Dating from the Adams and Eves Threads

Individual dating techniques do not exist in a vacuum... I am by no means a geologist, but as I understand it radiometric dating involves comparing collected samples to other pieces of data as well as various mathematical correlation techniques.http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/wgmt/common/geochronology.htmlIt looks like they are using statistical correlation to determine relationships between many pieces of data. This is certainly a valid analysis technique... In addition, it would seem to me that you could also give some calculation of the accuracy of the dating based on correlation strength.

It sounds like there are two possibilities... Either there was some contamination of the sample or that these fossils contradict moutains of other evidence. If we found more evidence to support the young age of the fossils I would probably say that is a good area for investigation... However, it seems that exactly the opposite is true....In any case science never proves anything, it's about finding the most likely/useful explanation for available evidence......Do you have a better theory that supports this evidence or is it more likely that the current accepted scientific explanation is true?

From what I have read, there are many INDEPENDENT sources that scientists use to estimate the age of the earth. Each one of these methods/sources is going to provide it's own answer for whatever the researcher is trying to date.Now, there certainly may be anomolies or small problems with individual dating methods... However, if I understand the process correctly (and anyone who is a geologist can correct me if I am wrong) the reason we can accept the age estimates provided by all of these various methods is that they all agree with each other to a certain degree. If I can arrive at basically the same answer (within some margin of error) via many different INDEPENDENT methods then I can verify that my dating methods are providing good data.It is certainly possible to point out issues with any individual dating method.... Measurement is not perfect by any means. However, if I can arrive at basically the same answer through many independent experiments I can be quite sure that my answer is accurate.In fact it would seem to me that these dating methods can become more and more accurate as we gather more and more data and building a larger database of results. In addition, we should be able to give a good estimate of the error involved in any dating excersie by analyzing several independent results.If I measure something in 10 completely different ways and find that nine of my methods agree and 1 does not should I assume that 9 of my methods are providing the correct answer or that the one anomalous result is correct?I think that individual dating results are not what makes scientists so certain about various dating methodologies. It is the correlation between many INDEPENDENT methods that makes the science of dating so convincing.

quote:

---

Yep! You've answered your own question, is an anti-religious agenda. Gotta go, no one is taking Neds advice and I need a break. New Years and things and needs that be, etc...

---

You are making a fundamental mistake. Science has nothing to do with belief or religion. Your computer will work whether you believe in quantum mechanics or not. Antibiotics will work for you whether you believe in evolution or not.Science is NOT atheist, it is non-theist. Science has no opinion on god. The existence or non-existence of god is completely irrelevant to science. If scientists discovered any evidence of a higher power it would probably be hailed as the greatest scientific discovery in the history of mankind. However, science is not looking to credit or dis-credit god. Science is simply an attempt to find the best explanation possible for factual evidence. Nothing more, nothing less.You are ascribing motives to science that do not exist. Science has no motives, science is a process.Do certain scientists have motives? Certainly. In fact, many scientists throughout history have been theists. I'm sure there are many christian, muslim, jewish, etc. Evolutionary biologists, geologists, etc. working in the field today. They don't seem to have an axe to grind with their faith.If you TRULY believe in god what greater pursuit can there be than investigating his creation?(I hope that wasn't too off topic, and I apologize if it was).As I understand it dating has just as much to do with math (statistical correlation) as it does science in any case.

mark24 (or anyone else that is knowledgable about dating and fossils and such),I have a question. I am assuming that for fossils that are millions of years old we date the surrounding rock/sediment to determine the age of the fossil. Obviously we would have problems knowing if this is accurate or not for individual fossils (assuming we can not directly date the fossil).Do we know that dating is accurate because we always find the same fossils in the same layers? For example, if the age of the surrounding sediment and/or rock in the area of a T-Rex find approximately matches that of the vast majority of other T-Rex finds (hopefully in disparate locations) it would seem to me that we now know with good certainty the approximate age of the T-Rex fossils. Is this a decent layman's explanation of how this dating works?

Very cool, I do understand that we have several different dating methods (from reading the age of the earth threads on this site) and that we pretty certain that they are accurate due to the correlation of the results. (If I use 10 independent methods to date something and they all basically agree I can assume my data/results are good).Can we directly date most fossils or do we use the surrounding rock to date most fossils? (For the sake of argument let's talk fossils older than 50,000 years). If we can not directly date fossils the method of using index fossils you described makes perfect sense to me. (thanks for indulging me..... I am an engineer and haven't taken any pure science since my college days)Cheers

Thanks a lot... that's just what I was looking for. So really, this is all a big exercise in interpolation and statistical correlation. I am assuming that as we gather more and more data points our dating process can become more and more accurate. Very interesting!

Don't take this the wrong way... but you don't understand basic nuclear physics. I don't claim to understand it as well as some of the experts here....but I did have to take it to get my engineering degree.I recommend you start here:Basic Nuclear Science InformationTo get you going, here is an explanation of radioactivity