Buz's refutation of all radiometric dating methods

quote:

---

So, you admit to not understanding the "nuts and bolts" (i.e. the basics) of these dating methds, but disbelieve them all because of the use of the word "possibilities" is used twice in a short layman-level explanation of two methods??

​

You must get pretty sore from all of the twisting and contorting, don't you?

---

Not to mention the hand-waving and insertion of fingers into ears....[This message has been edited by zephyr, 09-18-2003]

SCHRAF WHY ARE YOU AND BUZ ALWAYS FIGHTING?

quote:

---

possibility

---

The usage of the word "possibility" twice is in reference to assist creationists in attempting to debunk the dating method. However, if you had read on into those sentences, you would have realized that it required preposterous possibilities in the second case, and would have meant that the fossils were actually *older* than dated in the first case.

quote:

---

I'd rather think they would be fairly consistently wrong if the false reading were caused by conditions commonly affecting all.

---

First off, there is no "common condition" to all of them except the decay rate of radioisotopes, which are at different rates. However, unless if radioisotope decay rates could vary, you can't just have them all vary by the same amount (and do you really want to go into the changing the rates of decay for radioisotopes? Because, to summarize, to make it consistant with reality, it would requires enough altering of physical parameters that it basically contracts time, for which any observer witnessed time would experience no difference. The Earth's rotation would speed up as well, so the number of "days" would remain constant.). You still would have the following problem:Each dating method utilizes a mineral with a completely different half-life. In many cases, the radioactive materials come from different sources. Let's present a simple case:Mineral A has a halflife of 1 year
Mineral B has a halflife of 2 years
Mineral C has a halflife of 4 yearsYou find a rock that contains a ratio that indicates 50% breakdown of mineral A (.5 ^ 1), ~30% breakdown of mineral B (.5 ^ (1/2)), and ~15% breakdown of mineral C (.5 ^ (1/4)). All three of these methods confirm each other in that the rock is 1 year old. Now, let's say that you wanted to show that this is a flawed conclusion. Well, not only do you need to show that each method is wrong, but you n
eed to show that they're all wrong by the same amount in years (not in percents).Let's say that you wanted to show that the rock was 3 months old. You would have to show that there really was a 15% change in mineral A, a 8% change in mineral B, and a 4% change in mineral C. That means that there's a 35% error in mineral A, a 22% error in mineral B, and a 4% error in mineral C.Now, if the rock had 75% breakdown of mineral A, 50% breakdown of mineral B, and 30% breakdown of mineral C, it dates to 2 years using the scientific method. To make it date to your 3 month time frame, you need a 60% error on A, a 42% error on B, and a 26% error on C.Why are the "errors" completely different for *every sample* that you try, in a way that indicates an old Earth? They don't scale together - they scale completely independently.Punch in whatever numbers you want - but you'll realize that it's virtually impossible to stretch real dating numbers to any sort of creationist framework unless you break the rules that scientists operate under (multiple samples from a uniform mineral, no carbon dating of organisms which are exposed to a "resevoir effect", etc). Unfortunately, creationists often like to violate these, which is a big scientific no-no. Then, remember that there are thousands apon thousands of samples that are multiply confirmed every year. How do *all* of the numbers get these supposed inconsistant error levels every time? How do these different methods confirm each other?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 09-18-2003]

Rei,What is that scary avatar?Mark

Oh, that? I whipped it up in half an hour. I like doing photoedits. I started with a human eye, shifted the colors, and overlayed a distorted computer chip over the eye itself. I then did some frame-by-frame distortions to make it slowly look around, and some distortions plus painting for the blinking. I then optimized the frames so that it would be a small file so that I could use it as an avatar.

quote:

---

So, you admit to not understanding the "nuts and bolts" (i.e. the basics) of these dating methds, but disbelieve them all because of the use of the word "possibilities" is used twice in a short layman-level explanation of two methods??

---

Schraf, this's the reason I'm not going to get drawn back into this futile argument. You keep spinning things I say and in fact the title of this, your thread, is a spin job.1. You were apprised at the onset that I've no diploma above high school. Now you're spinning that to make it look like I'm finally admitting to be uneducated in these things.
2. Now that I comment on someone's word "possibilities," you're trying to spin that into being my primary argument for questioning the dating methods and others are echoing you.
3. The reason I posted post 235 is to clarify that my premise was not so much that the methods were bogus in themselves as your title is implying, but that conditions not actually proven and unable to be proven to exist millions and billions of years ago may cause a false/bogus reading. After all, as a creationist and student of the Bible, I have ample evidence that it is a supernatural book by the record of fulfilled prophecy and other things. Also, if it was all created and Adam was created with the appearance of age, nobody knows what else was created with the appearance of age.Please reread post 235 and stop spinning this into other things to make me look silly.

quote:

---

First off, there is no "common condition" to all of them except the decay rate of radioisotopes, which are at different rates.

---

The point I was trying to make is that if the chemical makeup and/or quantity of certain elements in the atmosphere or soil were different than is understood and thought by those using these dating methods were different, this difference would affect all methods, causing all to err. My other thing, of course, is that we who believe things were created believe nobody knows how that would affect the readings. My position has always been that the earth itself is not necessarily young, but that all living creatures were created about 6000 years ago. None of us, nor anyone else was actually around way back when, so nothing can be set in stone in this debate, imo.

WOW! I'm impressed

Buz, what it seems to come down to is that you have no idea how any of the methods, much less all of them could be wrong. You'd just like it to be that way.The "no one was there, so we don't know for sure argument" starts to look pretty silly very quickly. You can apply that to too many different cases including what happened in Palestine 2,000 odd years ago. No one there wrote anything down.What we do have is a huge, collosal, enormous collection of observations that all are tied together very nicely by the consensus view of how things have unfolded. There is simply no better suggestion for how things have happened. When someone has one that handles all the known facts then changes will be made.You've been asked specifically how the dating methods could all be wrong. You have now admitted that you have no idea. All you say is that things might have been different in some way.You haven't even constructed or found from creationist sources a coherent way that ANY conditions could produce the results we see. Once you have some scenarios for different conditions that are internally consistent and produce the results measured then maybe there would be a way ot test them to see if they are not only internally consistent but consistent with the external world.If you want instead to invoke miracles you are welcome to. However, this will have to be restricted to church. If that is the best you can do then the creation "scientists" can drop the scientist part and leave the rest of us alone.

quote:

---

The point I was trying to make is that if the chemical makeup and/or quantity of certain elements in the atmosphere or soil were different than is understood and thought by those using these dating methods were different, this difference would affect all methods, causing all to err. My other thing, of course, is that we who believe things were created believe nobody knows how that would affect the readings. My position has always been that the earth itself is not necessarily young, but that all living creatures were created about 6000 years ago. None of us, nor anyone else was actually around way back when, so nothing can be set in stone in this debate, imo.

---

What you are saying is that we should base a theory on what we DON'T know rather than the available evidence. Well, I guess that works for you, but most scientists think that theories should explain the existing data.

This is, in my opinion, where you are in error.If the chemical make-up/quantity/whatever of certain elements were different than they are now, then only the dating methods based on those elements would be inaccurate. Unrelated methods would be unaffected.Now, if it's your opinion that every element related to dating the past is somehow different - and different in such a way as to make unrelated dating methods still converge on the same date - that's either a coincidence of unimagineable magnitude or a mechanism that is hitherto unknown to science. If the latter, why wouldn't such an event have left characteristic evidence of it having happened?Most things that happen leave evidence that they did so. You're talking about something happening that would affect a number of different, unrelated expectations about the history of the Earth - and at the same time, left no evidence of it having done so.You're free to talk about magic all you like, but understand that scientists don't put much stock in hand-waving, magical explanations. You can talk about miracles and God all you like, but geologists are going to do the actual work of dating the Earth.

quote:

---

I started with a human eye, shifted the colors, and overlayed a distorted computer chip over the eye itself. I then did some frame-by-frame distortions to make it slowly look around, and some distortions plus painting for the blinking. I then optimized the frames so that it would be a small file so that I could use it as an avatar.

---

It's absolutely beautiful.

I'm not fighting.I'm debating.(OK, sometimes I poke him with a pointy stick a little bit.)Anyway, Buz just says some of the most outlandish things and I then challenge him to support what he says.He generally does not respond to me any more. I wonder why that is?

quote:

---

1. You were apprised at the onset that I've no diploma above high school. Now you're spinning that to make it look like I'm finally admitting to be uneducated in these things.

---

Well, why did you bring up your education if you didn't think it relevant. I certainly seemed to me that you were pretty clearly saying that because you have no degree above high school you don't understand the "nuts and bolts" of the dating methods.This is, I surmised, why you did not respond directly to Rei's specific example and instead said that you only had a high school education.

quote:

---

2. Now that I comment on someone's word "possibilities," you're trying to spin that into being my primary argument for questioning the dating methods and others are echoing you.

---

Well, that WAS the only comment you made in response to Rei's explanation of the specific dating method. I do not think it unreasonable to surmise that this was the best rebuttal you could provide, considering you had nothing else to say.

quote:

---

3. The reason I posted post 235 is to clarify that my premise was not so much that the methods were bogus in themselves as your title is implying, but that conditions not actually proven and unable to be proven to exist millions and billions of years ago may cause a false/bogus reading.

---

...and this has been addressed ad nauseum in this and other threads. You simply refuse to acknowledge the facts.Simply answer the following, Buz;1) How can all the various dating methods be bogus/inaccurate in such a way as to return amazingly consistent results between and among all methods?2) What is your evidence that decay rates were significantly different in the past than they are today?

quote:

---

After all, as a creationist and student of the Bible, I have ample evidence that it is a supernatural book by the record of fulfilled prophecy and other things.

---

Perhaps you missed my message to you a page or two ago in this thread.Please choose one or two unambiguous prophecies which you consider to have been fulfilled and list them here.Please include non-Biblical evidence (i.e. independent evidence) as evidence.

quote:

---

Also, if it was all created and Adam was created with the appearance of age, nobody knows what else was created with the appearance of age.

---

So, God is a deceiver?

quote:

---

My position has always been that the earth itself is not necessarily young, but that all living creatures were created about 6000 years ago. None of us, nor anyone else was actually around way back when, so nothing can be set in stone in this debate, imo.

---

We have tree ring chronologies dating back 10,000 years.How do you explain this?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-19-2003]