"Polystrate" Fossils

Faith & Science Conversation
76

The Whale Fossil in Diatomite, Lompoc, California, DR ANDREW A. SNELLING (CEN Tech.J. vol 9, No.2, 1995)

It’s not a rebuttal. It was written before the talk origins article, but already deals with the issues talkorigins brings up. Talkorigins is seemingly ignorant of the data presented. Talk origins is not a scientific journal, nor does it present scientific data per se, except incidentally… it;'s a talking place. Sometimes it does refer to scientific work, but in this case it is behind the times. I had already provided the citation earlier if you check in the earliest post referring to Snelling.

Your handwaving comment is itself mere handwaving, and certainly contains much less actual reasoning, logic, and reference to data than the 101 objections. These 101 objections have been rebutted in a wikipedia article, but these rebuttals have also had many substantial responses as well on the creation.com site, especially in the comments section after the 101 objections.

Conventional dating methods are based on accurately measured decay rates. But the amount of original composition is impossible to measure. These are estimates, and the apparent accuracy of dating methods entirely ignores the uncertainty of the estimates, or alternatively estimates that the estimates have a low uncertainty… but this is also an estimate.

In order to test the validity of these estimates, it is entirely legitimate to compare the methods to completely different methods, which a method such as calculating the expected salt content in the ocean would do. It should come close within a reasonable error rate. To argue that one unmeasureable estimate is more valid than another unmeasureable estimate begs the question.

77

You provided a citation but not a link. Here’s a link. See my discussion of the article above. Take care…

78

The point I guess is that it is post flood, and the sedimentary layers did not take eons to lay down. But the significant difference is that the methodology for dating sedimentary layers, based on all the evidence, is deficient, and inadequate to explain the condition of the fossil. When there is no contrary evidence to the dating methodology, it is often accepted, even though there is no way of knowing whether it is accurate or not. In this case, it is obviously wrong. This leads to a legitimate questioning of this method of dating such sedimentary layers.

While not polystrate in a vertical
sense, as misunderstood thus far by many creationists, this
Lompoc whale is nevertheless still polystrate in a horizontal
sense because the fossilised whale bones ‘pass through’ many
diatomite laminae. What requires explanation, therefore, is
how the diatomite was deposited catastrophically, complete
*with laminae.*Snelling.

However, the major likely source (of silica as a food source for diatoms) under catastrophic conditions would be volcanic activity, discounted in
conventional uniformitarian thinking.43 Yet Bramlette
reported:
…
44
‘Numerous beds of nearly pure volcanic ash occur in
the Monterey Formation . . . Most of the beds are from
less than an inch to a few inches, or at most a few feet,
in thickness, though in a few areas there are some of
much greater thickness.’
45
Furthermore, volcanic ash beds do occur in the Lompoc area
(Figure 3), and Bramlette reported the composition of one of
these vitric ash beds, ‘one of the most nearly pure and fresh
which was clearly rhyolitic, with a silica content of 72.11
per cent (Snelling).

Y

This is the assumption, yes. But it must correspond to other methods of dating. Ash can take quite a while to settle as it is moved by air, wind, and water far from the source. Thus it is possible for something to have died after the ash was emitted, but before the ash was deposited. This is also true for sediment which is deposited after the volcanic eruption, but before the ash lands on the water, and before the ash settles on the sediment.

As important is the estimation for settling of sediment. Did the sediment settle slowly over 800,000 yrs or over 9 my, or did it all settle within a day or two? The radio metric dating cannot answer this question. Radiometric dating cannot answer the question of whether a fossil is deposited a week before the “dated” layer, or a week after the previous “dated” layer. With a 9 my spread between these layers, the variability is huge, without even considering the variability inherent in the assumptions and estimates of original volcanic sediment composition.

79

Thanks. I had to google it. A link would have been appreciated, especially since then I could have just scrolled up to the top of this discussion and got it from there, rather than wading through dozens of posts of tl;dr. (Thanks @Chris_Falter for providing the link already.)

I’ll concur that I didn’t explain exactly what I mean when I spoke about not meeting scientific criteria. I have at least three in mind here; others may wish to expand on this:

  1. As I’ve already stated, the evidence must establish definitive numerical limits (error bars) on all relevant quantities, both current and historical. Do any “not enough X in the sea” arguments do this? Do any of them say, “The current rate of inflow into the sea is X, plus or minus Y; the long-term historical average is A, plus or minus B”? If so, which ones? Please provide me with a link.
  2. The evidence must be peer reviewed by an expert in the field. This is to ensure that it proves what it claims to prove, and to reduce or eliminate the likelihood of mathematical or logical fallacies or confirmation biases.
  3. The evidence must be replicated by other researchers. This is to ensure that the research was carried out as described in the lab notes and that there was no cherry-picking of the data.

Not true. Isochron dating provides us with the original composition as well as the dates. Furthermore, not all conventional methods are radiometric; they include tree rings, lake varves, ice cores, and GPS measurements of the rate of continental drift, among others. The fact that these methods, whose assumptions are independent of each other, are all in close agreement (less than 1%) acts as a test to provide evidence that these assumptions are valid.

Not true either. Uncertainties are not estimated; they are measured. Scientists take several different measurements and calculate the average and standard deviation. This is the first thing you get taught in your first lab class as a physics undergraduate.

80

[quote=“jammycakes, post:79, topic:386”]
Not true. Isochron dating provides us with the original composition as well as the dates. Furthermore, not all conventional methods are radiometric; they include tree rings, lake varves, ice cores, and GPS measurements of the rate of continental drift, among others. The fact that these methods, whose assumptions are independent of each other, are all in close agreement (less than 1%) acts as a test to provide evidence that these assumptions are valid.[quote]

Here is a response:

At the end of his paper, Zheng wrote:
‘In conclusion, some of the basic assumptions of the conventional Rb-Sr isochron method have to be modified and an observed isochron does not certainly define a valid age information for a geological system, even if a goodness of fit of the experimental data points is obtained in plotting 87Sr/86Sr vs. 87Rb/86Sr. This problem cannot be overlooked, especially in evaluating the numerical time scale. Similar questions can also arise in applying Sm-Nd and U-Pb isochron methods.’8
And as if to make the point even more succinctly and clearly, Zheng also wrote in the abstract (or summary) of his paper:

‘As it is impossible to distinguish a valid isochron from an apparent isochron in the light of Rb-Sr isotopic data alone, caution must be taken in explaining the Rb-Sr isochron age of any geological system.’9Zheng, Y.-F., 1989. Influences of the nature of the initial Rb-Sr system on isochron validity. Chemical Geology (Isotope Geoscience Section), vol. 80, pp. 1-1

johnZ:
or alternatively estimates that the estimates have a low uncertainty… but this is also an estimate.

Not true either. Uncertainties are not estimated; they are measured. Scientists take several different measurements and calculate the average and standard deviation. This is the first thing you get taught in your first lab class as a physics undergraduate.
[/quote]

Certainly mathematical uncertainties are measured statistically. However, assumptions cannot be measured, merely assumed. The original amount of parent/daughter compounds cannot be measured; it can only be assumed. We know that almost brandnew volcanic rock has been measured to have several hundred thousands years or even millions of years of daughter isotope, relative to parent isotope. But we cannot measure rock emitted by volcanoes in the past. We can only measure this old rock in the present. Therefore the uncertainty of the assumption can also not be measured.

81

Did you understand what I said about multiple independent dating methods being used? That is how assumptions are verified.

I’ve addressed this claim before on this forum.The rock samples in question were sent by Steve Austin et al for K-Ar dating to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, who, at the time, stated this on their website:

Samples less than 5 M.Y. old, or containing less than 0.1%K will incur a 50% surcharge, reflecting the special care and additional analyses required. We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y.

It pains me to have to say so, but this kind of gaming the system is thoroughly dishonest, and no matter what we believe about the age of the earth, we must not give claims such as this any place whatsoever in our Christian witness.

1 Like
82

No. And no.

@johnZ, until you take the time to actually learn the fundamentals of the science—instead of just calling it “fraudulent”—you will remain in this cycle of denying what you don’t understand.

Investigate the word isochron and you will begin to see why your claim is exasperating to real scientists.

Dr. Todd Wood Laments YECism’s Honesty Problem

We should be empathetic towards those who get their “science” from YEC ministry websites. These are the very practices which Young Earth Creationists like Dr. Todd Wood lament in their blogs. Indeed, I recommend several of Dr. Wood’s classic essays including:

The truth about evolution

Evolution still not in crisis

(Yes, our topic is “polystrate fossils” but we all know why is an issue which evolution-deniers like to bring up.)

I remember reading Dr. Wood’s essay about his discouragement about counter-productive pseudo-science arguments which either misunderstand or misrepresent isochron dating methodologies. (Unfortunately, I don’t have that URL available to me at the moment.) Dr. Wood acknowledges that bad arguments often work well when preaching to the Young Earth Creationist choir----but long-term they entirely destroy any possible credibility the movement might have in influencing real scientists.

Sadly, Dr. Wood is heavily criticized and even despised by origin’s industry ministry leaders. Here is an example of his candor which got him a lot of flack from his own Young Earth Creationist brethren:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Dr. Wood understands that honesty is a much better long-term strategy for the movement. He refuses to blindly defend the pseudo-science of origins industry leaders and so he regularly struggles for funding, even though he is among the very very few Young Earth Creationists who has a relevant and legitimate PhD in a field of biological science.

I still keep up with a few long-time friends from the Young Earth Creationist movement and when speaking privately they all lament their embarrassment at having to bite their tongues and allow “the non-scientist loons” (as one of them calls the big name leaders) to speak for the movement—or else their Christian college jobs would be in serious jeopardy. (Somehow, Ben Stein and the EXPELLED film crew never show up to defend their academic freedom!)

The Pitfalls of Misunderstanding the Perspicuity of Scripture

Yes, it’s fun to imagine that all of the world’s scientists are frauds and that God has endowed particular Christ-followers with special insights due to their choosing to be on the “right side” of the issues. It often arises from a misunderstanding of the Reformation emphasis on the perspicuity of scriptures. Whatever the causes, it has been a recurrent pitfall in the history of the Church. Later centuries of believers always judge it harshly—as they should.

Those who remain oblivious of history are doomed to repeat it applies to many facets of life.

Those who feel called to deny some area of science would do well to reallocate even a small fraction of the time they spend on denying the science to actually learning about the science.

83

I think he already has, and I believe he’s right in saying that isochrons aren’t infallible. However, he has overlooked the element of cross-checking them against other dating methods as a means of overcoming the corner cases.

The article that I’ve found that gives the best and most comprehensive explanation of the nuances and intricacies of radiometric dating is Radiometric Dating, a Christian perspective by Roger C Wiens. It goes into a lot of detail about exactly what corner cases scientists run into and exactly how they work round them. It was written in 1994 and revised in 2002, so no doubt there’s a lot of new material that could be added from more recent research. However, I’m yet to see a YEC rebuttal of radiometric dating that raises an objection that it doesn’t address.

84

Of course they aren’t “infallible”. That’s not a scientific term. We deal in probabilities. In and of themselves, no single methodology is the endall. It is the consilience of great many methodologies and types of evidence that gives us confidence in scientific discoveries.

As to “I think he already has”, that was my original assumption. But the more I’ve read his comments, I realized that they are gleaned from science-denial websites without an understanding of the underlying science. Many of the scientists posting on these threads have identified dozens of such clues.

85

That was my whole point. My apologies if I wasn’t clear enough about it.

86

No apologies necessary. I think the restatements and explanations will be helpful to readers who are new to these concepts. One of the didactic advantages of forum threads is the opportunities for readers to hear the same concepts restated in multiple ways. Textbooks rarely provide that.

Obviously, the term consilience is relatively new even though the concept is quite old. I try to reinforce it as often as I can. It is so essential to an understanding of modern science and it is a reality which science-denialists don’t want to talk about.

For example, with radiometrics, they want their readers who are not well informed about science to think that radiometrics is some casual and iffy set of presumptions. They ignore the fact that multiple scientific journals have for decades now focused on excruciatingly detailed and careful methodologies to maximize the accuracy and reliability of the procedures. So when scientists published papers explaining why mollusk shells dated the minerals of the surrounding environment and not the age of the mollusk, science-denialists spun the articles as failures of radiometrics! That’s not just ignorance. That’s deliberate lying!

Yes, I do want to give my Christian brethren the benefit of the doubt. But we are not called to do that to such extremes that church discipline becomes impossible and that to call out dishonest propagandists is not a duty of Christ-followers who care about honesty.

When I say that we have been remiss in failing to identify the liars and charlatans among us, I’m pointing the finger at myself, not just others. Even after I left the Young Earth Creationist “creation science” movement, I was quite content to “go along to get along” and to pretend that the blatant dishonesty was simply science ignorance and not deceit.

87

That’s true. So a geologist who is expressing himself (or herself) carefully might say that a petrified tree in Yosemite is 50mya +/- 4.5my. Or better yet, after adding error bars for the dating of the non-sedimentary layers, s/he might say the petrified Yosemite tree is 50mya +/- 5my.

What the geologist would not say is that the tree dates to 7000 ya. That would be absurdly outside the boundaries established by the scientific investigation.

1 Like
88

Actually Chris, the error range is 50my +/- 9my. This doesn’t even consider the potential for sediment to be deposited after the formation of the ash, but before its deposition in situ. This means that the error potential is nearly 20%, but certainly not less than 10%, not including the potential error in the actual dating of the ash layers themselves.

Here is one example of changing of radiometric dates, which changed certain layers from a later Jurassic to lower cretaceous. This agreed better with the biostratigraphical dating of various fossils in those layers, but this is a reduction of 10% in the estimated age :

The earlier radiometric dating methods for this region gave a Late Jurassic age, which was in agreement with the prevailing biostratigraphic evidence that was broadly accepted at the time. Typical dates determined from the lower Yixian Formation were given as:4 40K–40Ar: 137 ± 7 Ma, and 87Rb–87 Sr: 143 ± 4 Ma. Biotite crystals from a tuff in the Yixian Formation gave dates of: 40>Ar–39Ar: 145.3 ± 4.4 Ma and the combined isochron: 147.1 ± 0.18 Ma.

However, this dating was subject to revision in 1999 (table 1).4 …

…The later revised dating assessments for Liaoning Province provided dates that are consistent with an Early Cretaceous time frame: 4 40Ar–39Ar: 124.6 ± 0.1 Ma, 40Ar–39Ar: 125.0 ± 0.18 Ma (total heating and incremental heating analysis of sanidine and biotite crystals in the Jianshangou beds); 40Ar–39Ar: 128.4 ± 0.2 Ma basalt capping the Lujiatun beds; 235U–207 Pb: 125.2 ± 0.9 Ma from zircons in Jianshangou beds; and 235U–207 Pb: 121.1 ± 0.2 Ma from zircons overlying lava in Jianshangou beds. A date for the Tuchengzi Formation at the base of the Jehol Group was reported as: 40Ar–39Ar: 139.4 ± 0.19 Ma. The intrusive Basalt in the Jiufotang Formation from Inner Mongolia gave an age approximation of: 40Ar–39 Ar: 110.59 ± 0.52 Ma. Zhou, A., Barrett, P.M. and Hilton, J., An exceptionally preserved Lower Cretaceous ecosystem, Nature 421(6925):807–814, 2003 | doi:10.1038/nature01420. (Andrew Sibley)

89

You may well be right about that. I’m not omniscient, and possibly all objections are addressed somewhere, although merely being addressed doesn’t mean that the responses are adequate. (Many of the reponses on wikipedia to the 101 objections to old age are certainly completely inadequate, for example). But on the other hand, when I keep hearing that radiometric dating is accurate to +/- 0.1%, it is necessary to put that into context. Only the measurement of the daughter and parent compounds is accurate; the extrapolation to the estimation of the age of sediment is far from that.

90

Fascinating. The date was revised downwards by approximately 20 million years, or about 14%. Significant, but not extraordinary given that the original error bars were in the 3-5% range.

Now can you please explain how corrections of 20% or less to a tiny minority of results justifies the claim that thousands of other results that require no such correction could be in error by more than four orders of magnitude?

Could you please provide links to the articles you cite? I’ve no idea which Wikipedia article you’re referring to here so I can’t tell whether your statement has any substance or not.

I’ve said this several times to you already. Error bars and extrapolations are not estimates. Scientists do NOT guess them; they MEASURE them. They do NOT blindly extrapolate graphs; they establish a firm theoretical and experimental basis for their extrapolations. And they do NOT use unscientific hand-waving terms such as “far from accurate”; they express far-from-accurate-ness as a NUMBER.

Seriously, this is the first thing you learn in a first year undergraduate physics lab class. It’s observational science 101.

91

Yet another batch of reasons why we don’t look to non-scientists for claims that the entire science academy is caught up in fraudulent definitions of scientific terms. (Yes, where there is the sin nature there can be fraudulent behaviors in fallen humans That’s why science uses careful methodologies to expose such frauds. With non-science…not so much. That is why we see very different patterns of behaviors from the contrasting groups. )

92

I tended to take these shortcomings among my American students as standard-issue until I taught for a time in the UK. I realized that the USA has some of the worst mathematics-illiteracy in the world. I don’t know if this is a consistent pattern, but I rarely had to explain these issues to the Indian and Japanese students, for example. There seemed to be much more “integration of knowledge” in their grasp of physics and mathematics.

Of course, those nations don’t have the problem of science-denying creationist websites actively undermining the basics. But my experiences were long before the Internet had expanded the disinformation influences of YECism which we take for granted today.

93

These revisions were made not because of a detection of error in the method, but because of a desire to match to the biostratigraphal data. If there is no inconsistency with biostratigraphal data, there is no need nor any desire to re-examine or adjust measurements. So how would you know if an adjustment could be made or not? The point is that a method is revealed or validated by its exceptions. And the point is also that error ranges are significantly outside of the 0.1% when other methods besides radiometric analysis are considered, and when sedimentary layers are estimated.

Error bars are derived from the variances within a group of repeated measurements. Extrapolations however, are not. Graphs are extrapolations from limited data, and sometimes various graphs(lines) are statistically possible from the same data, depending on how much data is available. Although there is usually a “best fit”. Nevertheless, even an extrapolated line (even a statiscally mathematically derived line or curve) still can have a starting point or an end point, and these starting points can vary in real time, depending on what is being examined; this is particularly true in the natural biological world.

As an aside, you learn about error bars and variances in statistics courses, of which I have taken both a beginner and an advanced course. This type of statistics applies not just to physics, but also to chemistry and biology, and even to the social sciences.

So perhaps you understand the difference between statistical experimental significance and biological significance?

94

@johnZ: Nothing you’ve said here addresses my main point above. I asked:

Anomalies and corner cases do crop up from time to time in any discipline as complex and nuanced as dating methods, and they do invite explanation, which is usually forthcoming. However, in order to falsify the entire discipline, they must be sufficiently frequent, sufficiently large, and sufficiently unexplained to demonstrate that they are more than just isolated corner cases.

Doesn’t have any bearing on the point I was making. Extrapolations are still governed by mathematical equations. You can still put a number to how well they do or do not hold. And this number is still calculated, not estimated.

1 Like
95

Again. Yes.

I don’t know how this could be stated any more clearly.

Ditto.

Before telling all the world’s scientists that the carefully developed, meticulously devised and tested methodologies are all wrong, it is absolutely necessary to learn the basics. Please.