in?

If a geologist already knows the age range of a fossil and he finds that fossil in a rock layer, it is likely that that rock layer was formed within the age range of the fossil. Likewise, if you know the age of a rock layer, it is likely that the fossils in it are of that same age.

I guess you didn't know that you cant date sedimentary rock layers. that's why they use fossils to date them.

Actually, they use isotopes other than carbon to date the rock layers, because carbon isotopes are only good for dating things 50,000 years old or younger. If they want to date things older than that, they use other isotopes that last longer, and because those isotopes don't exist in dinosaur fossils, they use the ASH LAYERS at the top, and at the bottom of where they found the bones because ash does contain the isotopes required.

You got it exactly backwards Magnificent Scat. In the cases of bones that are too old for carbon 14 dating, they use the surrounding rock layers to date the bones, not that they use the bones to date the rock layers.

Like I said, go back to things you know a bit more about.

How Do Scientists Determine the Age of Dinosaur Bones?

The most widely known form of radiometric dating is carbon-14 dating. This is what archaeologists use to determine the age of human-made artifacts. But carbon-14 dating won't work on dinosaur bones. The half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, so carbon-14 dating is only effective on samples that are less than 50,000 years old. Dinosaur bones, on the other hand, are millions of years old -- some fossils are billions of years old. To determine the ages of these specimens, scientists need an isotope with a very long half-life. Some of the isotopes used for this purpose are uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40, each of which has a half-life of more than a million years.


Unfortunately, these elements don't exist in dinosaur fossils themselves. Each of them typically exists in igneous rock, or rock made from cooled magma. Fossils, however, form in sedimentary rock -- sediment quickly covers a dinosaur's body, and the sediment and the bones gradually turn into rock. But this sediment doesn't typically include the necessary isotopes in measurable amounts. Fossils can't form in the igneous rock that usually does contain the isotopes. The extreme temperatures of the magma would just destroy the bones.


So to determine the age of sedimentary rock layers, researchers first have to find neighboring layers of Earth that include igneous rock, such as volcanic ash. These layers are like bookends -- they give a beginning and an end to the period of time when the sedimentary rock formed. By using radiometric dating to determine the age of igneous brackets, researchers can accurately determine the age of the sedimentary layers between them.

That might sound plausible, except for one thing. Radiometric dating is based on assumptions.

No, it is not. Decades (sometimes more) of observations of the decay rate of radioactive isotopes has shown and absolute consistency. It has been consistent all over the world, at every elevation, temperature, and condition. If your argument depends on radioactive isotopes suddenly decaying at a faster or slower rate, you have no argument.

 

[Magnificat]

It is not absurd. Why else do evolutionists use the fossils to date the layer they are found in?

If a geologist already knows the age range of a fossil and he finds that fossil in a rock layer, it is likely that that rock layer was formed within the age range of the fossil. Likewise, if you know the age of a rock layer, it is likely that the fossils in it are of that same age.

I guess you didn't know that you cant date sedimentary rock layers. that's why they use fossils to date them.

Actually, they use isotopes other than carbon to date the rock layers, because carbon isotopes are only good for dating things 50,000 years old or younger. If they want to date things older than that, they use other isotopes that last longer, and because those isotopes don't exist in dinosaur fossils, they use the ASH LAYERS at the top, and at the bottom of where they found the bones because ash does contain the isotopes required.

You got it exactly backwards Magnificent Scat. In the cases of bones that are too old for carbon 14 dating, they use the surrounding rock layers to date the bones, not that they use the bones to date the rock layers.

Like I said, go back to things you know a bit more about.

How Do Scientists Determine the Age of Dinosaur Bones?

The most widely known form of radiometric dating is carbon-14 dating. This is what archaeologists use to determine the age of human-made artifacts. But carbon-14 dating won't work on dinosaur bones. The half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, so carbon-14 dating is only effective on samples that are less than 50,000 years old. Dinosaur bones, on the other hand, are millions of years old -- some fossils are billions of years old. To determine the ages of these specimens, scientists need an isotope with a very long half-life. Some of the isotopes used for this purpose are uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40, each of which has a half-life of more than a million years.


Unfortunately, these elements don't exist in dinosaur fossils themselves. Each of them typically exists in igneous rock, or rock made from cooled magma. Fossils, however, form in sedimentary rock -- sediment quickly covers a dinosaur's body, and the sediment and the bones gradually turn into rock. But this sediment doesn't typically include the necessary isotopes in measurable amounts. Fossils can't form in the igneous rock that usually does contain the isotopes. The extreme temperatures of the magma would just destroy the bones.


So to determine the age of sedimentary rock layers, researchers first have to find neighboring layers of Earth that include igneous rock, such as volcanic ash. These layers are like bookends -- they give a beginning and an end to the period of time when the sedimentary rock formed. By using radiometric dating to determine the age of igneous brackets, researchers can accurately determine the age of the sedimentary layers between them.

That might sound plausible, except for one thing. Radiometric dating is based on assumptions.

You didn't read the posted information, did you? Radiometric dating is done using the half life of certain isotopes. Carbon 14 is only good for around 50,000 years or less, which is why they use other isotopes like uranium 238 and 235 and potassium 40. Those half lifes are fairly accurate for dating, which is why when they find fossil bones that are older than 50,000 years, they test the layers of rock AROUND the fossils, because the bones themselves don't contain the required isotopes.

Like I said Magnificent Scat, stick to things you know about.

Btw........................the reason I call you Magnificent Scat is because you are probably one of the bigger turds I've seen on these boards.

And you ate an obnoxious troll. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[WinterBorn]

If a geologist already knows the age range of a fossil and he finds that fossil in a rock layer, it is likely that that rock layer was formed within the age range of the fossil. Likewise, if you know the age of a rock layer, it is likely that the fossils in it are of that same age.

I guess you didn't know that you cant date sedimentary rock layers. that's why they use fossils to date them.

Actually, they use isotopes other than carbon to date the rock layers, because carbon isotopes are only good for dating things 50,000 years old or younger. If they want to date things older than that, they use other isotopes that last longer, and because those isotopes don't exist in dinosaur fossils, they use the ASH LAYERS at the top, and at the bottom of where they found the bones because ash does contain the isotopes required.

You got it exactly backwards Magnificent Scat. In the cases of bones that are too old for carbon 14 dating, they use the surrounding rock layers to date the bones, not that they use the bones to date the rock layers.

Like I said, go back to things you know a bit more about.

How Do Scientists Determine the Age of Dinosaur Bones?

The most widely known form of radiometric dating is carbon-14 dating. This is what archaeologists use to determine the age of human-made artifacts. But carbon-14 dating won't work on dinosaur bones. The half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, so carbon-14 dating is only effective on samples that are less than 50,000 years old. Dinosaur bones, on the other hand, are millions of years old -- some fossils are billions of years old. To determine the ages of these specimens, scientists need an isotope with a very long half-life. Some of the isotopes used for this purpose are uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40, each of which has a half-life of more than a million years.


Unfortunately, these elements don't exist in dinosaur fossils themselves. Each of them typically exists in igneous rock, or rock made from cooled magma. Fossils, however, form in sedimentary rock -- sediment quickly covers a dinosaur's body, and the sediment and the bones gradually turn into rock. But this sediment doesn't typically include the necessary isotopes in measurable amounts. Fossils can't form in the igneous rock that usually does contain the isotopes. The extreme temperatures of the magma would just destroy the bones.


So to determine the age of sedimentary rock layers, researchers first have to find neighboring layers of Earth that include igneous rock, such as volcanic ash. These layers are like bookends -- they give a beginning and an end to the period of time when the sedimentary rock formed. By using radiometric dating to determine the age of igneous brackets, researchers can accurately determine the age of the sedimentary layers between them.

That might sound plausible, except for one thing. Radiometric dating is based on assumptions.

You didn't read the posted information, did you? Radiometric dating is done using the half life of certain isotopes. Carbon 14 is only good for around 50,000 years or less, which is why they use other isotopes like uranium 238 and 235 and potassium 40. Those half lifes are fairly accurate for dating, which is why when they find fossil bones that are older than 50,000 years, they test the layers of rock AROUND the fossils, because the bones themselves don't contain the required isotopes.

Like I said Magnificent Scat, stick to things you know about.

Btw........................the reason I call you Magnificent Scat is because you are probably one of the bigger turds I've seen on these boards.

Your ignorance is appaling. Allow me to educate you. This confirms what I said.
Assumptions of Radiometric Dating

And in all the years of radiometric dating, there has been no evidence of the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes varying at all. Not one tiny bit.

 

[ABikerSailor]

If a geologist already knows the age range of a fossil and he finds that fossil in a rock layer, it is likely that that rock layer was formed within the age range of the fossil. Likewise, if you know the age of a rock layer, it is likely that the fossils in it are of that same age.

I guess you didn't know that you cant date sedimentary rock layers. that's why they use fossils to date them.

Actually, they use isotopes other than carbon to date the rock layers, because carbon isotopes are only good for dating things 50,000 years old or younger. If they want to date things older than that, they use other isotopes that last longer, and because those isotopes don't exist in dinosaur fossils, they use the ASH LAYERS at the top, and at the bottom of where they found the bones because ash does contain the isotopes required.

You got it exactly backwards Magnificent Scat. In the cases of bones that are too old for carbon 14 dating, they use the surrounding rock layers to date the bones, not that they use the bones to date the rock layers.

Like I said, go back to things you know a bit more about.

How Do Scientists Determine the Age of Dinosaur Bones?

The most widely known form of radiometric dating is carbon-14 dating. This is what archaeologists use to determine the age of human-made artifacts. But carbon-14 dating won't work on dinosaur bones. The half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, so carbon-14 dating is only effective on samples that are less than 50,000 years old. Dinosaur bones, on the other hand, are millions of years old -- some fossils are billions of years old. To determine the ages of these specimens, scientists need an isotope with a very long half-life. Some of the isotopes used for this purpose are uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40, each of which has a half-life of more than a million years.


Unfortunately, these elements don't exist in dinosaur fossils themselves. Each of them typically exists in igneous rock, or rock made from cooled magma. Fossils, however, form in sedimentary rock -- sediment quickly covers a dinosaur's body, and the sediment and the bones gradually turn into rock. But this sediment doesn't typically include the necessary isotopes in measurable amounts. Fossils can't form in the igneous rock that usually does contain the isotopes. The extreme temperatures of the magma would just destroy the bones.


So to determine the age of sedimentary rock layers, researchers first have to find neighboring layers of Earth that include igneous rock, such as volcanic ash. These layers are like bookends -- they give a beginning and an end to the period of time when the sedimentary rock formed. By using radiometric dating to determine the age of igneous brackets, researchers can accurately determine the age of the sedimentary layers between them.

That might sound plausible, except for one thing. Radiometric dating is based on assumptions.

You didn't read the posted information, did you? Radiometric dating is done using the half life of certain isotopes. Carbon 14 is only good for around 50,000 years or less, which is why they use other isotopes like uranium 238 and 235 and potassium 40. Those half lifes are fairly accurate for dating, which is why when they find fossil bones that are older than 50,000 years, they test the layers of rock AROUND the fossils, because the bones themselves don't contain the required isotopes.

Like I said Magnificent Scat, stick to things you know about.

Btw........................the reason I call you Magnificent Scat is because you are probably one of the bigger turds I've seen on these boards.

Your ignorance is appaling. Allow me to educate you. This confirms what I said.
Assumptions of Radiometric Dating

Really? Your "proof" is some kind of online college course? I bet you also thought Trump was teaching people to make money in real estate with his online college as well.

 

[WinterBorn]

If a geologist already knows the age range of a fossil and he finds that fossil in a rock layer, it is likely that that rock layer was formed within the age range of the fossil. Likewise, if you know the age of a rock layer, it is likely that the fossils in it are of that same age.

I guess you didn't know that you cant date sedimentary rock layers. that's why they use fossils to date them.

Actually, they use isotopes other than carbon to date the rock layers, because carbon isotopes are only good for dating things 50,000 years old or younger. If they want to date things older than that, they use other isotopes that last longer, and because those isotopes don't exist in dinosaur fossils, they use the ASH LAYERS at the top, and at the bottom of where they found the bones because ash does contain the isotopes required.

You got it exactly backwards Magnificent Scat. In the cases of bones that are too old for carbon 14 dating, they use the surrounding rock layers to date the bones, not that they use the bones to date the rock layers.

Like I said, go back to things you know a bit more about.

How Do Scientists Determine the Age of Dinosaur Bones?

The most widely known form of radiometric dating is carbon-14 dating. This is what archaeologists use to determine the age of human-made artifacts. But carbon-14 dating won't work on dinosaur bones. The half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, so carbon-14 dating is only effective on samples that are less than 50,000 years old. Dinosaur bones, on the other hand, are millions of years old -- some fossils are billions of years old. To determine the ages of these specimens, scientists need an isotope with a very long half-life. Some of the isotopes used for this purpose are uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40, each of which has a half-life of more than a million years.


Unfortunately, these elements don't exist in dinosaur fossils themselves. Each of them typically exists in igneous rock, or rock made from cooled magma. Fossils, however, form in sedimentary rock -- sediment quickly covers a dinosaur's body, and the sediment and the bones gradually turn into rock. But this sediment doesn't typically include the necessary isotopes in measurable amounts. Fossils can't form in the igneous rock that usually does contain the isotopes. The extreme temperatures of the magma would just destroy the bones.


So to determine the age of sedimentary rock layers, researchers first have to find neighboring layers of Earth that include igneous rock, such as volcanic ash. These layers are like bookends -- they give a beginning and an end to the period of time when the sedimentary rock formed. By using radiometric dating to determine the age of igneous brackets, researchers can accurately determine the age of the sedimentary layers between them.

That might sound plausible, except for one thing. Radiometric dating is based on assumptions.

You didn't read the posted information, did you? Radiometric dating is done using the half life of certain isotopes. Carbon 14 is only good for around 50,000 years or less, which is why they use other isotopes like uranium 238 and 235 and potassium 40. Those half lifes are fairly accurate for dating, which is why when they find fossil bones that are older than 50,000 years, they test the layers of rock AROUND the fossils, because the bones themselves don't contain the required isotopes.

Like I said Magnificent Scat, stick to things you know about.

Btw........................the reason I call you Magnificent Scat is because you are probably one of the bigger turds I've seen on these boards.

And you ate an obnoxious troll. Welcome to my ignore list.

Convenient to ignore those who contradict you and have evidence to back it up. You are grasping at straw.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.

Battery
So you want to turn your car on? Obviously, this is the big boy you're going to need to get everything going.

Axle
Another important part of any car. How are you going to keep the fun rolling without these?

Brakes
Having trusty brakes is essential to driving a safe car. When you start to hear those things squeak at red lights, it might be time to head into the shop and get some new ones.

Pistons
These are best when they're pumping smoothly and quickly. Built to handle all those gasoline explosions, these are where your car gets its horses.

Fuel Injector
The successor to the carburetor, this little thing gets the gas from the fuel tank into the engine.

Radiator
The radiator is part of the system that keeps your car's engine from overheating. Here, the engine coolant has time to give off heat into the air before it goes back into the engine to pick up...more heat.

Transmission
Here's where the power turns into movement. The transmission takes the energy generated in the engine and transmits it to the connected wheels.

Spark Plug
The spark plug is what you use to get the car started. It uses an electric spark to ignite fuel in the engine's ignition chamber.

Now, can anyone tell me which part you can remove and still have a car that you would trust your life in? Take your time. I'll wait.

Irreducible complexity argument = debunked nonsense. Will get you laughed right out of a college science course.