Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions

quote:

---

What satisfactorily silences the criticism that evos are dating everything in accordance with a 4.6 billion age of earth ?

---

To you? Nothing. Ever.

quote:

---

What external benchmark criteria established the initial dates from which the convergence is based upon ?

---

There are many sources of information that are independent of each other. First there was the principle of superposition. Radiometic dating has been found to confirm stratigraphic dating and also can be checked by stratigraphic and structural data.

quote:

---

I can test a scales accuracy by an object of which its weight is already known.

---

No. According to your own logic, you are making a BIG assumption in that you know the actual weight of the test. How do you know this? Perhaps because you have been told by the high priests of YEC?

quote:

---

If age of material is known and dating methods fail to date accordingly then by what basis is confidence in these methods maintained ?

---

By determining the reason for discordance.

Known by what method? As has been explained over and over again, convergence with other, independant methods. The same way any measurement is validated.

WT, See if your library has Brent Dalrymple's 'The Age of the Earth.' It's a little out of date - 12 years old or so, and the accuracy of measurement has improved somewhat in that time. He goes one better than you're asking. His Table 4.1, for example, quotes ages using three different isotope systems determined by five different reasearch groups on the Uivak gneisses of Labrador:
3.76 +/- 0.15 billion years (uranium - lead}
3.55 +/- 0.07 billion years ( rubidium - strontium)
3.56 +/- 0.08 billion years ( Rb - Sr)
3.61 +/- 0.20 billion years (Rb - Sr)
3.56 +/- 0.20 billion years (samarium - neodymium)And those are less than a tenth of the entries in the table, all done before 1985. There are still several groups actively researching the old rocks in Labrador and Greenland. They just keep on turning out dates consistent with these - even when they try different methods like argon-argon and lutetium-hafnium! Even when they're just grad students trying to get a degree, and not Evil Atheistic Conspirators hell-bent on destroying Christendom and all of Western Civilization!

Already known? You have to weigh that object in some fashion or define a standard weight to compare to (which is, in the end, what is done).The use of radiometric dating is rather analogous to this case. We make measurements over known periods of time to define "standards". We compare other measurements to those standards.However, since (as is pointed out by creationists) we have to go outside of the range in which we measure for the standards we can't simply take the comparison and leave it at that. There have to be further checks.I'll see if I can extend the analogy a bit. We have a standard weight. We can use that to wear various minerals and other substances. We then sample a mountain and determine it's volume. We say that the measured samples of it's constituants can be extrapolated to megatons even though we only measured kilograms directly. If we do that it would be a good idea to check with some independent means.We could then do a gravity survey of the mountain. Is there enough mass measured that way to compare to our other measurement? Is there is we have a much increased confidence in our determination.If you calibrate a scale by using a standard weight (and it's not a balance beam scale) and then weigh something 100 times the weight of the standard you can NOT be sure that the degree of accuracy obtained with the standard is there. What do you do if you need to know about how much in error you might be? (note we do NOT ever expect to get a "perfect" answer -- we simply need to know how big the worst error can be).You measure the weight again with a system that is different than the first one. Maybe you go from a spring system to a pieziolectric pressure system. If the two are in reasonable agreement you become a bit more sure of your figure. Then you might try it with two or three other independent systems.If they all agree within a given range then you have a high degree of confidence in your measurement and that you know the error range.This is exactly why we can be very, very confident in the dating done for geology. It can be done with many different means to see how well they agree.Note that if you looked at a block of rock the size of a telephone booth you would NOT expect a measurement in the area of a couple of kg. You would expect tonnes. This is what happened with dates before the middle of the last century.It was already apparent that the geological data and the processes required an earth that was millions of years old not thousands.In addition, over the previous century the order of geologic formations had been well studied.When the radiometric dating methods became available a couple of things could have happened.
1) The different methods could have had no consistent agreement with each other.
2) The order already determined could have had nothing to do with the dates determined by the new means.
3) The magnitude of the dates could have been in 1,000 or 100's of billions of years and have had little to do with the rough magnitudes expected.In fact what happened was the methods agree within errors in techniques; the order was the same and the dates were of the right sort of size (though about 10 to 100 times greater than had already been determined to be the minimum possible).The issue isn't the techniques used. It is the care in the processes around them. If you attempt to measure the wrong thing you get a bad answer.In the weighing example: If I am trying to determine the density of basalt I would measure it's weight and volume. I can use a very, very accurate scale and use more than one type. I can then use a caliper and other means to determine volume. Then the density can be calculated.However, this is all garbage if I pick basaslt that is in the form of a cooled gas filled lava. The volume I'm measureing could then contain a bunch of empty pockets and the density would be utterly wrong. I have to pick what I measure carefully.Since I have a rough idea of the density of rocks like basalt I would be surprised to get something about a third of what I expect. If I did I wouldn't decide right off the bat that I had found a new strange form of basalt that was not dense as expected.Instead I would then try to see if anything could have thrown it off. If I opened the sample and found the pockets I would have that explanation. At that point throwing out the measurement I had done would not be "fudging the data".The same kind of things arise with dateing.

quote:

---

....His Table 4.1, for example, quotes ages using three different isotope systems determined by five different reasearch groups on the Uivak gneisses of Labrador:
3.76 +/- 0.15 billion years (uranium - lead}
3.55 +/- 0.07 billion years ( rubidium - strontium)
3.56 +/- 0.08 billion years ( Rb - Sr)
3.61 +/- 0.20 billion years (Rb - Sr)
3.56 +/- 0.20 billion years (samarium - neodymium)

---

I might add that, according to YEC doctrine, this concordance is is virtually impossible. Or maybe it's just a coincidence...

WT -- you are getting hammered here, but I have to add one more to the pounding ...You are asking how the scales are established for measuring time into the distant past.We start with known events that are observable and that get recorded within objects.Example -- tree rings: there are species of trees that produce well formed annual rings and others that do not, and the ones that do are easliy distinguished from the ones that don't. Oaks for instance.We also see a correlation between seasonal variations and the variations in the sizes of the tree rings, so not only do we have annual rings, there is climatological evidence as well.Take the same kind of evidence in other tree species and they also show the same climatological data and that data also matches historical records.Lots of correlations, lots of similar data from a number of different sources from different places all over the earth.But tree rings only get back to about 10,000 years ago.Then there are lake varves where annual layers of diatoms from summer growth are covered by annual layers of clay settling out over the winter.These layers also show climatological variations that match those of the tree rings.Then there is the Carbon-14 dating methods which can be compared with the tree rings and the lake varves and they not only show a correlation with the ages measured by counting those actual annual layers but with those same climatological variationsThis gets back to 50,000 years ago and we haven't even gotten to the ways of measuring older artifacts ...BUT the methods are consistent with age with climate with each other.For one of them to be wrong, they must all be wrong, and not just plain scrambled data wrong, but wrong in a peculiar manner that mimics the annual and climatological information in entirely different systems in entirely different locations on the earth.See the {Age Correlations and an Old Earth} forum
EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth
for more information on all the correlations that must be explained by some miracle or other in order to discredit geoplogical timeNOTICE IN PARTICULAR -- one set of data of annual layers is from a formation of calcite layers in a cave that not only count out to an age of the formation of 567,700 years but that this age is correlated to Thorium-230 dates and Protactinium-231 radiometric dating (two different independant methods) AND to climatological data.A minimum age of 567,700 years for the formation is undeniable by any rational person.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

You assert contrary to the actual truth or you wouldn't of said what you said in the blue box. This present exchange has all you evos relying on the exact same system of theism - the authority of authorities. The only difference is that we admit it and you deceive while hiding behind radiometric dating methods (pseudo-scientific objectivity) which can only produce accepted dates which never contradict evolutionary sacred cows.Like I said way back when this present exchange began, the real thriller of interest is in all the discarded dates. If they could be retrieved and plotted on a graph it would substantiate the evolutionary sacred cow of chance. IOW, you have no independantly determined date of said event. The starting point is the estimate of a evolutionist.Charles Lyell's "Principles in Geology" [1824-1833] estimated the Cretaceous ended 80 million years ago.Nobody would dare to contradict this internal ....oops objective external dating benchmark. Yes - the bottom line.But science CLAIMS facts based upon scientific basis.IOW, your rational person comment means anyone who is not an insane believer in God/supernatural. This is the age-old insult given to creationists - that we are irrational/crazy.But our Bible in Romans, written 2000 years ago, says God removes the capacity to comprehend Him in response to those who choose to continually reject Him as the Creator.IOW, He curses you with the removal of God-sense and you become "vain in your imaginations....professing to be wise .....worshipping the creature and not the Creator" (Romans 1).IOW, you believe every irrational doctrine that replaces God as the Creator.Your assertion of being "rational" demonstrates the truth of Romans. As I said before that word "image" is best translated "icon"/= fossils, birds, quadrupeds, animals = your gods Darwinists.The utter Divine irony of these verses is inescapable.You prove the truthfulness of these verses perfectly.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-02-2004 11:05 PM

I explained things too so many times.As we know from other topics evidence is irrelevant.If evidence is irrelevant than how much more are explanations irrelevant ?But, I appreciate your response.I read it.WT

quote:

---

Like I said way back when this present exchange began, the real thriller of interest is in all the discarded dates. If they could be retrieved and plotted on a graph it would substantiate the evolutionary sacred cow of chance.

---

Yes, you have SAID this. Now, please provide some support for this assertion, if you can.

quote:

---

IOW, you have no independantly determined date of said event. The starting point is the estimate of a evolutionist.

---

You were just given several independent lines of evidence. Perhaps you missed them.

No shit Cory !They discard every date which is not consistent with immense age Earth.This is the core of my criticism which you and others keep confirming. LOL ! LOL !You evos are hammering yourselves - I just provide the generic bait.

No shit Cory !

quote:

---

They discard every date which is not consistent with immense age Earth.

---

Please support this assertion with evidence.

quote:

---

This is the core of my criticism which you and others keep confirming. LOL ! LOL !

---

How do you know?

quote:

---

You evos are hammering yourselves - I just provide the generic bait.

---

You call that 'bait'? I call it unsupported assertions. Very well, now please provide evidence.

It might occur to you that the ICR then can bring this fraud that you allege down easily. All they need to do is go through a thorough dating process themselves. They could then easily show that when you don't discard "bad" dates the results are all over the map.However, they don't do this do they?They, instead, deliberately take inappropriate samples (and small numbers at that) then trumpet the results as if they have shown something.I'm sure that most of them know what you don't understand: these methodologies work. They know they can not disprove them so they don't really try, do they?

No, WT.We discard every date not consistent with the other dates.If we're just throwing out whatever dates we don't like, WT, how do you think we got the age of the Earth in the first place? We just picked a number out of a hat?Apply your brain for once, WT. You might start by addressing the fact that dates are rejected not by divergence from some arbitrary chosen date, but by divergence from other independant measurements. Of course, we've only said this like a hundred times, but for some reason, you can't seem to tell the difference.

Denial is a wonder filled thing to see fully fledged. What I was saying was that you were being hit on all sides by a number of different people and I was kind of feeling sorry for you being in that position, but that there were points that cannot be refuted by rational people. Let’s look at just this scenario. From the forum topic referenced (and which it appears you are too busy to read or have trouble getting beyond the beginning of it), in particular the section on the Lake Suigetsu varves there is a graph in the article where every single C-14 dated object is plotted against the time scale: Please note (1) that the theoretical line would be a diagonal line while the actual data is below that line (things are older than C-14 uncalibrated dates due to climatological changes in atmospheric carbon), (2) there is scatter in the data points and (3) the scatter is within the range of error of the method except for 3 or 4 points and finally (4) that the range of error for each point is given as a verticle line that spreads the data artificially wide but still not enough to make it invalide.Note that ALL the points are presented, not just the ones that work — for that is how science improves. NOTE FURTHER that the trend of the data points is undeniable in the graph they produce -- even with the verticle error ranges -- without even any connecting line between the points: your eye draws the graph.For your point to be valid there would have to be such a scatter of points that it would be impossible to see the trend without some normalizing graph line: this just ain’t so bucko. Draw an envelop around all the data points and then any tested date must fall within that envelop and, while there can be a range of dates that can be applied to the tested object, there is no denying that the object IS older than the youngest end of the range and younger than the oldest end of the range.Also notice that this data alone goes beyond any YEC model I am aware of, and that it shows a MINIMUM UNDENIABLE AGE of the earth of 45,000 years based on the annual layers, and that these annual layers calibrate the C-14 method and VALIDATE it.Now this one piece of evidence is enough to show that the long age of life is a fact, but it does not stand alone: there are other similar pieces of evidence, they are discussed in the forum topic reference, and they all CORROBORATE the dates of this method AND the climatological evidence that goes with it. See the referenced topic for more. Age old insult or observation of truth? The evidence is there in black and white, layer by layer checked correlated and validated: what other conclusion can one make when such evidence is denied? Dawkins gives a number of different possibilities for not understanding evolution — ignorance, stupidity, maliciousness or insanity:When you have been given the information it can no longer be due to ignorance, so that leaves either stupidity maliciousness or insanity.Now I think that calling people stupid or malicious is an insult (and that some people deserve it). I also think that insanity seems a little harsh as it includes self delusion and the mental shutdown when observations are too at odds with core beliefs that they are rejected as impossible, but that does not make the behavior rational. We are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand.Quote the bible all you want -- it won't make the evidence go away, nor will it change the course of evolution or of science in pursuing the truths.The YEC model is as dead as the geocentric model of the universe and for the same reason: overwhelming evidence that the model is just plain wrong.There are people that do still believe in a flat earth as well as those that are convinced that the Earth is the center of the solar system and the universe (I have debated with one on another board).Do you consider these people rational?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

The Biblical quotes will not go away either and they explain WHY you think this is evidence.The Romans verses explain that when God gets fed up with Him being denied a seat at the creation table the persons responsible are incapacitated of their God-sense as a irrevocable punishment. Effects of this punishment include the interpretation of evidence to mean a Creator was not involved. Effects of the punishment include empowerment to embrace anything that contradicts the Bible. You have zero evidence for macro evolution or any species evolving from another species. The insistence that you do proves the punishment of Romans 1.The present issue is the KBS Tuff dating fiasco. We have two teams of top notch evolutionists (Fitch and Berkeley) who used the Isochron dating method and that is the entirety of what can be agreed on.Nevermind that the Isochron is touted as the method which ENSURES anomalous loss or gain of argon cannot occurr, but in fact errors were made and the said dating method is not full-proof.When the Berkeley team produced dates which grossly conflicted with Fitch he promptly defended his work by saying the Berkeley samples tested were affected by argon loss. How would he know since another team did the dating ?Once again, two teams of top notch evos and the touted error free Isochron method = FIASCO !When Ian McDougall of the Australian National University produced a Solomonic solution date of 1.88 million years (1981) both the Fitch and Berkeley teams were off the hook. This date only split the difference of the discordant dates produced by our two top notch teams leaving the descrepancy only half as much for both sides.In fact, McDougall also revealed the "scatter" that Fitch chastised Berkeley for was even greater in his reported results.McDougall (on Fitch scatter): 0.52 to 2.64 million years for one set of samples and ages of 8.43 to 17.5 million years on another set before settling on their 2.6 million date.The Berkeley descrepancy was "only" a half million to 1 million years.Now as redundantly argued in previous posts the accept dates are admittedly based upon what is already dated and known as can be easily deduced as to how Fitch settled on his 2.6 million years.What objective scientific method dated "what is already known" ?Is it not a fact that the Cretaceous was dated in the late 19th century and that dating remains an untouchable sacred cow today ?I guess Lyell got lucky that modern scientific dating methods have confirmed his guess to be correct. LOL ! LOL !CONCLUSIONEvolutionary dating is circular determinations based upon a needed immense age for the Earth, while hiding behind claims that the dates are scientifically arrived at via the various dating methods. How we fight to the death for something we already have spoken up for.How old is the Earth ?Nobody knows.