|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Validity of Radiometric Dating | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Let's not get into this discussion here, but it's already been shown that Walther's law layers sediments and there would be sequences of waves and tides as well that would affect deposition. But this has been said a million times already.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
But this has been said a million times already. And refute a million and one times. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Note that scientists give their results with a stated uncertainty. Sometimes. Amazing though how many Wikipedia and other general articles just rattle off a bunch of mystifying conclusions about this or that, say the KT boundary for an example without even touching on the particular phenomena involved. It's all millions of years this and assumed events that. There is NO room for uncertainty in those common presentations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
Yes, and you've been shown where you are wrong every time. If a flood can produce the layers we see, creationists should be able to do an experiment to replicate the layers. Why don't they?
But this has been said a million times already.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know. It was really just a bunch of vague questions I had in mind, it did not come from any creationist site.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
There is NO room for uncertainty in those common presentations. There is uncertainty, they just don't present it for simplicity. No date is published without error ranges produced by standard and well understood means. But the error range of any valid date (and invalid dates get published on purpose sometimes, to point out possible pitfalls) is small compared to the date. In radiometric dating, an uncertainy range of ±5% is a very big one, and uncertainty ranges under 1% are common in U-Pb dating. There is no uncertainty whatsoever outside the loony bin (absent major changes in fundamental physics that would have destroyed all life) that the ages scientists have founn are sufficiently valid to destroy YEC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know. So you admit you don't care about truth.
It was really just a bunch of vague questions I had in mind Which have now been answered, and if you want more detail I'll gladly provide it. Do you acknowledge that your questions have been answered?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Obviously they represent a period of time where some environmental changes caused different material to be deposited. We've SEEN that changes in sea level explain a lot. I can't see that compressing the time available into a single year is at all sensible,
quote: Maybe if you exercised your common sense more you wouldn't find using it such a strain.
quote: Except for the numerous problems with that explanation, For example the order in the fossil record which the Flood can't explain at all. And what's wrong with the old Earth explanation ? You can't say that the number of fossils is a problem given hundreds of millions of years.
quote: None of any weight compared to the evidence against YEC. It's pretty obvious that the rationalisations are on your side. Even you admit that your interpretation of the Bible is more important to you than the science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Amazing though how many Wikipedia and other general articles just rattle off a bunch of mystifying conclusions about this or that, say the KT boundary for an example without even touching on the particular phenomena involved. It's all millions of years this and assumed events that. Oh, and, that illustrates why using non-technical sources for technical issues is fraught with peril. Technical sources go into the supporting data and analyses in great detail. Some non-technical sources are good but you need some expertise to be able to figure out which ones. The already mentioned Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective (writen by an evangelical Christian and published by an evangelical Christian organization) is good. Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The Age of Earth and its Cosmic Surroundings is easy to follow and very good. The Age of the Earth is great but gets pretty technical at points. {ABE} Bet a million dollars you haven't even looked at a Wikipedia article on radiometric dating. E.g. see Radiometric dating - Wikipedia and teh many articles it references. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Sometimes. Amazing though how many Wikipedia and other general articles just rattle off a bunch of mystifying conclusions about this or that, say the KT boundary for an example without even touching on the particular phenomena involved. It's all millions of years this and assumed events that. There is NO room for uncertainty in those common presentations. Yes, isn't it amazing that when you say the Greenland formation is at least 3 billion years old, that somehow misses out providing the information that "all of the ranges overlap and agree between 3.62 and 3.65 billion years" ... within their 95% range of accuracy ... that is one of the things that happens when you generalize from specific information. The worst measurement accuracy reported is +/-6% ... so that is really egregious error ... Enjoy by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
An even better reference is Radiometric Ages of Some Early Archean and Related Rocks of the North Atlantic Craton, which gives more results and is in statigraphic order, demonstrating how well the "deeper is older" rule works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No that's not the idea. They talk in terms of events as if they were facts, this happened, that happened, so many years ago. There was a meteor that killed off all the dinosaurs. Stated as fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Well, those are facts, close enough for laymen. Someone made an editorial decision about what is and is not important, and they probably made the right one. They're not going to reproduce the entire paper; you can go look at it if you want.
Including the relatively minuscule uncertainties isn't going to change the fact that it happened 66-ish million years ago. Even if the uncertainties are unusually large, say 5%, it doesn't matter if it was 62.7 million years ago or 69.3 million years ago or any time in between. YEC is disproven by any of those. You won't understand, but another fact is that there are hundreds of thousands of radiometric dates. If some of them are wrong YEC is disproven. If many of them are wrong YEC is disproven. If 99.99% of them are wrong YEC is disproven. YEC is only possible if all of them, every single one, is wrong. And the only way that can be is a fundamental systemic factor, such as the Rate ggroup's Accelerated Nuclear Decay (AND). Alas, that one fails for the same reasons the vapor canopy fails; it's not possible without fundamental changes to the laws of physics, or flat-out miracles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sorry, this is getting confused. I'm not talking about that paper which is well enough organized and explained, I was talking about a Wikipedia article, I forget why now, about the K-T boundary as a typical example of how such phenomena are presented to laypeople. Definitely typical and definitely irritating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Why don't you go back to talking about scripture...
Message 264
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024