Controversial Places

Has Mt St Helens ever been dated using any kind of methods? If you have an answer, leave me with a link or resource.I just read about some volcanoes that were Potassium-Argon dated and then carbon-14 dated, and the two numbers came up very different.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/volcano.htmlKnow of any others?

Maybe that's because neither of those methods are appropriate to measure new volcanic rock? If you use a yardstick to measure a paper clip, is it the yardstick's fault if your results are wrong?

Okay, so mr. expert, what methods would you say should be used since we have to use multiple methods to prove that it was correctly done? And what methods should be used to date something that is a couple hundred years old?

You mean if the date doesnt comes out the way you want its wrong.

Well, if it's within the range of recorded human history, I'd look at the human records. How else?Outside of that range it depends on what we're talking about. Different things get dated differently.

No. What I said was that if all your dating methods give different dates, you know you have a problem. But if your dates all come out the same, you can trust them.If you wiegh yourself on a bathroom spring scale, it's possible that there's a hidden factor changing your wieght. Like maybe you're in a moving elevator.But if you measure with a balance, it's possible that there's a hidden factor - maybe you're below decks on a rolling ship at sea.But if you measure with both, you can be confident about your wieght, because there's no single factor that's going to throw off both a scale and a balance in exactly the same way.

so then, if you would look to human records and not be able to use a dating method, then why exactly do you think its right for another period in time?

And what if they're both wrong because of different reasons, but you come out with the same answer? What if you have to household scales, both of which are set 100 lbs heavier. Just because they both come out the same way does that mean that they're right? I don't think so!

Jazz, you should not make statments like that when you have no idea what you are talking about.If you do actually have something meaningful there, perhaps you could make it clear what it is.As a bit of education for you:Any radiometric dating method needs enough time for some decay to take place. In addition, there has to be enough to produce accurately measureable quantities of daughter produce.If I use an element with, say a 2 billion year half life and there were, say, 10 grams to begin with, then how many grams of daughter produce will there be in 200 years.Can this, under the particular circumstances, be accurately measured? Do what degree of accuracy?Yourcute little throwaway line would be interesting if you weren't useing it to replace any real knowledge of the subject or real argument. In other words it comes across as childish and annoying.

Are you aware that a volcanic eruption with a good historic date (but far enough in the past to have a chance of an accurate date) has been dated? And it was accurate? That is one way to check that particular method.There are many reasons for concluding that dating methods are accurate. A relatively minor one actually.

And what causes both to be out by the same amount? For 2 cases there is some chance of the answers agreeing by chance. But unless deliberately tweaked the chance isn't all that great. For several completely different methods the chance starts to get very small indeed.Are you, by analogy, suggesting that someone has deliberately tweaked the dating results to fool someone? Who would that be?

Oh yupp, must be it. Someone tweaked them, or maybe they're just not quite so accurate as you all think. Plus, how old do you think the earth is anyway? And if the Grand Canyon is supposedly so old, then why is there so much proof that is isn't and that it all formed at once. Why are people so stunned to see that there are ocean-life fossils in there, when it's so obvious. Noah's flood. The worldwide flood, isn't it using MORE faith to believe something else happened?

I just measured a paper clip with my yardstick and it's exactly 1 1/4". I can measure down to 1/16" with my wonderful common yardstick.

What would be the odds of that? Significantly less than the odds of it being your correct wieght.And if you don't feel comfortable eliminating unknown factors, you add a third weighing method, and a fourth, and so on, until the odds of so many unrelated factors just happening to affect all your different methods to the same degree are low enough to be within your confidence interval. Well, when I calibrate them on a known weight before using them, I'm going to discover the discrepancy, aren't I?You're asking great, insightful questions but I can't believe you haven't thought of these answers. You could be a great scientist, though. You should look into it.

I guess I was referring to something like an unmarked yardstick, where the resolution of all your measurements with it is one yard. That would be a more accurate analogy to many scientific tests.Better yet try to measure a quarter-second with your common wristwatch. You'll find your time piece just doesn't have the resolution to measure that short a period of time - better to use a stopwatch designed for that measurement.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-16-2004]