Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there evidence that dating methods MUST be invalid?
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1 of 50 (113845)
06-09-2004 10:07 AM


In Message 39 almeyda wrote:
Dating methods are fallible. I did not use dating methods as evidence for a young earth. But there is still a difference. Things like carbon dating are completely irrelevant when trying to find things to be millions of yrs old. However in a younger earth it can be different and actually more logical. Whatever it may be dating methods are based on assumptions. Eugenie Scott herself said this also. And no Eugenie is not my only evidence proving dating methods must be invalid.
Now, "fallible" is one thing, and "must be invalid" is quite another kettle of fish. "Dating methods are based on assumptions" is, of course, not evidence that "dating methods must be invalid"; everything we do in our lives is based on assumptions, and validity is based on the accuracy of the assumptions. And, of course, "assumption" in science does not mean "untested"; I discussed the foundations of radiometric dating in a moderatly long post in another forum at TheologyWeb Campus .
So my questions are:
1. What is your evidence that dating methods are fallible?
2. What is your reference for your claim about Eugneie Scott?
3. Finally and especially, what evidence do you have that dating methods must be invalid? The fact that the methods are founded on (severely and continuously tested) "assumptions" is not such evidence, a few erroneous results (especially when the reasons for the errors are known but suppresed by creationists) are not such evidence.
I don't suppose that almeyda will produce any substantive reply, but I feel the need to make the challenge.
{edited to make the link to Almeyda's message better}
This message has been edited by JonF, 06-09-2004 11:10 AM

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 50 (113877)
06-09-2004 11:46 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 3 of 50 (114042)
06-10-2004 12:23 AM


Dating methods are fallible... Things like carbon dating are completely irrelevant when trying to find things to be millions of yrs old.
so which one are you debating? uraniam 238's half life of 4.5 billion years? or 235 at 704 million? or how about thorium 232 which is 14 billion? rubidium 87 at 48.8 billion years? samarium 147 at 106 billion? or potassium 40 at only 1.25?
the fact that all these line up to give the dates of the oldest rocks at 4.3 billion years is kind of suspicious against your point. are you arguing that, you know, the laws of basic algebra don't work?

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by JonF, posted 06-10-2004 11:04 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 46 by steve147, posted 07-30-2004 12:21 PM arachnophilia has not replied

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


Message 4 of 50 (114132)
06-10-2004 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by arachnophilia
06-10-2004 12:23 AM


the fact that all these line up to give the dates of the oldest rocks at 4.3 billion years is kind of suspicious against your point. are you arguing that, you know, the laws of basic algebra don't work?
I'm not really taking the negative ... but he's almost certinaly not arguing that "the laws of basic algebra don't work"
Nitpick: Earth's oldest known rocks (assemblages of minerals) are Acasta Gneisses in northwestern Canada near Great Slave Lake and are 4.03 billion years old. Earth's oldest known minerals are zircons from the Narryer Gneiss Complex in Western Australia and are 4.4 billion years old.
The generally accepted 4.55 billion year age of the Earth is derived from Pb-Pb isochron analyses using meteorites which were and are exceptionally low in U (such as Canyon Diablo, the cause of Meteor Crater in Arizona) as primordial lead references.
I doubt that Almeyda has any idea of what dating methods are, how they work, or how he's arguing against them. He just doesn't like them.
Very few creationists argue against the laws of algebra (although I've discussed dating one who did, loud and long). There are two types of common arguments; the one that points out erroneous results (especially erronous results obtained by creationist cheating) and claims that a few erroneous results destroy the credibility of all results (which is so silly that I'm not going to go into it any more), and the one which attacks the "assumptions" of the methods. Indeed, if any of the "assumptions" of a particular method are wrong in a particular case, the method is going to produce the wrong answer through perfectly valid algebra.
I suspect that Almeyda would, if he ever shows up here, argue the latter way. I conclude this because of his reference to assumptions.
However, such arguments are fruitless. I suggest that you read the link in the first message. There is only one "assumption" that underlies all radioisotope dating methods and could possibly cause all determinations to be wrong; the "assumption" of constant radioactive decay rate. We do, of course, have gobs of evidence of such constancy, although creationists still try to invoke accelerated radioactive decay as an "explanation" for their young-Earth fantasies. They typically ignore that vast amount of heat that would be produced, and they also ignore the fact that all life would be wiped out by the increased background radiation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2004 12:23 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 06-11-2004 2:07 AM JonF has not replied
 Message 41 by coffee_addict, posted 07-14-2004 6:26 PM JonF has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 5 of 50 (114336)
06-11-2004 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by JonF
06-10-2004 11:04 AM


nit picking aside (i guess you learn something every day)
Very few creationists argue against the laws of algebra (although I've discussed dating one who did, loud and long). There are two types of common arguments; the one that points out erroneous results (especially erronous results obtained by creationist cheating) and claims that a few erroneous results destroy the credibility of all results (which is so silly that I'm not going to go into it any more), and the one which attacks the "assumptions" of the methods. Indeed, if any of the "assumptions" of a particular method are wrong in a particular case, the method is going to produce the wrong answer through perfectly valid algebra.
i will go into it. apparently people don't understand statictical aberations. graph one thing against another of any function, and in the real world all of the results will be scattered a little. the degree of the scattering of the plots tells you how strongly associated one thing is with another. there are bound to be statistical aberations, points way off the line. but how many, and how far determines the accuracy of any scientific test.
the fact is that there ARE a few tests that are way off the mark. but since they comprise a very small percentage of tests, and most results are pretty close, the testing can be said to be accurate.
in the real world, there are problems. tests go wrong, contamination or tampering happens, and sometimes people just make errors. this is accounting for those aberations -- they do not rule out the testing method.
There is only one "assumption" that underlies all radioisotope dating methods and could possibly cause all determinations to be wrong; the "assumption" of constant radioactive decay rate. We do, of course, have gobs of evidence of such constancy, although creationists still try to invoke accelerated radioactive decay as an "explanation" for their young-Earth fantasies. They typically ignore that vast amount of heat that would be produced, and they also ignore the fact that all life would be wiped out by the increased background radiation.
this seems to be a favourite argument anyways.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by JonF, posted 06-10-2004 11:04 AM JonF has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 50 (114346)
06-11-2004 2:48 AM


You know what i will probably recieve even more hatred towards myself by doing this but im sorry i have to at least give it a go. You know it always hits me that if all this evolution was so true and so obvious then there would not be any doubt among the leading evolutionists. But when i read these quotes of evolutionists they are not taken out of context but rather just showing that evolution like all other theories have problems. And in this particular issue aswell for dating methods and ages of the earth. So yes its true im not so scientific. But the more i read about creation, the more i learn. So lets see what we got here. If the dates of the earth are rock solid fact. Then of course evolutionists wouldnt dare speak out on then. Many people say well those quotes are from decades ago. But nothing has really changed. Evolution has become somewhat of a stagnet theory. Moreover are you people who call this quotes old and irrelevant questioning the evolutionists intergrity or intelligence?. I believe these men were just more honest about evolution and werent scared to speak out. Today of course no evolutionists would consider anything against the fact of evolution.
However...
"All the above methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable, because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history. A method that appears to have much greater reliability for determining absolute ages of rocks is that of radiometric dating...
It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological "clock". The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists" - William D. Stansfield (California Polytechnic State University
"Thus, if one believes that the derived ages in particular instances are in gross disagreement with established facts of field geology, he must conjure up geological processes that could cause anomalous or altered argon contents of the minerals" - Prof J.F. Evernden (University of California)
"In general, dates in the "correct ball park" are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained" - Richard L Mauger (East Carolina University)
"Much still remains to be learned of the interpretation of isotopic ages and the realization that in many instances the isotopic ages is not neccesarily the geological age of a rock has unfortunately led to an over-skeptical attitude by some field geologists" - Peter E. Brown & John A. Miller (Geological Society of London Special Publication,No 3, 1969,p137)
"Certain fossils appear to be restricted to rocks of a relatively limited geological age span. These are called index fossils. Whenever a rock is found bearing such a fossil, its approximate age is automatically established...
This method is not foolproof. Occasionally an organism, previously thought to be extinct, is found to be extant. Such "living fossils" obviously cannot function as index fossils except within the broader time span of their known existence" - William D.Stansfield (California Polytechnic State University)
Almeyda - Facts dont speak for themselves. When a date differs from that expected. The evolutionist readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The application of such reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Dating methods do have there pros obviously. But evolutionary observations must fit there framework. Including that the earth is billions of yrs old. Evolutionists who are supposedly objective, select the observations to fit the basic evolutionary belief system. Evolutionists measuer isotope concentrations and these can be measured accurately, however the "age" is calculated using assumptions about the past. And presuppositions about origins, history and how this earth has come to be over eons of time. I also read at AiG that forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for submission with samples to be dated commonly ask how old the sample is expected to be. Why??. If the techniques were absolutely objective & reliable such information should not be necesary. Presumably the laboratories know that anomalous dates are common, so they need some check on wheather they have obtained a 'good' date. Creationists understand the limitations of dating methods alot better than evolutionists who claim that they can use dating proceses in the present to prove the earth to be billions of yrs.
Heres a AiG article on radiometric dating.
Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth Is Old? | Answers in Genesis

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 06-11-2004 3:23 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 8 by mark24, posted 06-11-2004 4:48 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 9 by edge, posted 06-11-2004 11:16 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 10 by jar, posted 06-11-2004 12:24 PM almeyda has not replied
 Message 11 by Loudmouth, posted 06-11-2004 12:39 PM almeyda has not replied
 Message 12 by JonF, posted 06-11-2004 7:35 PM almeyda has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 7 of 50 (114353)
06-11-2004 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by almeyda
06-11-2004 2:48 AM


You know what i will probably recieve even more hatred towards myself by doing this but im sorry i have to at least give it a go.
we're not here to hate. we're here to debate. nothing is meant as a flame towards you, at least speaking for myself. i happen to be a christian.
You know it always hits me that if all this evolution was so true and so obvious then there would not be any doubt among the leading evolutionists.
like any theory, there's room for dispute. but disputes on technicalities and details do not invalidate the general truth of the matter. no one in any scientific field relating in the slightest to the field is in debate as to the veracity of it, unless they hold prior religious convictions -- creationists.
however, there is no such thing as an evolutionist. this is a word made up by creationists to make it seem like people who study and understand evolutionary theory are espousing some kind of doctrine of anti-christianity. this is just not so. there is no religious doctrine to it at all.
the people who deal with it are SCIENTISTS: evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, geologists, etc.
some of them are even christians.
But when i read these quotes of evolutionists they are not taken out of context but rather just showing that evolution like all other theories have problems.
yes, but we don't chuck the entire theory just because there's a few areas that need working on, an instead impose a black-box explanation -- "god did it" -- and investigate no further. this stops all human understanding. instead, we work on the areas that need work. and believe me, there aren't many. but what most creationists don't understand, especially when it comes to dating, is statistical aberation.
presuming we date a rock 100 times, using a half dozen different isotopes. 95 tests come back as ~2 billion years old. 3 tests come back as ~1.95 billion years old, and 2 come back as 200 million years old.
what happened? is the testing method invalid? no, it yeilds reasonably accurate and consistent results 98% of the time. what's more likely is human error, but even ruling that out, sometimes in the real world, tests just don't work right. that's why science retests and allows for dispute.
Evolution has become somewhat of a stagnet theory
this is just wrong. i've seen more advances in evolutionary theory in the last 5 years than ever before. mostly in the field of paleontology, becuase i was always a dinosaur nut as a kid, and i pay a little more attention there.
"All the above methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable, because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history. A method that appears to have much greater reliability for determining absolute ages of rocks is that of radiometric dating...
It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological "clock". The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists" - William D. Stansfield (California Polytechnic State University
he's no longer at that university, apparently.
but his statement is clearly wrong. he's a biologist, not a physicist. ask any physicist if decay rates flucate. ever. because they don't.
as or a long term radiological clock: No webpage found at provided URL: http://time.gov
"In general, dates in the "correct ball park" are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained" - Richard L Mauger (East Carolina University)
statistical aberations. not every result needs to be explained. sometimes someone just messed up. results that out of order in every test may need to be, but not ones where 98% are all in predictable ranges.
"Much still remains to be learned of the interpretation of isotopic ages and the realization that in many instances the isotopic ages is not neccesarily the geological age of a rock has unfortunately led to an over-skeptical attitude by some field geologists" - Peter E. Brown & John A. Miller (Geological Society of London Special Publication,No 3, 1969,p137)
i'm not sure what he means by that. how old is lava? brand new. should we expect anything else? well, sort of. it kind of exist before that, didn't it?
radiological dates of rocks are the dates since major molecular restructuring. i'm not sure offhad if dating a sedimentary rock will show the results of the sediments that make the rock, or the rock itself, or the average of all the components. i'll look that up, because that might be causing the confusion.
"Certain fossils appear to be restricted to rocks of a relatively limited geological age span. These are called index fossils. Whenever a rock is found bearing such a fossil, its approximate age is automatically established...
This method is not foolproof. Occasionally an organism, previously thought to be extinct, is found to be extant. Such "living fossils" obviously cannot function as index fossils except within the broader time span of their known existence" - William D.Stansfield (California Polytechnic State University)
it's fallible, but it gives instant insight into which layer you're digging in. nothing else. no conclusive dates are ever given by index fossils alone.
The application of such reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems.
by no means! a small set of counter examples, especially statistical aberations in scientific testings disprove nothing. suppose we stopped using insulin because it didn't work on 30 people? or deciding that aids is no longer an epidemic because there's a family in england that's immune to it? you can't base results on the bits that are out of the ordinary.
I also read at AiG that forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for submission with samples to be dated commonly ask how old the sample is expected to be. Why??. If the techniques were absolutely objective & reliable such information should not be necesary. Presumably the laboratories know that anomalous dates are common, so they need some check on wheather they have obtained a 'good' date.
well, it's also good to know WHICH isotope to use. they all have ranges in which they are most accurate, since they all have different half-lives and our tools are only so accurate. plus, if they date something as way different from what it's expected to be, they can check for things like contamination.
Creationists understand the limitations of dating methods alot better than evolutionists
i haven't seen anyone demonstrate a better understanding of it than physicists. certainly not creationists who argue that the laws of physics are different now than the used to be a few thousand years ago.
[editted to add:]
also, the point was to show that techniques MUST be invalid, not that they occasionally CAN be.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 06-11-2004 02:24 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by almeyda, posted 06-11-2004 2:48 AM almeyda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-14-2004 5:56 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 8 of 50 (114361)
06-11-2004 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by almeyda
06-11-2004 2:48 AM


Almeyda,
You know it always hits me that if all this evolution was so true and so obvious then there would not be any doubt among the leading evolutionists.
We're not talking about evolution, though, are we? Leave the goalposts where they are & concentrate on the actual issue, pls.
Now, why don't you answer the original question in your own words?
Why must radiometric dating be invalid?
One last thing, we are attempting to have a logic & evidence based discussion, & quotes & opinions are neither here nor there. EVIDENCE, LOGIC. OK? You could make posts miles of quotes that disagree with radiometric dating, & it wouldn't have one iota of bearing on the logic of your argument (if you manage to come up with one)
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 06-11-2004 04:09 AM

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by almeyda, posted 06-11-2004 2:48 AM almeyda has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 9 of 50 (114431)
06-11-2004 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by almeyda
06-11-2004 2:48 AM


quote:
"Certain fossils appear to be restricted to rocks of a relatively limited geological age span. These are called index fossils. Whenever a rock is found bearing such a fossil, its approximate age is automatically established...
This method is not foolproof. Occasionally an organism, previously thought to be extinct, is found to be extant. Such "living fossils" obviously cannot function as index fossils except within the broader time span of their known existence" - William D.Stansfield (California Polytechnic State University)
This is silly. On the one hand Stansfield is talking about "index fossils" and in the next sentence, about "Occasionally an organism..." and makes the obvious comment that such fossils cannot be index fossils. Well, I hate to rain on your parade, but such are NOT index fossils. Your quote is utterly meaningless. NOt all fossils are index fossils.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by almeyda, posted 06-11-2004 2:48 AM almeyda has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 10 of 50 (114447)
06-11-2004 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by almeyda
06-11-2004 2:48 AM


Almeyda writes:
- Facts dont speak for themselves.
Once agin you bring up this totally incorrect statement.
Facts do speak for themselves. That is the very nature of facts.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by almeyda, posted 06-11-2004 2:48 AM almeyda has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 50 (114454)
06-11-2004 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by almeyda
06-11-2004 2:48 AM


Almeyda,
I would hardly call Stansfield an evolutionist. He is poorly informed on the state of radioisotope dating, as is shown by this quote from this site
Creationists argue that since C14 has not yet reached its equilibrium rate, the age of the atmosphere must be less than 20,000 years old. It is possible that a greater concentration of water vapor existed prior to the Biblical flood (presumably about 5,000 years ago). This water vapor may have retarded neutron production by cosmic rays and consequently diminished the yield of C14. This would give early fossils a low C14/C12 ratio and therefore the appearance of great antiquity. On the other hand, if a lower concentration of water vapor existed, there may have been a greater amount of C14 produced; the increased C14/C12 ratio in the fossil would be interpreted as a relatively young age. The water-vapor content of the atmosphere has varied considerably in the past, thereby disturbing any C14 equilibrium that may have been attained.
Real scientists freely admit that C12/C14 ratios will NEVER be in equilibrium. This is why varves and ice layers have been used to calibrate the carbon isotope fluctuations. Stansfield never mentions this fact (at least on the site I referenced). Poor scholarship in the extreme.
This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 06-11-2004 11:40 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by almeyda, posted 06-11-2004 2:48 AM almeyda has not replied

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


Message 12 of 50 (114539)
06-11-2004 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by almeyda
06-11-2004 2:48 AM


Your entire post is just a series of unsupported assertions. Facts and data and formal and logical analyses of facts and data are evidence.
I will respond to a few items:
All the above methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable, because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history. ... - William D. Stansfield (California Polytechnic State University}
Professor of Biological Sciences. Maybe he knows what he's talking about, maybe he doesn't. But that particular statement is flat-out wrong, no matter who said it. There is no evidence of the possibility of noticable fluctuations in decay rates under conditions encountered or encounter-able on Earth. On the contrary, we have lots of evidence that decay rates have not fluctuated. Sylas once posted an excellent list that doesn't even include all the evidence but does hit all the high points:
  • Observations of nuclear reactions in distant stars and distant galaxies (for which the reactions took place thousands or millions of years ago).
  • Inferences about nuclear processes in the very early universe before galaxy formation.
  • Cross checking of dates against other non-radiometric dating methods.
  • Cross checking of radically different radiometric methods.
  • Study of residues from the Oklo natural nuclear reactor, active nearly two billion years ago.
  • Theory of quantum mechanics, which is itself one of the most precisely studied and tested models in physics. Radioactive decay is a process that is well understood. We know a great deal about the relevant forces and the structure of atoms, and how and why they decay. In fact, I would say radioactive decay is substantially better understood than gravity. This illustrates the principal that confidence in scientific models is related also to how well the underlying principals are understood.
  • Testing of a range of conditions in which decay might vary. If decay rates have varied, then can we reproduce the conditions under which this occurs? In some cases, yes; and none of them make any difference to dating technique
It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological "clock". The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists" - William D. Stansfield (California Polytechnic State University
Age determinations on a given geological stratum will rarely, if ever, differ by hundreds of millions of years. They may differ by a few poercent for good and well-understood reasons. Geologists and "evolutionists" are not disturbed by uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating. Note that your source cut off the quote in the middle of a sentence with no indication of that fact; that's dishonest quote mining. The full sentence is "The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists, but their overall interpretation supports the concept of a long history of geological evolution. {emphasis added}
"In general, dates in the "correct ball park" are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained" - Richard L Mauger (East Carolina University)
Absolutely untrue. If one comes up with a date that is anomolous and can't come up with a good explanation why it is anomolous, that's very publishable and will certainly be published.
"Certain fossils appear to be restricted to rocks of a relatively limited geological age span. These are called index fossils. Whenever a rock is found bearing such a fossil, its approximate age is automatically established...
This method is not foolproof. Occasionally an organism, previously thought to be extinct, is found to be extant. Such "living fossils" obviously cannot function as index fossils except within the broader time span of their known existence" - William D.Stansfield (California Polytechnic State University)
And, obviously, such "living fossils" are significantly different from their fossil relatives, and are not used as index fossils.
When a date differs from that expected. The evolutionist readily invent excuses for rejecting the result.
Another false and unsupported assertion, and slanderous as well. You insult all scientists. Let's see your evidence for this claim.
I also read at AiG that forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for submission with samples to be dated commonly ask how old the sample is expected to be. Why??. If the techniques were absolutely objective & reliable such information should not be necesary. Presumably the laboratories know that anomalous dates are common, so they need some check on wheather they have obtained a 'good' date.
Very poor presumption, and obviously false to those who actually know something about how the tests are carried out. Many labs are for-profit, all labs have a budget. They don't make money unless they make efficient use of their equipment. If they don't have some crude idea of how old the specimen is, they can't set their equipment to measure in the right range; they may have to try several runs to get the appropriate settings, and they lose money. (The guess doesn't have to be real close, they can put up with being off in a few cases, but they can't handle having to make multiple runs on all samples, for purely economic reasons).
In the particular case of potassium-argon dating, if the sample is suspected to be young they need to do a heroic cleaning of the mass spectrometer to remove all the residual argon that they can, because they will be trying to measure a very very small amount of argon. If the sample is expected to be old, they can put up with a little contamination from leftover argon because its effect will be unnoticable. And if the sample is expected to be old but really is young, they will be able to tell after the measurement that the argon that they measured may be largely from leftover argon, and they will have to clean the mass spec and run the sample again ... more money down the tubes.
Typical AIG propagand, full of lies of omission and comission. E.g.:
quote:
These include the assumption that decay rates have never changed. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by factors of billions of times.
One decay rate (not rates) of a type of decay that is involved in only one of several dozen radioisotope methods, and that method is not widely used has been increased in the laboratory by factors of billions of times only under conditions which would vaporize the entire Earth and everything on Earth long before the required temperature was reached.
Or:
quote:
Instead of questioning the method, he would say that the radiometric date was not recording the time that the rock solidified. He may suggest that the rock contained crystals (called xenocrysts) that formed long before the rock solidified and that these crystals gave an older date.3 He may suggest that some other very old material had contaminated the lava as it passed through the earth. Or he may suggest that the result was due to a characteristic of the lavathat the dyke had inherited an old ‘age’.
None of these suggestions would be made or accepted without evidence for the suggestion. For example, nobody would suggest xenocrysts unless xenocrysts were found (if the sample can be examined) or were likely to be found (if the sample were not available for examination, which pretty much happens only with samples taken by creationists).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by almeyda, posted 06-11-2004 2:48 AM almeyda has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 50 (114955)
06-14-2004 1:29 AM


- Different dating techniques should consistently agree
If the dating methods an objective and reliable means of determining ages then they should agree within the limits of experimental error. However with radiometric dating the different techniques often give different results. All sorts of reasons are suggested for bad dates but this again shows posterior reasoning. Techniques that give bad results that can be dismissed because they dont agree with the observers presuppositions about origins and age of earth cannot be considered objective. In Australia, wood found in Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was dated by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000yrs old. But the basalt was dated by the potassium-argon method at 45 millions yrs old.
- Carbon dating
Carbon dating in many cases embarrass evolutionists by giving ages that are much younger than those expected from their model of earths history. A specimen older that 50,000yrs should have too little 14C to measure.

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 06-14-2004 1:33 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 15 by arachnophilia, posted 06-14-2004 2:26 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 22 by JonF, posted 06-14-2004 9:19 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 23 by jar, posted 06-14-2004 12:17 PM almeyda has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 14 of 50 (114956)
06-14-2004 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by almeyda
06-14-2004 1:29 AM


A specimen older that 50,000yrs should have too little 14C to measure.
You're always going to have the appearance of a little 14C, because of the cosmic radiation background as well as the natural radioactivity of the Earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by almeyda, posted 06-14-2004 1:29 AM almeyda has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 15 of 50 (114973)
06-14-2004 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by almeyda
06-14-2004 1:29 AM


In Australia, wood found in Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was dated by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000yrs old. But the basalt was dated by the potassium-argon method at 45 millions yrs old.
duh.
the number one things that throws of carbon dating? FIRE. do you know why? fire burns things. charring is carbon. which really throws off the carbon to nitrogen ration, making it look it hasn't decayed at all.
also, carbon dating is innefective after about 40,000 years anyways, because the amount of carbon 14 is usually so negligable.
in other words, it's inaccurate for two obvious reasons.
Carbon dating in many cases embarrass evolutionists by giving ages that are much younger than those expected from their model of earths history. A specimen older that 50,000yrs should have too little 14C to measure.
other isotopes and their half lives:
Uranium-238, Lead-206: 4.5 billion years
Uranium-235, Lead-207: 704 million years
Thorium-232, Lead-208: 14.0 billion years
Rubidium-87, Strontium-87: 48.8 billion years
Potassium-40, Argon-40: 1.25 billion years
Samarium-147, Neodymium-143: 106 billion years
no one dates fossils or rocks with carbon-14 since it can't be done. no one uses it for things out of the span of human history. carbon 14 doesn't embarass anyone. except people who believe in the shroud of turin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by almeyda, posted 06-14-2004 1:29 AM almeyda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-14-2004 3:06 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024