|
Author
|
Topic: Creationist Arguments with Dating Methods.
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 4 of 30 (69998)
11-29-2003 11:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
11-29-2003 9:12 PM
|
|
Ok
NosyNed writes: 1) Sonic do you actually think we haven't heard all those before? They have already been torn to pieces on web sites and here. I suggest you do some reading. Shrug.
NosyNed writes: 2) The real big question for those who wrote your site and, now, for you is: If these different methods have various ways in which they can be wrong, how is it that there is so much agreement between methods? How is it that they date know historical dates accutately? How is it that the independently determined order of the geological strata agree with the order determined when they are dated? 1.)Assumptions are not always wrong. 2.)Assumptions are not always wrong. 3.)You might want to look at how many times they try to date the strata before they come to a conclusion. My understanding is, the first time usally is not the last time, they redate each strata/fossil untill they fit the theory. ------------------ Enlightend One Sonic [This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-29-2003]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 11-29-2003 9:12 PM | | NosyNed has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 11-30-2003 1:08 AM | | Sonic has replied |
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 7 of 30 (70016)
11-30-2003 2:33 AM
|
Reply to: Message 2 by NosyNed
11-29-2003 9:21 PM
|
|
Re: First Creationist Argument Against Radiometric Dating
Ok,
NosyNed writes: To start with not all dating methods require that things be sealed away. refer to this article: Isochron Dating 1.) I understand that some methods dont require items to be sealed away.
NosyNed writes: Secondly, some dating is done on things which are "sealed". That is, crystals. I'm not away of an explanation for how these can leak. If they do how can they leak in a way that produces a large number of consistant results? 2.)seems that you are implying that because items are sealed away the reading is accurate. I understand that dating methods can be accurate but who is to say when they are?
NosyNed writes: Astonishingly, the two pages on dating of your site neglects to mention isochron dating. I suggest that it is dishonest to do that. 3.)You might want to read the article, it seems to be that they are talking about methods which are used frequently. Iso is not used frequently. ------------------ Enlightend One Sonic
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 11-29-2003 9:21 PM | | NosyNed has replied |
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 9 of 30 (70018)
11-30-2003 2:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by NosyNed
11-30-2003 1:08 AM
|
|
Ok, Your entire post seems to be pointing that dating methods are without a doubt accurate, of course you also point to the fact that they may make a few mistakes, and sure they redate a bunch of times to help make them accurate, you used a timeclock as an example, and how someone might have a bunch of different clocks set differently. That is all fine and well BUT how do they know, how do they verify that they got it right? and are you saying that they have a bunch of different dates which are all different and they chose a time? If that is how they make it accurate, then I really wont trust them, that is, if they just pick the most average time from the list of dates they recieved from the methods. It seems to me that not only do they have to worry about errors but now they have to pick the date from a list of dates so they have a average date among all of them, that is horrible. ------------------ Enlightend One Sonic
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 11-30-2003 1:08 AM | | NosyNed has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 21 by nator, posted 11-30-2003 8:31 PM | | Sonic has replied |
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 10 of 30 (70019)
11-30-2003 3:00 AM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by NosyNed
11-30-2003 2:06 AM
|
|
A daughter product is a byproduct of radioactive chemicles. If a daughter product was on the rock which was being dated they eather would not know that it was their OR the rock is ruined as far as dating goes BECAUSE some or most(which cant really be said as to how much)of the isotope is missing. ------------------ Enlightend One Sonic
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 11-30-2003 2:06 AM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 11 of 30 (70020)
11-30-2003 3:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by sidelined
11-30-2003 2:35 AM
|
|
Actually if a daughter product was on the rock it would ruin the rock from ever being dated correctly. ------------------ Enlightend One Sonic [This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-30-2003]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by sidelined, posted 11-30-2003 2:35 AM | | sidelined has replied |
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 13 of 30 (70030)
11-30-2003 4:01 AM
|
Reply to: Message 12 by sidelined
11-30-2003 3:11 AM
|
|
Ok,
And the reason it would prevent it from being dated correctly is because the dughter product is a result of radioactive decay that has already occured,hence the date would be greater than the date we could thereby establish. So if we have a date set a 150,000,000 years and there is daughter products already present at 150,000,000 years ago then the rock is actually older by the amount of daughter product.If you are trying to establish that the rock is merely thousands of years old I believe this will not help your case.
No that is incorrect, a radioactive chemicle on a rock would decay any isotope, which means there would be only some or none left for the method. (i.e. some or the entire amount of buildup would be missing. You need all of the buildup in order to get a accurate reading) ------------------ Enlightend One Sonic [This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-30-2003]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 12 by sidelined, posted 11-30-2003 3:11 AM | | sidelined has replied |
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 15 of 30 (70033)
11-30-2003 4:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 14 by sidelined
11-30-2003 4:18 AM
|
|
The earth could be 4.5 billions years old. That does not effect the dating methods when we use them on strata/fossils since the condition is different. ------------------ Enlightend One Sonic
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by sidelined, posted 11-30-2003 4:18 AM | | sidelined has replied |
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 22 of 30 (70182)
11-30-2003 11:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 17 by Coragyps
11-30-2003 10:51 AM
|
|
Re: First Creationist Argument Against Radiometric Dating
That is why I am here, to learn. Of course I wont drop my views untill things are proven and I wont learn unless people try to prove other views to me. ------------------ Enlightend One Sonic
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 17 by Coragyps, posted 11-30-2003 10:51 AM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 23 of 30 (70183)
11-30-2003 11:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by sidelined
11-30-2003 10:55 AM
|
|
The bible does not put restrictions on how old the earth actually is. I believe the bible currently. You showed me a place which is talking about the age of the earth in your last post, so I replied that it could be 4.5 million, or billions, or trillian, who knows. ------------------ Enlightend One Sonic
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by sidelined, posted 11-30-2003 10:55 AM | | sidelined has not replied |
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 24 of 30 (70184)
11-30-2003 11:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 20 by JonF
11-30-2003 6:02 PM
|
|
Re: First Creationist Argument Against Radiometric Dating
Can you show me some good webpages which speak about dateing methods. I want non bias opinions, I just want people describing the methods,etc. I dont want to hear about the problems, or any of that I just simply want how they do it, that is, for each method. ------------------ Enlightend One Sonic
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 20 by JonF, posted 11-30-2003 6:02 PM | | JonF has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 26 by NosyNed, posted 12-01-2003 1:18 AM | | Sonic has replied | | | Message 29 by JonF, posted 12-01-2003 12:22 PM | | Sonic has not replied |
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 25 of 30 (70185)
11-30-2003 11:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 21 by nator
11-30-2003 8:31 PM
|
|
I just want to say that dates and dating methods and the problem of them being incorrect has been rebuked by mark24. http:// EvC Forum: Radiometric Dating For Sonic. --> EvC Forum: Radiometric Dating For Sonic. There for no need to keep this thread up, I stand corrected. ------------------ Enlightend One Sonic [This message has been edited by Sonic, 12-01-2003]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 21 by nator, posted 11-30-2003 8:31 PM | | nator has not replied |
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 27 of 30 (70207)
12-01-2003 3:07 AM
|
Reply to: Message 26 by NosyNed
12-01-2003 1:18 AM
|
|
Re: First Creationist Argument Against Radiometric Dating
Question. I am wondering about if this webpage has a: step 1: we do this, step 2; we do that, sorta thing. Like if I wanted to go out and date something could they give me instructions. I would just like to better understand the process. ------------------ Enlightend One Sonic [This message has been edited by Sonic, 12-01-2003]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 26 by NosyNed, posted 12-01-2003 1:18 AM | | NosyNed has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 28 by JonF, posted 12-01-2003 10:25 AM | | Sonic has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2