Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist Arguments with Dating Methods.
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 16 of 30 (70051)
11-30-2003 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Sonic
11-30-2003 4:42 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.
The same methods are used to date intermediate dates between now and the formation of the earth.
"...the condition is different" is an unsupported assertion and means absolutely nothing. Until you describe how it is different and how that affects dating and in what why that isn't handled by those doing the dating you haven't supplied anything useful to the debate.
Sonic, are you getting an idea of how hard this is? You have taken on centuries of careful research. You thought you had the backing of creation "scientists" but they aren't there to actually take on the real research. They are only there to fool those who don't know too much and don't want to think about it. You're on your own without those guys to help.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 4:42 AM Sonic has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 17 of 30 (70052)
11-30-2003 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Sonic
11-30-2003 2:33 AM


Re: First Creationist Argument Against Radiometric Dating
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.
Nonsense. It, along with concordia methods, is used almost exclusively by anyone dating old rocks. Would you like a few references from recent journals to prove it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 2:33 AM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 11:43 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 18 of 30 (70053)
11-30-2003 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Sonic
11-30-2003 2:33 AM


Re: First Creationist Argument Against Radiometric Dating
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.
Sonic, you do not get away with making up "factoids". You actually have to know what you are talking about. Why did you think that your statement above is correct? If you just guessed you should learn not to do that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 2:33 AM Sonic has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 19 of 30 (70054)
11-30-2003 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Sonic
11-30-2003 4:42 AM


Sonic
You say the Earth could be 4.5 billion years old. By what means do you arrive at this conclusion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 4:42 AM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 11:45 PM sidelined has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 20 of 30 (70109)
11-30-2003 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Sonic
11-30-2003 2:33 AM


Re: First Creationist Argument Against Radiometric Dating
it seems to be that they are talking about methods which are used frequently.
At the top of the page it seems that way, when they mention U-Th-Pb and Rb-Sr and K-Ar dating as chief dating methods in use today. Rb-Sr is an isochron method, and U-Th-Pb is almost always a concordia-discordia method which compensates for and detects some possible problems in a different manner.
Of course, they're way behind the times; Rb-Sr is makes up about 5% of the dating studies done today, whereas Argon-Argon (another isochron method) makes up about 25-30% of the dating studies done today (and has been important for years). U-Pb-Th makes up about 40-45% of the dating studies done today. K-Ar makes up around 10% of the dating studies done today, but is essentially never used without confirmatuon by another method becasue of its possible problems.
Unfortunately, about half the discussion that follows is just plain garbage, and the other half applies only to K-Ar dating. The discussion is just plain irrelevant to 90% or so of the dating methods in use today! It does not apply to Rb-Sr, Ar-Ar, Sm-Nd, or U-Th-Pb dating!
Iso is not used frequently.
Incorect. Argon-Argon dating is an isochron method and makes up approximately 25-30% of the studies performed today. Rb-Sr and Sm-Nd are both isochron methods and each makes up about 5% of the studies that are performed today, so isochron methods make up about 35-40% of the studies that are performed today, and the percentage was higher in the 1980's and 1990's.
However, U-Th-Pb concordia-discordia is where it's at, and where it's been at for many years, and that's a kettle of fish that's not even addressed by the site that you posted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 2:33 AM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 11:49 PM JonF has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 21 of 30 (70151)
11-30-2003 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Sonic
11-30-2003 2:42 AM


No, that's not exactly how we can be confident that the dates are accurate.
Our confidence in the dates comes from the fact that samples are tested with several different methods and they return remarkably similar results.
How do you propose that all these different methods would return similar dates for the same rocks if they were flawed?
You might be interested in reading the following paper titled, "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective".
Radiometric Dating
An excerpt:
"Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.
This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 2:42 AM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 11:52 PM nator has not replied
 Message 30 by roxrkool, posted 12-01-2003 2:43 PM nator has not 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

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 26 of 30 (70195)
12-01-2003 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Sonic
11-30-2003 11:49 PM


Re: First Creationist Argument Against Radiometric Dating
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.
But a non-biased source (or even an honest biased one) will describe the problems. In fact, you don't really understand the methods unless you understand the potential problems with them. You certainly can't use them, or decided if they have been used well unless you know the potential problems.
Here is the talkorigins site that talks about dating. Note that it introduces the possible problems and also discusses creationist critisms (this is not something you will find often (or ever) on creationist sites).
Isochron Dating

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 11:49 PM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Sonic, posted 12-01-2003 3:07 AM NosyNed 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

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 28 of 30 (70252)
12-01-2003 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Sonic
12-01-2003 3:07 AM


Re: First Creationist Argument Against Radiometric Dating
I recommend that you read the Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective link that schrafinator posted; it's very good, and you should walk before you run.
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.
Not really. It's somewhat above the gee-whiz popular science level and somewhat below the college-level course that really goes into the details. To really understand it and be able to do it, you're talking about 3-5 terms of college courses, several of them pretty advanced, maybe even graduate courses. You need to know field geology, mineral chemistry, a little something about sample preparation (which is usually done by the laboratory technicians), instrumentation capabilities and limitations, and some very advanced data analysis techniques and statistics.
Here's some fairly detailed links:
Sample Preparation
U-Pb isotopic dating
Radiogenic Isotope Geology, a draft (no figures) of the next edition of one of the classic and standard textbooks and reference works. Chapter 2 covers some analytical techniques.
Berkeley Geochronolgy Center, home of Dr. Kenneth Ludwig, author of Isoplot, the Cadillac of geochronology analysis packages (an add-in for Microsoft Excel).
{added first paragraph in edit}
[This message has been edited by JonF, 12-01-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Sonic, posted 12-01-2003 3:07 AM Sonic has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 29 of 30 (70274)
12-01-2003 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Sonic
11-30-2003 11:49 PM


Re: First Creationist Argument Against Radiometric Dating
Can you show me some good webpages which speak about dateing methods
Dating Methods in Science has very brief descriptions of a multitude of techniques and links to more explanations.
Tim Thompson maintains A Radiometric Dating Resource List, more brief discussions and links; the first part is responses to creationist claims and the second part covers various dating subjects.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 11:49 PM Sonic has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 30 of 30 (70318)
12-01-2003 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by nator
11-30-2003 8:31 PM


I just wanted to add a bit to what Schraf posted (see message 9 for original context).
Another way we are confident about radiometric dating is because it is supported and confirmed by the rocks themselves.
In the field, geologists use relative dating methods to date the rocks by simply looking at their positions with respect to other rocks.
If you are looking at an outcrop of limestone, for example, and see that it is cut by an igneous dike, you can say that the dike is younger. Say you keep following the layers and the dike in you have interpreted as the 'up' direction and you come upon an erosional surface that cuts both the limestone and the dike and directly above you have a fluvial conglomerate. You can now say that the conglomerate is the youngest rock unit, the igneous dike the second youngest and the limestone the oldest. Keep going. Now say you find a layer of ash above the coglomerate. At this point, you have a perfectly good age relation of the rocks you've been looking at, however, you would like to know their approximate absolute ages.
After dating the igneous dike and the ash layer, you find that you consistently get an older age for the ash layer and a younger one for the dike. But how can this be??? You saw that the ash lay above the dike.
So you go back out to the field to make sure you interpreted the relative ages correctly. You did. However, more diligent field work reveals the presence of previously unknown faults and folds, and it's now entirely possible that your section may have been overturned. To confirm this you drive to other areas and look for the same section. Low and behold you find that every other section shows the ash below the limestone.
Further research also exposes several other dates on rocks taken above and below your section by others and everything fits.
This happens every day in geology. If radiometric dating did not work, we would not see this, and the method would be thrown out.
The idea that we keep dating rocks until we get the 'right' age is completely unfounded and ridiculous. In order to do this we would have to analyze way too many rocks, which can get really expensive. Either that or lie.
In the real world, geologists don't care if their work supports or hurts evolutionary theory. We want to know what the rocks are telling us because it helps us find valuable minerals, oil, and explains why one of the largest earthquakes in U.S. history happened in the mid-continent rather than California... among a host of thousands of other things.
(edited several times to add link and fix spelling and grammatical errors - grrrr!)
[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 12-01-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by nator, posted 11-30-2003 8:31 PM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024