Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Correlation Among Various Radiometric Ages
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 16 of 61 (374183)
01-03-2007 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 8:25 PM


Re: Bump for JesusFighter
That they do not work effectively in DATING ROCKS!
Then what, pray tell, are these methods used to date? The hard things people dig out of the ground are very often known as "rocks" in English, and are the things mentioned in those links! What are you on about?
Edited by Coragyps, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 8:25 PM Casey Powell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 8:43 PM Coragyps has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 17 of 61 (374184)
01-03-2007 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 8:33 PM


Re: Bump for JesusFighter
Correlation? Do you realize how ambiguous that claim is?
To the contrary; the mathematical tests for correlation are quite unambiguous. They tell you exactly how unlikely the probability of achieving that degree of correlation totally at random would be.
What's your statistics background?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 8:33 PM Casey Powell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 8:38 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Casey Powell 
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 61 (374185)
01-03-2007 8:37 PM


In order for Radiometric dating to be of any use, the following four criteria must be met:
1. The decay constant and the abundance of K40 must be known accurately.
2. There must have been no incorporation of Ar40 into the mineral at the time of crystallization or a leak of Ar40 from the mineral following crystallization.
3. The system must have remained closed for both K40 and Ar40 since the time of crystallization.
4. The relationship between the data obtained and a specific event must be known.
Guess what....not here, not ever!

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by DrJones*, posted 01-03-2007 8:41 PM Casey Powell has replied
 Message 23 by Coragyps, posted 01-03-2007 8:44 PM Casey Powell has replied
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 01-03-2007 8:56 PM Casey Powell has replied

  
Casey Powell 
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 61 (374186)
01-03-2007 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by crashfrog
01-03-2007 8:35 PM


Re: Bump for JesusFighter
You don't give a single objective standard of proof so your question is irrelevant here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2007 8:35 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2007 8:45 PM Casey Powell has replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 20 of 61 (374188)
01-03-2007 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 8:33 PM


Re: Bump for JesusFighter
jf writes:
Correlation? Do you realize how ambiguous that claim is?
LOL, did Stephen Colbert just sign in to EVC.
JF bless us with your wisdom. Are you reasoning from the gut?
Bah... Correlations have a well-known reality bias.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 8:33 PM Casey Powell has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 21 of 61 (374189)
01-03-2007 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 8:37 PM


In order for Radiometric dating to be of any use, the following four criteria must be met:
...K40 ....
...Ar40 ...
Just to be clear, there are several different types of radiometric dating. Potassium/Argon is just one of them.

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 8:37 PM Casey Powell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 8:44 PM DrJones* has replied

  
Casey Powell 
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 61 (374191)
01-03-2007 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Coragyps
01-03-2007 8:34 PM


Re: Bump for JesusFighter
They aren't effective in dating anything!
They are effective in that we can measure a rock's mass, its volume, its colour, the minerals in it, their size and the way they are arranged. We can crush the rock and measure its chemical composition and the radioactive elements it contains. But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Coragyps, posted 01-03-2007 8:34 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Coragyps, posted 01-03-2007 8:49 PM Casey Powell has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 23 of 61 (374193)
01-03-2007 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 8:37 PM


You've sort of mentioned potassium-argon dating here. Would you like to learn a little about uranium-lead, uranium-thorium, thorium-lead, samarium-neodymium, rubidium-strontium, or lutetium-hafnium dating, too? Or one of the other methods that all the correlations spoken of here are built on?
We can learn you up if you'd like.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 8:37 PM Casey Powell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 8:45 PM Coragyps has replied

  
Casey Powell 
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 61 (374194)
01-03-2007 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by DrJones*
01-03-2007 8:41 PM


Yes there are a few. Elephant hurl as far as I'm concerned though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by DrJones*, posted 01-03-2007 8:41 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by DrJones*, posted 01-03-2007 8:51 PM Casey Powell has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 25 of 61 (374195)
01-03-2007 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 8:38 PM


Re: Bump for JesusFighter
You don't give a single objective standard of proof so your question is irrelevant here.
No, I did. The mathematical standards of correlative analysis are the objective standard of proof.
How wasn't that clear from my post? I couldn't possibly have been clearer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 8:38 PM Casey Powell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 8:46 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Casey Powell 
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 61 (374196)
01-03-2007 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Coragyps
01-03-2007 8:44 PM


Do the words, elephant hurl mean anything to you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Coragyps, posted 01-03-2007 8:44 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Coragyps, posted 01-03-2007 8:54 PM Casey Powell has replied

  
Casey Powell 
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 61 (374197)
01-03-2007 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by crashfrog
01-03-2007 8:45 PM


Re: Bump for JesusFighter
Lets see.
The elephant jumped through a really big hoop.
Right, but how big was the hoop?
It was really big!
Thats about what your standard looks like here.
So how do you apply your standard is the question. Examples, and specifics.
Edited by JesusFighter, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2007 8:45 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2007 8:50 PM Casey Powell has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 28 of 61 (374200)
01-03-2007 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 8:43 PM


Re: Bump for JesusFighter
But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age.
We don't have an instrument that "directly measures" silicon, or oxygen, or iron in a rock either. That hardly keeps some smart people from figuring out ways to measure them.
Of course there's no age-meter for a rock. It's nice, though, that there are direct counts of age for trees, or lake bottoms, or glaciers. All of those lead to an earth way over the 6000 years YEC's like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 8:43 PM Casey Powell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 8:52 PM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 33 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 8:52 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 29 of 61 (374202)
01-03-2007 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 8:46 PM


Re: Bump for JesusFighter
Thats about what your standard looks like here.
See, this is why I asked about your statistics background.
If I told you the elephant jumped through a Gauge 10 hoop, and you ask how big the hoop was, it's because you're ignorant of circus props. The size is Gauge 10, like I told you. If you don't know how big that is in feet, or whatever, you need to look up how circus props are sized. (It's a made-up example, by the way.)
Well, you're ignorant of mathematics. So when I tell you that correlation isn't ambiguous, that the standards are clearly defined, you need to open a math textbook and learn some statistics, not simply assert that I haven't said anything.
Look, try thinking a little longer before you post. And try to understand that there are things you don't know, like statistics. Asserting that correlation is arbitrary is just nonsense based on ignorance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 8:46 PM Casey Powell has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 30 of 61 (374203)
01-03-2007 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 8:44 PM


Yes there are a few. Elephant hurl as far as I'm concerned though.
And you base this on?

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 8:44 PM Casey Powell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 8:55 PM DrJones* 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