Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions

Your charge of fraud is kind of difficult to substantiate in the face of the openness with which it was conceded from the outset that the tuff would be difficult to date. Some dating is as easy as a photograph. Other dating is more like a jigsaw puzzle, and the tuff was like that.

The only way that agreement could be reached without reliable dating techniques is if there were secret scientific meetings where it was decided how old everything was going to be

and where groups of scientists were assigned to conduct literally hundreds and hundreds of fake field studies so they could write fake papers announcing the predecided dates, and where after decades and decades no one has broken the code of silence.

The real world is a dynamic environment that stirs up all the data, oftentimes making it a real challenge to tease out the correct dates. But scientists and laboratories have all the necessary training and equipment, and this is why there are so many, many scientific papers providing reliable and consistent radiometric dates across all of earth's eras.

WT, theists arguing that the earth is young are shown time and time again to be wrong. Take Austin's dating of Mt. St. Helens. Austin knowingly used rock contaminated by older rock. There is no need to scream "conspiracy" when their scholarship is so poor.

WillowTree writes:The inconsistency of the Geological Column next to Uniformitarian theory/assertions.

Nothing has objectively silenced the criticism that radiometric dating cannot be externally and independantly verified for accuracy except when chance produces an unplanned event and/or the age of material is already known and the technique fails.

That too is false. You have been shown that is a false assertion by direct link to the interview with Ian McDougall, the person who did the dating.

The Red Hand of Zara proves that no amount of evidence and no matter how clear - you will deny the obvious.

On this basis I must conclude that the same dishonesty must extend into your arguments about evolution = proven bias against Bible regardless of evidence.

Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii, J.G. Funkhouser and J.J. Naughton, Journal of Geophysical Research 73:14 pp. 4601-4607 (15 July 1968)

They then dated the inclusions and got dates all over the place.

Conclusion: inclusions cannot be accurately dated: just as theory had predicted.

your link writes:One of the most exciting and important scientific findings in decades was the 1980 discovery that a large asteroid, about 10 kilometers diameter, struck the earth at the end of the Cretaceous Period.

your link writes:The collision threw many tons of debris into the atmosphere and possibly led to the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other life forms.

your link writes:Scientists from the US Geological Survey were the first to obtain radiometric ages for the tektites and laboratories in Berkeley, Stanford, Canada, and France soon followed suit. The results from all of the laboratories were remarkably consistent with the measured ages ranging only from 64.4 to 65.1 Ma (Table 2).

your link writes:Scientists from the US Geological Survey were the first to obtain radiometric ages for the tektites and laboratories in Berkeley, Stanford, Canada, and France soon followed suit.

So the K-T Tektites were dated by no less than four methods that corroborate. 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb . If that weren't evidence enough, lets take a look at how inaccurate they all must be, to fit a YEC worldview. The lower age given is 64.4 mya. Now, assuming a 6,000 year old YEC earth is what YECs perceive as 100% of available time, then 60 years is 1%. This means that all the above methods, were ALL (1,085,000-100 = ) 1,084,900% inaccurate. Let me reiterate, the YECs requires these FOUR different, corroborating methods to be over ONE MILLION PERCENT INACCURATE all at the same time!!

http://EvC Forum: Shroud of Turin -->EvC Forum: Shroud of TurinOn June 4, 2000, Dr. Gene Scott (Ph.D. Stanford University) was conducting his weekly Bible study lesson. His text was from Exodus Chapter 34, passages that tell us what happened to Moses after encountering God.In this text, Moses returns from his meeting with God, and as a result of this encouter his face "shone all over". Dr. Scott's point was to take notice that the presence of God, whether it was in person or by the secondary synonym of "presence" resulted in the face of Moses being effected by a source of "light".Then, suddenly, Dr. Scott abruptly changed gears and said the following:"Now the Los Angeles Times....and I've told you the Shroud of Turin is not a foundational basis for my faith in the resurrection. But if the resurrection occurred, and if there was a dead body in that Shroud, and if it was Christ - the resurrection would explain the image.All the research has boiled down to an image caused by a radiation energy source we don't know yet how to define. It put a three dimensional image in the cellulose of these flax fibers that the closer the radiation source to the cloth the deeper the imprint, thus
we have a three dimensional image burned in ....scorched in on one side only.Now the Los Angeles Times....yesterday in the religion section on the news side points out that this year is one of the rare years the Shroud of Turin will be put on display again this year.And then they glibly say " carbon 14 dating proved it to be a medieval cloth about 1260 AD "....thus a fraud....well the news media is not always right you know. (audience applause)....oh they said in 1988 it was proved a fraud.But in 1986 before it happened the archaeologist William Meecham pointed out in the 1986 Hong Kong Shroud Symposium :Dr. Scott quoting William Meecham :" There appears to be an unhealthy consensus approaching the level of dogma among both scientists and lay commentators that C-14 dating will settle the issue once and for all time. This attitude simply contradicts the general perspective of field archaeologists and geologists who view possible contamination as a very serious problem in interpreting the results of radio carbon measurements. I find little awareness of the limitations of the C-14 method. Statements quoted from Shroud researchers both pro and con reveal an unwarranted trust in radio carbon measurement to produce an exact calendar date. I doubt anyone with significant experience in dating archaelogical samples would dismiss the potential danger of contamination and other sources of error. No responsible field archaeologist would trust a single date or a series of dates on a single feature to settle a major historical issue. No responsible radio carbon scientist would claim that it was proven that all contaminants had been removed and that the dating range was its actual calendar date. " END Meecham QuoteWillowtree : Then Dr. Scott proceeded into a long and lengthy explanation of what carbon 14 dating is and how they took three postage stamp size pieces of the Shroud and submitted them for test at three different scientific labs. I will assume that the average person in this discussion knows what C-14 dating is and generally how it is supposed to work.Dr. Scott quoting William Meecham :" Since 1988...." ignored by even the Times today...." a number of scientists have carefully examined the results of the C-14 tests and have seriously challenged its results, claiming that the tests were performed in such a manner as to call in to question the reliability of the data. The C-14 test normally reliable under very controlled circumstances was studying an object subjected to many historical events and highly contaminated. The C-14 test was out of balance with many other scientific tests that confirmed the antiquity of the cloth.
The data was now subjected to serious scrutiny by the scientific community. The scientists that conducted the carbon 14 tests were very concerned with the potential of foreign elements that might effect the test on the Shroud as was noted in the report in Nature Magazine.Through out history the Shroud was exposed to many and varied contaminants. The exposure of the Shroud linen to washing and soap prior to its being used as a burial cloth, many other contaminants combined with questionable cleaning of the test patches likely threw off test results. Such contaminants as ointments, aloes, and myrrh, sweat, blood, saliva, candle wax, and smoke from the candles, finger oils from continued handling from the faithful in earlier years, atmospheric dust, limestone dust from the tomb, calcium carbonite, dirt, travertine argonite, pollen, mites, mold, mildew, and the smoke soot and steam water from the 1532 fire where it was doused, all contibute to the litany of contaminants that left their marks on the Shroud.Dr. Dimitri Kucznietszov of the Bio Palomar Laboratory in Moscow, developed a laboratory model in 1994 to simulate the physical chemical conditions of the 1532 chambery fire. His findings reported in the Journal of Archaeological Science (Jan. 1996) maintained that a chemical modification of the textile cellulose of the Shroud - carbonization via the introduction of carboxyl COOH resulting from the 1532 fire impacted the C-14 dating, this rejuvenation of the linen was caused when the intense heat (960 degrees celsius) generated by the fire and the super steam vapor caused from the dousing with water created a chemical action of melting silver from the reliquary and the silk backing of the Shroud with cellulose of the linen fibers adding C-14 isotopes and thereby suggesting a younger rejuvenated cloth. Test samples were taken from a restored area of salvage. " END Meecham QUOTEDr. Scott :"....The Times didn't tell us that this morning did they ? "As reported in the Journal radio carbon in 1986 scientists used C-14 to date an Egyptian mummy linen....as well as two Peruvian linen cloths....they knew the age of these they dug them out of graves." It demonstrated that the method is somewhat wanting in accuracy with regard to linen. The Egyptian mummy linen the dates ranged from 3440 to 4517 spanning eleven hundred years. The known age of the cloth was 3000 BC. The closest date C-14 could produce was 2528 requiring a calibration of 472 years to correct it. "" Potentially the most damaging single piece of evidence to controvert the 1988 test results comes from the reported disclosure that there was a secret dating of the Shroud conducted at a California nuclear accelerator facility in 1982. Separate ends of a single thread (little smaller than a postage stamp) were dated with one end dating 200 AD and the other end of the same thread dating 1000 AD....the wide divergence in dating on the same thread should be alarming to those who consider the 1988 test definitive. " END Journal QUOTEDr. Scott :" The Shroud of Turin has a history and it deserves....its been subjected to scrutiny considerable and it deserves better just like the Resurrection deserves better than turning it down because it presupposes a miracle.Now they've proved there's no dyes, no paints, its a scorched theory, it was scorched on with some energy source best described as light....light and heat.British philosopher G. Oprey Ash suggests that Jesus underwent an unparalleled transformation in the tomb.Ash wrote " Its least intelligible that the phsical change of the body at the resurrection may have released a brief and violent burst of radiation, perhaps scientifically identifiable - perhaps not, which scorched the cloth. In this case the Shroud image is a quasi-photograph of Christ....some physicists begin to suspect that the Shroud was exposed to a milliburst of radiation that seared the Shroud with a burst of blinding light rather than heat. " END Ash QUOTEDr. Scott :Dr. Anthony (undiscernable last name) of Rhode Island states :
" I'd suggest that the radiation energy that imprinted the bodily image in the cloth altered the fibers of the cloth and changed the relative number of carbon isotopes on the linen material. This would render radio-dating the age of this unique cloth impossible to determine. Transmutation of elements , that is changing one element into another or an isotope into another isotope of the same element on the order of 10 to the 6th power to 10 to the 8th power calories and occur with wavelengths of about 10 to 4 angstroms. As a matter of fact it is these kinds of energetic cosmic rays from the sun that are the cause of the formation of carbon 14 in the first place." END QUOTE

There is a museum here in L.A. that says tar pits caused dinosaur extinction very gradually.

In a nutshell this consistency is a database of self-fulfilling predictions which never contradict published dates.

I am not a YEC