|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Assumptions involved in scientific dating | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
DOCJ writes: Um I made a claim provided the data. Done. Forum Guidline #5 "Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references. " Still waiting for the supporting discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
DOCJ writes: Prove your claim and fyi the EU is not a group of religious zealots, they are evolutionists. Just go to the very thread you linked to before on 14C dating. Every page is replete with links to creationist websites. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
DOCJ writes: The Science community is ANYONE practicing Science. Those scientists report their scientific work in peer reviewed journals, not on the Thunderbolts forum, youtube, or creationist websites.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
DOCJ writes: It's not difficult to understand or post that dating methods are being disputed in the science community. It is equally a simple matter to reference. Links have been provided. You haven't provided a single reference to a peer reviewed paper, nor discussed a single reference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Jar writes: It might be worthwhile also pointing out that the amount of 14C produced has absolutely no significance when looking at 14C decay. The decay rates remain the same regardless of how much is produced. Not only that, but any changes in 14C production would show up in the calibration data (which I am sure you are more than aware, but I will discuss for clarity's sake):
The line represents the assumption that 14C production remained stead over the last 50k years. The squiggly blue line represents the actual 14C atmospheric concentrations at those periods in history as determined by actual samples of known age. While there are slight deviations due to changes in things like the Earth's magnetic field, it doesn't deviate that far. There is no sudden change in Earth's atmospheric 14C content like the EU loons want to claim. If there was a sudden change then it would show up in this graph. If they want to claim that electrical charges change the decay rate of 14C, then they are probably barking mad. I am aware of zero papers demonstrating that 14C decay can be affected by electrical currents, and I would hazard a guess that if it was possible the amount of electrical energy needed would probably destroy the organic sample. There is also the problem of how electrical currents could change 14C content in ice layers, lake varves, speleothems, and tree rings across the globe in a coordinated manner so that all of these sources of data would agree with one another. Edited by Taq, : No reason given. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Pressie writes: Or, for example the group known as Amphibolites are metamorphic and would contain a lot of different minerals recrystallising or not (therefore setting the clock back to zero at different depths and temperatures) at different times. It would thus be expected to find a wide variety of dates when trying to date Amphibolites. Just ask any geochronologist!
Joe Meert has a great page on this very thing. By plotting the age of these crystals and their closure temperatures you can create a cooling curve, a record of the cooling history of that rock:
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
DOCJ writes: How do geologists calculate the amount of the parent/and daughter chemicals in the Rock at creation? On an isochron plot, the daughter element present when the rock forms is the y-intercept of the line drawn through the data points:
I wouldn't be able to presume a rock over billions of years had didn't have contamination or didn't change over all that time... Or that 0 daughter was present at creation. We know from basic chemistry that zircons exclude Pb and include U. You would have to change the basic laws of the universe in order for zircons to include any significant amount of Pb when they form. In my experience, if your theory requires the fundamental laws of the universe to change in order to do away with inconvenient measurements then you have a bad theory. You should also note that three different isotope decay chains (K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr) give consistent dates for the same geologic layer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
DOCJ writes: I don't believe you can have certainty [absolute knowledge] to any belief whether it be because of a body of knowledge, a spec of evidence or a revelation. We are all just trying to figure things out. There are decades of research pointing to the reliability of radiometric dating and the constancy of decay rates. You claim that electrical currents can change decay rates, yet you can't cite a single peer reviewed paper that demonstrates this claim. It seems that you aren't trying to figure anything out. Rather, you are trying to find any kind of excuse you can in order to ignore the science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
DOCJ writes: The EU, Answers in Genesis, Reasons to Believe, and other organizations have scientist working for them. Where they publish may be important to some but not to everyone. And what they publish is the gravity of importance NOT where they publish (yes peers need to be able to review it obviously). If you want to claim that there is disagreement within the scientific community then it does matter where their work is published. It is a long standing saying in the scientific community that if it isn't published then it doesn't exist. By published, we mean original science published in a peer reviewed journal. Crackpots posting nonsense on websites is not science, nor does it constitute a disagreement within the scientific community. The fact that you think Arp is somehow relevant says a lot. Arp is simply wrong, and has been wrong for a long time. For example, are these people about to be crushed by a giant boot?
NO. This is called forced perspective where the boot is actually in the foreground and the people are in the distant background. The same principle applies to Arp's claims about interactions between quasars and galaxies. One is the foreground and the other is in the distant background. They aren't side by side.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
DOCJ writes: Geologist actually DO attempt to date the creation date of the Rock. No, they don't. They measure the time since the closure of the rock at which point the rock will no longer lose daughter product.
I am currently looking into many evolutionist/creationist issues regarding age, dinosaur tissue discoveries, c14 in dinosaur tissue, the desparity issue in evolution with respect to the diversity of life in the fossil record, pre cambrian and cambrian explosions of life (and related assumptions which if you want to call them conclusions THAN they are based on a current theory which they do change. By the sounds of it, you are looking at creationist websites. This goes against your previous claim that you are looking for the truth.
I also think that it is a terrible practice to say, that just because a person has faith in God that that does mean his or her Scientific explanation is lacking such as finding c14 in dinosaur tissue. You should find 14C in dinosaur bones even if they are millions of years old. It is nearly impossible to prevent low level contamination of any sample. There can even be in situ 14C production within the fossil itself due to background radiation. The carbonization process used to prepare the samples also introduces low levels of 14C. The instruments that measure 14C content will have noise and carryover which results in spurious detection low levels of 14C.
I also disagree that everything, most of the time that if the Science is done by a creationist that they are lying or just ignorant.. If creationists are telling you that low levels of 14C in dinosaur bones somehow calls 14C dating into question, then they are lying to you. Added in edit: It is also worth noting that the dinosaur fossils didn't contain any collagen or bone, much less organic material.
quote: The fossil was also contaminated with modern carbon from shellac. Needless to say, this is just another example of creationists lying. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024