|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Validity of Radiometric Dating | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
You have mentioned the RATE study several times. Here are several reviews of that study:
Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac:Assessing the RATE Project Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science?:Softwaremonkey - Menang Judi Slot Online Memakai Trik Tersembunyi Part 1 Softwaremonkey - Menang Judi Slot Online Memakai Trik Tersembunyi Part 2 RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination? by Kirk Bertsche:RATE's Radiocarbon - Intrinsic or Contamination? RATE (Radioactivity and the Age of The Earth): Analysis and Evaluation of Radiometric Dating:RATE and Age of the Earth - Radiometric Dating A Dialogue about RATE:RATE Dialogue - in PSCF (March 2008) From the first of these reviews: The conclusions of the RATE project are being billed as groundbreaking results. This is a fairly accurate description since a group of creation scientists acknowledge that hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactivity have occurred. They attempt to explain how this massive radioactivity could have occurred in a few thousand years but admit that consistent solutions have not yet been found. The vast majority of the book is devoted to providing technical details that the authors believe prove that the earth is young and that radioisotope decay has not always been constant. All of these areas of investigation have been addressed elsewhere by the scientific community and have been shown to be without merit. The only new data provided in this book are in the category of additional details and there are no significantly new claims. I think if I were you I'd be hesitant to put too much reliance on the claims made about this study, and read carefully what they actually found. They spent over a million dollars of creationist money and found that science was correct all along--and then refused to accept their own findings. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mram10 Member (Idle past 3531 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
Nonukes,
Not recent. Within last 10 years. Are you aware of any? I had read that the Nation Center for Science Education(need to find link to verify) was going to create a team to verify the RATE team's research.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Nonukes, Not recent. Within last 10 years. Are you aware of any? No. But you said you were "very interested in the RATE team that is working these issues now." I don't know of any such team, and I thought you were saying that you did know.
I had read that the Nation Center for Science Education(need to find link to verify) was going to create a team to verify the RATE team's research. Where did you read that? As I understand it, there aren't any science issues to verify. I don't think there is any significant issue with the RATE team's science based calculations, and the team's conclusion that despite the scientific issues, that the impossible happened anyway seem quite outside of the realm of the science. Why would a secular organization even bother until the RATE team's work shows up in for peer review? You know whether or not you read something. Why do you need a link to verify that? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Just a word of advise, mram10. NoNukes does know a lot more on the subject than you can read on Wiki. Or on any and all creationist websites.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
I have not read that book, It's an article.
but have spent a lot of time studying RMD So far the evidence indicates otherwise. You seem to be a garden-variety ignorant creationist of the same stripe we've seen so many times. I'm open to new evidence on that score.
As for K-Ar, I have a tough time with any dating methods that range starts at 1mil years for accuracy K-Ar dating is seldom used anymore, there are much better methods. (It's hard to find a lab to do it at all). Such as the Ar-Ar method used in the paper to which I referred you. But there is no reason to suspect that K-Ar is invalid. Oh, and K-Ar is usable for ages around 100,000 years and has occasionally been used for ages as young as 10,000 years. Yep, you're a serious student of radiometric dating alright.
I trust observation and do not care for assumptions that I cannot verify There are no unverified assumptions in radiometric dating, other than the assumption that there is a universe external to us that we can study. I bet you can't come up with a valid example of an unverified assumption. Radiometric dating and all your "historical" science is based on observation. Of traces left by past events.
I am very interested in the RATE team that is working these issues now Oh, we have a real expert here. The RATE team is not working these issues now, they shut down almost a decade ago, having achieved their goal of providing sciency-sounding gobbledygook for the ignorant. If you are really interested in the RATE work, read Assessing the RATE Project and RATE (Radioactivity and the Age of The Earth): Analysis and Evaluation of Radiometric Dating (not books, and written by evangelical Christians with relevant expertise).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
1. I have been reading about helium dating of rocks from 0-12000 ft in new mexico done by the RATE team. The article mentioned the uranium alpha particles becoming helium levels were different than originally thought, thus making the age based on helium dating, younger. It was the first I had heard of this, so I am seeking more info. The short version is that there is a perfectly valid explanation for the results within mainstream science, and there is good reason to doubt the validity of the three low-temperature data points on which Humphreys' "theory" hangs. For the long version see RATE (Radioactivity and the Age of The Earth): Analysis and Evaluation of Radiometric Dating under "Helium Diffusion in Zircons", especially the second-to-last item in "Gary's explanations of Helium in Zircons for Talk Rational's discussion forum about Evolution and Origins in 2010".
2. I also have questions about the assumptions you listed (rate been a constant, etc). Again, I read a study by the same RATE team, that I need to link, stating ideas to the contrary. I need to read more, but it did raise a red flag. Again, thank you for the info and the way it was presented. I will keep learning The constancy of radioactive decay has been widely studied both experimentally and theoretically. We understand it very well. It's been constant for much longer than the age of the Earth.Good summaries and pointers to further reading can be found at The Constancy of Constants and The Constancy of Constants, Part 2, both by eminent physicist Steve Carlip. The RATE team proposed miraculous accelerated nuclear decay (AND) in the past. Many Christians have theological problems with this sort of ad-hoc assumption. But there are serious scientific problems with the proposal, such as melting the surface of the Earth and killing all life (except, perhaps, for a few thermophilic bacteria) twice over with heat and radiation. the RATE team acknowledged these minor issues in 2005 and hoped that future work would provide a solution. Wanna guess at how much work they've done on it since then? I started a thread here, Heat and radiation destroy claims of accelerated nuclear decay, with references and detailed discussion of what the RATE team wrote about the problem and what I found out about it through research. It's a page or so and I suggest you read it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
NCSE doesn't do that. Nobody, not even creationist organizations, is going to put any more money into that cluster coitus. There was a RATE 3 proposal but the no creationist organization would fund it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Just a word of advise, mram10. NoNukes does know a lot more on the subject than you can read on Wiki. Or on any and all creationist websites. Gorsh, I feel snubbed. And there are others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Hey, mram10. JonF also knows a lot more about the subject than what you can find on Wiki. JonF also knows a lot more more about the subject than you will ever find on creationist websites.
You will be surprised about the knowledge some professionals have on this website; and they share their knowledge freely! I learn a lot from them. Every time they post something. They don't just read Wiki, they actually do the research themselves and share it all with us! I think old mram10 doesn't know whom he/she is dealing with on this forum... Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mram10 writes:
The information on Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man is readily available on the Internet. Only the most ignorant of the ignorant creationists use them as examples any more.
I mentioned piltdown, nebraska, etc being found to be flawed.... mram10 writes:
Well, nobody but a creationist makes a distinction between macro and micro. There's no reason to.
Every time I have questioned macro ev, I get the "you must be a ...." treatment. mram10 writes:
Talking about "true" scientists is another giveaway. The real true scientists are the ones who do science. The people creationists call TRUE scientists are not. Again, there are very few TRUE scientists in MY EXPERIENCE. FYI, we have a member in this very thread who uses radiometric dating in his daily work. You might do well to ask questions about how it works before you start questioning its validity or its conclusions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Well, nobody but a creationist makes a distinction between macro and micro. There's no reason to. Some real scientists do make such a distinction; macro is at or above species level, micro is below. It's not widely used. Of course there are plenty of examples of macroevolution by that definition. That's why those who question whether we have observed macroevolution get the "you must be a creationist" treatment, because those who do are without exception creationists. Creationists seldom if ever admit it, but to them microevolution is observed evolution and macroevolution is that which takes to long for it to be observed (ignoring, of course, the many examples of such in the fossil record). Yet. As more evidence comes up the boundary shifts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Well, nobody but a creationist makes a distinction between macro and micro. The college textbook that we used for the course I took on human evolution distinguished between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution was when you were looking at a particular species, say the Neanderthals, and how they changed. Macroevolution was when you were looking at all of the hominids and comparing them to each other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
I'm trying to think of a way to rephrase. Hmm.... The college textbook that we used for the course I took on human evolution distinguished between microevolution and macroevolution. How about: Nobody but a creationist thinks there's a fundamental difference between micro and macro. For example, nobody thinks there's a fundamental difference between a driveway and a highway but most people would agree that there's a difference in scale.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
From wiki:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 885 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
Creationists seldom if ever admit it, but to them microevolution is observed evolution and macroevolution is that which takes to long for it to be observed Personally, I don't think this is all that bad of a definition, at least for debates as of the EvC type. It distinguishes our level of certainty and the type of evidence we have that causes us to come to a particular conclusion. Of course, there is little need for such a distinction in scientific circles. We can just talk about evolution - change over time. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024