|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Please show me one respected evo who contradicts this dating ?
Again, I'm no "respected evo," but I'll contradict it. The Cretaceous ended about 64,500,000 years ago, as attested by maybe a couple of hundred dates using five or more separate, independent radioisotope methods on rocks from all around the globe. If you want a pile of links, Mark24 posted them here a few months ago. I'll find the thread, if you'd like. Where did Lyell claim 80 million? Just give me the volume and chapter from that online edition, if you don't remember the page. Or withdraw your claim that he said so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3077 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
I should of said my source supports the claim and not Cory's link.
"Lyell estimated that the Cretaceous ended 80 million years ago - not too far from today's accepted figure of 65 million, plus or minus 3 million. According to Harold Levin of Washington University, "He (Lyell) came astonishingly close to the mark." In fact, it is not at all astonishing when you know that today's accepted date has been derived not from an absolute, independant source but from conjectures including Lyell's. Ever since Lyell estimated that the end of the Cretaceous was 80 million years ago, the accepted value has been in this ballpark. Any dating scientist who suggested looking outside the ballpark, at 20 million years or 10 or 5 would be looked on as a crackpot by his colleagues. More significantly, perhaps, he would not be able to get any funding for his research." The above quotes are from: "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" by atheist Richard Milton, (pages 22,23,50) [1997] Now the attacks on the messenger will commense which is a compliment to the evidence. Milton is an atheist with no creationist ax to grind which makes his expertise objective and pristine. I expect these exact points to be completely evaded. Other than this issue I completely disagree with the content of your Admin post. This means I believe you are essentially, silently saying that unless I agree with my opponents I will be punished. To forestall this inevitable action I hereby concede all outstanding points to all my opponents and will no longer post in this topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
In fact, it is not at all astonishing when you know that today's accepted date has been derived not from an absolute, independant source but from conjectures including Lyell's.
Bullshit, as you've been shown repeatedly. If you would quit making stuff up, WT, I might believe a little of what you write. I went to the library a few minutes ago, and found that Lyell did, in fact, offer what he himself called an estimate that the Cretaceous ended about 80 million years ago. He made this estimate in the 1860's, though, not in "Principles." And though Milton may claim to be an "atheist," he damn sure can't claim to be a scholar. He's a crank who knows how to sell books to gullible people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Since it appears your statement about Lyell has been demonstrated to be half right (just off by a third of a century as to when he said it) you don't have to do the work. I'm not nearly as impressed with how accurate Lyell was because it is so much later but still pretty impressed.
Since you won't be posting here anymore I guess we can leave it to someone else who might like to discuss it. Maybe someone will try to support your false accusation of fraud by the entire scientific community. You sure won't be able to and know it which is why you are bowing out again. The fraud accusation is what someone makes when they are totally at a loss to explain why, most of a century later, new technologies come up with independent dates that are much closer to the geological estimates that to the 6,000 years. Is a cry of "fraud" all you have? Is that the totality of your argument? Why don't you go back to something simpler. Reading a map perhaps? LOL You ran from that one too didn't you? This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-06-2004 09:48 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Unmitigated nonsense. Are you saying that if two age estimates are close, that they both must be wrong and there is some kind of conspiracy to make them similar? That is poisoning the well, WT. In other words, mainstream geochronology can NEVER be correct. Pretty strong statements coming from one who has no background whatever in the field! By the way, do I have to exlain to you that 65 my is 15 MILLION years less than 80 my. Is that now a trivial difference to YECs?
quote: Lots of geologists look outside the 80 my 'ballpark'. They just don't find the Cretaceous. Another silly argument. Where do you get your material?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3077 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Unmitigated nonsense. Are you saying that if two age estimates are close, that they both must be wrong and there is some kind of conspiracy to make them similar? That is poisoning the well, WT. In other words, mainstream geochronology can NEVER be correct. Pretty strong statements coming from one who has no background whatever in the field! My source said what you disagree with.
Lots of geologists look outside the 80 my 'ballpark'. They just don't find the Cretaceous. Another silly argument. Where do you get your material? Atheist Richard Milton. http://www.alternativescience.com/
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: So, do you often quote works that you disagree with?
quote: That's an authority? I suppose that if you disagreed with Milton that it would be his opinion. Well, I suppose it can still be funny. Even from an atheist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3077 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Cory :
How did Lyell get so close ? The only b.s. is your angry response which evades the point. Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions My presence in this topic has been to level the indictment (brought to my attention by persons like Jonathan Wells and Richard Milton), that evolutionary dating methodologies have the appearance of objective scientific determinations, but in reality are a "database of self-fulfilling predictions" which contain not a single starting and external benchmark date.
"Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" by Richard Milton (page 23): "Curiously, no geologist seems to have checked out the geological column dates with an electronic calculator on a common sense basis. Consider the Geological Column (Van Eysinga/1975) and look at the thickness of the rocks in each period compared with the length of time assigned to those periods. Note that there is remarkable consistency between assigned age and thickness of deposit. For instance the Cretaceous period is said to have lasted 65 million years and is 15,000 meters thick - an average annual rate of deposition of 0.2 millimeters. Now look at the Silurian period: this, too yields an average rate of deposition of about 0.2 millimeters per year - as does the Ordovician, the Devonian, the Carboniferous, and the rest. It is only when we come to relatively modern times in the Cenozioc era that rates of deposition vary much, and here they appear to speed up slightly. This is a very remarkable finding. One naturally expects Uniformitarian geology to favor uniformity, but this is too much of a good thing. Throughout widely changing climatic conditions, advancing and retreating oceans, droughts, and Ice Ages, the rate of sedimentation appears to remain amazingly constant regardless - throughout the thousands of millions of years that are said to have elapsed. The presumed rate of deposition itself - about the thickness of a human hair in a year, that this slow rate would be quite incapable of burying and fossilizing entire forests, dinosaurs, or even a medium sized tadpole." Page 34: "In one of the most recent cases of anomalous dating, rock paintings found in the South African bush in 1991 were anlayzed by Oxford's University's radiocarbon accelerator unit which dated them as being around 1,200 years old. However, publicity of the find attracted attention of Joan Ahrens, a Capetown resident, who recognized the paintings as being produced by her in art classes and later stolen from her garden. The significance of incidents such as this is that mistakes can only be discovered in those rare cases where chance grants us some external method of checking the dating technique. Where no such external verification exists, we have simply to accept the verdict of carbon dating." Once again, I point out that in any dating attempt (like KBS Tuff) the discard dates are the real thriller of interest. Accept dates are ALWAYS accepted on the basis of what is already known, and what is already "known" was accepted from knowledge that was already "known" etc.etc. Round and round goes the circle = a "database of self-fulfilling predictions". The rock painting incident are unplanned snapshots that provide an irrefutable basis to confidently falsify the reliability of dating methods and their associated assumptions. This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-22-2004 03:29 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
and lets just ignore all those nasty correlations on age dating methods that just keep reinforcing the evidence for an old earth.
and an older universe. yep. nonsense quotient in full operation? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
How did Lyell get so close ?
Blind luck, mostly, and a decent appreciation of how slowly shellfish and the like evolve.
For instance the Cretaceous period is said to have lasted 65 million years and is 15,000 meters thick
Where did Milton get this figure, do you think? The thickness of the Cretaceous here beneath my desk is zero meters. An average worldwide thickness is hardly indicative of rate of deposition in any one spot: Holocene deposits are building up quite a bit faster 100 miles south of New Orleans than they are in Lubbock, Texas. If dating is so terribly inaccurate, WT, why to the 14C dates in Lake Suigetsu increase monotonically with depth in the core from there? How are all 250 of them "wrong?" Why are there 50 dates from 100,000 varves down or so that ALL show "too old to date" by carbon-14? Document some of this fraud that goes on "all the time," WT, or shut up about it, already.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3077 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Document some of this fraud that goes on "all the time," WT, or shut up about it, already. Message 68 Once again, I point out that in any dating attempt (like KBS Tuff) the discard dates are the real thriller of interest. Accept dates are ALWAYS accepted on the basis of what is already known, and what is already "known" was accepted from knowledge that was already "known" etc.etc. Round and round goes the circle = a "database of self-fulfilling predictions". The rock painting incident are unplanned snapshots that provide an irrefutable basis to confidently falsify the reliability of dating methods and their associated assumptions. Two responses in a row you have opted to get nasty and post insults. Anger and insults do not refute anything but indicate the validity of the argument and your inability to answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It's not fraud if you know about the rejected dates.
And that's rather the fatal flaw in your argument - even when the dating goes ary, scientists still report their results, as well as their reasons for their rejection. So we know how often the dating works, and we know how often we're rejecting dates that don't fit. If the number of dates that we rejected outnumbered the ones we didn't, we'd know that your criticism was spot-on - we were cherry-picking data to match assumptions. But that's not what happens. The dating results are almost always on target; very rarely, and in specific instances, do we get results that we have to reject. This indicates to any thinking person that the dating is completely valid. I mean, pretend that you wiegh yourself with ten differen methods. 9 of them give you results clustered around 175 lbs; the tenth returns a weight of 2 ounces. What does a reasonable person conclude? That they probably weigh 175 lbs or so, and that the tenth result was the result of a measuring error; or, akin to what you would have us believe, the entire endeavor of measuring weight is flawed because there's no such thing as gravity? Don't be an idiot, WT. Dating is accepted because the vast majority of results return values consistent with our models. If we're supposed to believe that, in fact, scientists cherry-pick results, then where are all the rejected results? If you're right, almost every time we have something dated, we should wind up rejecting the results. So where are all these rejected results?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
WillowTree quotes Milton who writes: Note that there is remarkable consistency between assigned age and thickness of deposit. For instance the Cretaceous period is said to have lasted 65 million years and is 15,000 meters thick - an average annual rate of deposition of 0.2 millimeters. Someone else already noted this, but geological periods have no single thickness in the geological column. Rates of deposition vary widely all around the globe, and they can be positive (actual deposition) or negative (erosion). Milton is wrong to say this. He's also wrong to say the Cretaceous lasted 65 million years. It ended about 65 million years ago. It lasted roughly 80 million years. There may be places on earth where Cretaceous layers are 15,000 meters thick, I don't really know, but there are certainly many places where no Cretaceous layers exist anymore.
Now look at the Silurian period: this, too yields an average rate of deposition of about 0.2 millimeters per year - as does the Ordovician, the Devonian, the Carboniferous, and the rest. It is only when we come to relatively modern times in the Cenozioc era that rates of deposition vary much, and here they appear to speed up slightly. Once again, rates of deposition vary widely all across the globe. Calculating an average deposition rate for a geologial period has no meaning.
This is a very remarkable finding. One naturally expects Uniformitarian geology to favor uniformity, but this is too much of a good thing. Milton doesn't have a finding. As already stated, it isn't possible to calculate average deposition rates for geological eras. You can only calculate average deposition rates for specific examples of geological layers. For example, if there is a region where the Cretaceous layers are 15,000 meters thick, then we can divide 15,000 by 80 million (not 65 million as Milton erroneously did) to get about .2 mm/year. (Hmmm. Milton got the same answer using the wrong figures. He must have been provided the numbers by someone else, then garbled them in the paragraph you quoted.)
Throughout widely changing climatic conditions, advancing and retreating oceans, droughts, and Ice Ages, the rate of sedimentation appears to remain amazingly constant regardless - throughout the thousands of millions of years that are said to have elapsed. Milton is claiming that geologists believe that the rate of sedimentation has remained constant throughout geological time, but geologists definitely do not believe this. As has been said several times now, deposition rates vary widely around the globe. And they of course vary over time, also. Calculating an average deposition rate for a geological era doesn't have any meaning, and probably isn't possible to determine anyway since it frequently isn't possible to measure how much was eroded, since in most circumstances there's nothing left to measure.
The presumed rate of deposition itself - about the thickness of a human hair in a year, that this slow rate would be quite incapable of burying and fossilizing entire forests, dinosaurs, or even a medium sized tadpole." The thickness of human hair averages around .05 mm, not .2 mm. Fossilization generally requires quick burial. This doesn't happen that often, which is why fossils are relatively rare compared to the number of creatures that have ever existed.
In one of the most recent cases of anomalous dating, rock paintings found in the South African bush in 1991 were anlayzed by Oxford's University's radiocarbon accelerator unit which dated them as being around 1,200 years old. However, publicity of the find attracted attention of Joan Ahrens, a Capetown resident, who recognized the paintings as being produced by her in art classes and later stolen from her garden. This story seems just transparently silly. Joan Ahrens painted on rocks in art class? She took the rocks and put them in her garden? The rocks were stolen and carted all the way out to the South African bush? Archaeologists discovered them and couldn't tell the rocks were anomalous to the area, couldn't tell they had only relatively recently been placed there, couldn't tell the art was not aboriginal in origin, and couldn't tell the paint was modern? And then at least two labs carbon dated the art to 1200 years? Is there anything you won't believe? The story about Joan Ahrens appears at two websites. This one is from AskMoses.com - Torah, Judaism and Jewish Info - Ask the Rabbi:
[text=black]"In 1991, Oxford University’s radiocarbon accelerator unit dated some rock paintings found in the South African bush as being around 1,200 years old. Almost as old as Guess Who. But then an art teacher named Joan Ahrens turned up and proved that they were her students’ paintingsthey had been stolen by vandals from her garden in Capetown."[/text] Hmmm. In one story she's an art student, in the other an art teacher. In one story she produced the art in art classes, in the other her students produced the art, in her garden I guess. The real problem is that your annecdotal stories do not represent legitimate rebuttal to scientifically developed dating methods. If dating methods were truly unreliable or invalid then it would be easy to demonstrate this scientifically. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3077 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
and lets just ignore all those nasty correlations on age dating methods that just keep reinforcing the evidence for an old earth. They are not being ignored. They are being challenged. Indictment: Age Dating methods and correletions = database of self-fulfilling predictions. Strength of Indictment: Total lack of any external benchmark dating determination. Evidence of Indictment: In addition to the unplanned snapshot of the South African rock painting dating incident (Message 68) which exposed the dating method to be completely unreliable -
"Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" by Richard Milton (page47): "The possibility of anomalous inclusion of argon is not merely conjecture but is borne out by numerous studies of volcanic rocks that have resulted in false dates. Even modern volcanic lava formed in recent historical times has been dated as up to 3 billion years old by the potassium-argon method. A study of Hawaiian basaltic lava actually dating from an eruption in 1801, near Hualalei, came up with postassium-argon dates ranging from 160 million years to 3 billion years. (G.J. Funkhouser and J.J. Naughton, 1968) Milton concludes:
Page 48:
The problem with this widely held belief is that there is no truly independant means of verifying the age of any given sample (other than the exceptional cases already mentioned)(rock paintings/volcanic lava). And the experiments to which Dalrymple refers have consisted solely of rejecting dates that seem wrong while accepting those that seem right, "seem" in this context meaning in line with uniformitarian expectations, thus compiling a database of self-fulfilling predictions."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
willowtree writes: They are not being ignored. They are being challenged. how does not even addressing the issue of correlations challenge anything? try reading Dr. Roger C. Wiens atRadiometric Dating for a christian perspective. enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024