Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
65 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 64 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,163 Year: 4,275/6,534 Month: 489/900 Week: 13/182 Day: 1/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dating Methods Controversy Discussion
No Name Available
Unregistered


Message 1 of 42 (1273)
12-26-2001 12:26 AM



  
No Name Available
Unregistered


Message 1 of 42 (1274)
12-26-2001 12:26 AM



  
No Name Available
Unregistered


Message 1 of 42 (1275)
12-26-2001 12:26 AM



  
No Name Available
Unregistered


Message 1 of 42 (1276)
12-26-2001 12:26 AM



  
No Name Available
Unregistered


Message 1 of 42 (1277)
12-26-2001 12:26 AM



  
No Name Available
Unregistered


Message 1 of 42 (1278)
12-26-2001 12:26 AM



  
No Name Available
Unregistered


Message 1 of 42 (1279)
12-26-2001 12:26 AM



  
No Name Available
Unregistered


Message 1 of 42 (1280)
12-26-2001 12:26 AM



  
No Name Available
Unregistered


Message 1 of 42 (1281)
12-26-2001 12:26 AM



  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 6811 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 2 of 42 (926)
12-18-2001 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TrueCreation
12-18-2001 10:59 PM


... and could we possibly touch on the issue of how non-specialists can evaluate the discussions?

What are the criteria by which one can judge a dating method?

Otherwise, this could end up being another sterile "your expert says x, my expert says not x" ping-pong match of secondhand opinions.

My own position on this? I have friends and colleagues who are involved professionally in radiometric dating and I trust their professionalism. They are well informed, understand the arguments, and take an active, if somewhat amused, interest in the young earthers. If we didn't implicitly use the argument from authority as an everyday heuristic we would never get out of bed, but just lie there rigid from skepticism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TrueCreation, posted 12-18-2001 10:59 PM TrueCreation has taken no action

lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 42 (927)
12-19-2001 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by TrueCreation
12-18-2001 10:59 PM


Given that the overwhelming majority of the evidence points to an Old Earth, and you are challenging the scientific status quo, perhaps you should identify specific and detailed cases where radiometric dating produced results that do not support an old Earth. You are making an extraordinary claim, extraordinary evidence is required.

BTW, you should also address the evidence that the Earth was old that was established well before radiometric dating was used.

Cheers,
Larry Handli


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TrueCreation, posted 12-18-2001 10:59 PM TrueCreation has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 4429 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 4 of 42 (930)
12-19-2001 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by TrueCreation
12-18-2001 10:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
I thought this would be a great topic of discussion, as I have seen through my readings on the creation/evolution debate this seems to be a point of weakness to the old earthers in many cases.
Give examples of an accurate Dating method that points to an old earth or a younge earth including radiometric dating techniques, or point out flaws in the known Dating methods.

The Debate Rages on


Without resorting to sources. Radiometric dating, dendrochronology, cation leeching, & varves.

In any of the above examples, one is corroborated by another.

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TrueCreation, posted 12-18-2001 10:59 PM TrueCreation has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 42 (941)
12-19-2001 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by TrueCreation
12-18-2001 10:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
The Debate Rages on

If the debate rages on as you say and currently accepted dating methods are so flawed why will leading proponents of YEC not jump at the chance to discuss the matter with recognised experts in the area.....

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/creation_science_and_free_speech2.htm

"I had not intended to interject during Roberts's talk, but could not stay quiet during one of his more fatuous references to scientific evidence. My query, about radiocarbon dating, was picked up by another member of the audience who, for his pains, was evicted from the auditorium, together with his wife, by the security guards. He was Dr Colin Murray Wallace, an expert in radiocarbon dating, then with Newcastle University!"

So tell me if dating methods are so flawed why will creationists not engage in any meaningfull debate on the subject with recognised authorities in the field?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TrueCreation, posted 12-18-2001 10:59 PM TrueCreation has replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 42 (942)
12-19-2001 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by lbhandli
12-19-2001 12:02 AM


Are we not here to discuss this 'overwhelming evidence of an old earth'? So lets discuss this overwhelming evidence. I know your most likely that kind of person, but in my attempts to discuss this overwhelming evidence of an old earth, all they ever say is that 'the evidence is overwhelming' and often don't give a reference to what the evidence is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by lbhandli, posted 12-19-2001 12:02 AM lbhandli has replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 42 (943)
12-19-2001 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by mark24
12-19-2001 4:51 AM


Considering Radio metric dating, I am sure many of you have heard of the assumptions falling in with it, I have never recieved a comment on them accept well thats irrelivant and they never tell you why. I have yet to see someone give an explination on why these assumptions are not assumptions at all.

This is some information on Carbon14 Dating Techniques:

'The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately', 'To conclude Carbon14 dating, when something is dated of known age, it doesn't work. When something is dated of unknown age, it is assumed to work.'

Carbon 14 does not measure millions of years, at best 50 thousand years, here are the major problems with radioisotope dating for various radioactive elements.

1. You have to assume that the influx of cosmic rays from the sun have been constant, can science do that? No it cant, this is an assumption that falls outside the realm of science.

2. You have to assume that the earths magnetosphere has always been constant, science cannot say that the magnetosphere has always been constant.

-Since we have measured it we have seen that it has been decreasing very rapidly.

3. You have to assume the ratio of Carbon14 to Carbon12 today has always been constant. What we know from geology is that one point in earths history there was up to 16 times more carbondioxide in the atmosphere, today, plants are starving from a lack of carbon dioxide they don't have enough carbon dioxide, many scientists say. And so we find that one point in earths history there was much much more carbon dioxide than there is currently in the earth today.

4. You have to assume that the earth has not been flooded with a global flood. A global flood would very rapidly burry vast amounts of carbon very very quickly making things look much older than they actually are.

5. You have to assume we haven't been burning fossilized fuels, since we have been burning fossilized fuel, its thrown the ratio's off tremendously, they have to do calibrations for that.

6. Another problem is the number of nuclei in your sample, when you have a given sample, you can't have once you go over one half life, a large number in your sample, to get an accurate date. If you'll read in your quantum physics books, on the laws built for the natural decay life, its built on large numbers in the sample, that's the only way it works.

7. You have to assume the decay rate has been constant, this is very verifiable today, we do basically assume that.

8. You have to assume that this rock/fossil or whatever your specimen has been in an isolated system for about 4 billion years, for K, Ar, and other various long range dating methods. You have to assume that none of that rock has been broken off or has been split or cracked in any way. You have to assume that you've had no daughter product in the rock to begin with. You have to assume that things have not been leached out by ground water.

When you want a rock dated you have to 'Fill out a paper that says what strata you found it in, what fossils you found near it, and what age it should be. You send it into them and they date it, they get ranges all over the place.' Not consistent at all 'And then they go look it up in the little book about the information that you've given them and then they say, ok this information says that these dates in the book are the right ones and those are the dates they give you.'

If you stretched space out, you will have a very fast rapid decay of nuclear isotopes

Here are some quotes from John Woodmorappe’s paper, “Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 16(2)102-29, p. 147, September 1979, that indicate that radiometric dates are scattered, and that anomalies are often not reported: “Improved laboratory techniques and improved constants have not reduced the scatter in recent years. Instead, the uncertainty grows as more and more data is accumulated ... ” (Waterhouse).

“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.” (Mauger)

“ ... the thing to do is get a sequence of dates and throw out those that are vastly anomalous.” (Curtis et al)

“ ... it is usual to obtain a spectrum of discordant dates and to select the concentration of highest values as the correct age.” (Armstrong and Besancon).

“In general, strong discordances can be expected among ages deduced by different methods.” (Brown and Miller)

A survey of the 15,000 radiocarbon dates published through the year 1969 in the publication, Radiocarbon, revealed the following significant facts:27 a. Of the dates of 9671 specimens of trees, animals, and man, only 1146 or about 12 percent have radiocarbon ages greater than 12,530 years.

b. Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as “infinite.”

c. Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many millions of years old, have radiocarbon ages of less than 50,000 years.

d. Deep ocean deposits supposed to contain remains of the most primitive life forms are dated within 40,000 years.

Coal from Russia from the “Pennsylvanian,” supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 12-19-2001 4:51 AM mark24 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022