Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
59 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 58 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Okay to all Creationist: Here's some things for you to consider
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 34 (15598)
08-18-2002 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by wj
08-17-2002 6:27 AM


quote:
As proof of the unreliability of the radiometric methods consider the fact that in nearly every case dates from recent lava flows have come back excessively large. One example is the rocks from the Kaupelehu Flow, Hualalai Volcano in Hawaii which was known to have erupted in 1800-1801. These rocks were dated by a variety of different methods. Of 12 dates reported the youngest was 140 million years and the oldest was 2.96 billion years. The dates average 1.41 billion years.

--John G. Funkhouser and John J. Naughton, "Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii," Journal of Geophysical Research

This quote is a bit old, and some later datings give correct dates

quote:
Thus the large majority of historic lava flows that have been studied either give correct ages, as expected, or have quantities of excess radiogenic 40Ar that would be insignificant in all but the youngest rocks. The 40Ar/39Ar technique, which is now used instead of K-Ar methods in most studies, has the capability of automatically detecting, and in many instances correcting for, the presence of excess 40Ar, should it be present.

--G. Brent Dalrymple

but it does illustrate the problems of radiometric dating.

quote:
“Situations for which we have both the carbon-14 and potassium-argon ages for the same event usually indicate that the potassium-argon `clock’ did not get set back to zero. Trees buried in an eruption of Mount Rangotito in the Auckland Bay area of New Zealand provide a prime example. The carbon-14 age of the buried trees is only 225 years, but some of the overlying volcanic material has a 465,000-year potassium-argon age.”

[Harold Coffin, Origin by Design, page 400.]


quote:
A few years ago I took a course in the "Evolution of Desert Environments". We were standing on the Simi Volcanic flow, about 80 miles south of the south end of Death Valley. The instructor was a well known geologist and evolutionist from Cal. State Long Beach. He told us that the upper end of the flow was dated at 100,000 years, the middle of the flow was dated at 50,000 years, and the toe of the flow was dated at 20,000 years. He then noted that the whole flow probably occured and solidified (the surface at least) within weeks. He then said, based on his observation of the rates of evolution of desert environments he thought the flow was less than 10,000 years of age. He then said "radiometric dating is the cornerstone of modern historical geology and we get this kind of variation?" Clearly he was not happy with the published dates on the Simi flow.

He was also not happy with the published dates on the flows in the Nevada Atomic Bomb Test site where one of the volcanic flows showed a reversal of isotope ratios and gave a value of 20,000 years in the future! These data were, in fact, published in Science magazine in about November of 1988. Please note, these were not MY ideas but the statements of a convinced, tenured, evolutionary geologist who apparently really wanted to beleive in the credibility of radiometric dating. I am just reporting what HE said!


--http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-18-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by wj, posted 08-17-2002 6:27 AM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by edge, posted 08-18-2002 10:20 AM blitz77 has taken no action
 Message 34 by wj, posted 08-18-2002 8:47 PM blitz77 has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 938 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 33 of 34 (15601)
08-18-2002 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by blitz77
08-18-2002 4:35 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
--John G. Funkhouser and John J. Naughton, "Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii," Journal of Geophysical Research

This quote is a bit old, and some later datings give correct dates


"A bit old?" Can't you be a little more specific? Really if this is an example of the accuracy of your research, how do we know that any of the dates you give us are accurate?

quote:
Thus the large majority of historic lava flows that have been studied either give correct ages, as expected, or have quantities of excess radiogenic 40Ar that would be insignificant in all but the youngest rocks. The 40Ar/39Ar technique, which is now used instead of K-Ar methods in most studies, has the capability of automatically detecting, and in many instances correcting for, the presence of excess 40Ar, should it be present.

--G. Brent Dalrymple

but it does illustrate the problems of radiometric dating.[/quote]

Are you now going to illustrate some of the problems of setting tolerances in the space shuttle and tell us that we should abandon the program because there are problems?

quote:
“Situations for which we have both the carbon-14 and potassium-argon ages for the same event usually indicate that the potassium-argon `clock’ did not get set back to zero. Trees buried in an eruption of Mount Rangotito in the Auckland Bay area of New Zealand provide a prime example. The carbon-14 age of the buried trees is only 225 years, but some of the overlying volcanic material has a 465,000-year potassium-argon age.”

[Harold Coffin, Origin by Design, page 400.]


This is fine, but why doesn't Coffin give you the original researcher's explanation? Why do you permit yourself to only read the creationist analysis? You are an unwitting accomplice in your own deception here, blitz.

quote:
A few years ago I took a course in the "Evolution of Desert Environments". We were standing on the Simi Volcanic flow, about 80 miles south of the south end of Death Valley. The instructor was a well known geologist and evolutionist from Cal. State Long Beach. He told us that the upper end of the flow was dated at 100,000 years, the middle of the flow was dated at 50,000 years, and the toe of the flow was dated at 20,000 years. He then noted that the whole flow probably occured and solidified (the surface at least) within weeks. He then said, based on his observation of the rates of evolution of desert environments he thought the flow was less than 10,000 years of age. He then said "radiometric dating is the cornerstone of modern historical geology and we get this kind of variation?" Clearly he was not happy with the published dates on the Simi flow.

Again, a nice story, but several important fact are bein left out. What was the purpose of the original analyses? What was the original researcher's explanation of the results? What was the method of analysis? You need to be more critical in your scientific analysis.

quote:
He was also not happy with the published dates on the flows in the Nevada Atomic Bomb Test site where one of the volcanic flows showed a reversal of isotope ratios and gave a value of 20,000 years in the future! These data were, in fact, published in Science magazine in about November of 1988. Please note, these were not MY ideas but the statements of a convinced, tenured, evolutionary geologist who apparently really wanted to beleive in the credibility of radiometric dating. I am just reporting what HE said!

You mean discordant dates were actually published? I thought that didn't happen! And no, you are not reporting what the geologist said. I see no quotes, I see no attempt at an explanation. I see only some raw data which undoubtedly was part of a much larger data set and part of a study. What were the results of that study?

I dare say that you derived this story from a creationist source that abstracted information in such a way as to advance its own agenda of deceiving you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by blitz77, posted 08-18-2002 4:35 AM blitz77 has taken no action

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 34 (15628)
08-18-2002 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by blitz77
08-18-2002 4:35 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
quote:
As proof of the unreliability of the radiometric methods consider the fact that in nearly every case dates from recent lava flows have come back excessively large. One example is the rocks from the Kaupelehu Flow, Hualalai Volcano in Hawaii which was known to have erupted in 1800-1801. These rocks were dated by a variety of different methods. Of 12 dates reported the youngest was 140 million years and the oldest was 2.96 billion years. The dates average 1.41 billion years.

--John G. Funkhouser and John J. Naughton, "Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii," Journal of Geophysical Research

This quote is a bit old, and some later datings give correct dates

quote:
Thus the large majority of historic lava flows that have been studied either give correct ages, as expected, or have quantities of excess radiogenic 40Ar that would be insignificant in all but the youngest rocks. The 40Ar/39Ar technique, which is now used instead of K-Ar methods in most studies, has the capability of automatically detecting, and in many instances correcting for, the presence of excess 40Ar, should it be present.

--G. Brent Dalrymple

but it does illustrate the problems of radiometric dating.


Rubbish. Blitz, either you are being deceptive and misrepresentative or you are the victim of such actions. The Funkhousen and Naughton paper was published in 1968. Typical up-to-date creationist research! The purpose of the paper was to test the limitations of the K-Ar method and xenolyths were tested. These were expected to give dates much older than the solidified lava matrix and this is what was seen. So, the purpose of the paper has been misrepresented by creationists!

The inclusion of the Dalrymple quote is presumably from The Age of the Earth published in 1991. Surely it should be acknowledged that it provides a more recent, more comprehensive assessment of the issue than a single 1969 paper. Typical creationist tactic. Actually the quotes indicate that certain potential problems with radiometric dating need to be recognised and avoided. As with any testing method, if you don't know what you are doing then you can't trust your results. This is illustrated by the dating results which creationists produce.

[QUOTE][B]“Situations for which we have both the carbon-14 and potassium-argon ages for the same event usually indicate that the potassium-argon `clock’ did not get set back to zero. Trees buried in an eruption of Mount Rangotito in the Auckland Bay area of New Zealand provide a prime example. The carbon-14 age of the buried trees is only 225 years, but some of the overlying volcanic material has a 465,000-year potassium-argon age.”

[Harold Coffin, Origin by Design, page 400.]
[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Not a lot of information in this quote. No reference to published research; could it be a creationist urban myth? Did Coffin do this research and publish it? He apparently is a geologist.

[QUOTE][B]A few years ago I took a course in the "Evolution of Desert Environments". We were standing on the Simi Volcanic flow, about 80 miles south of the south end of Death Valley. The instructor was a well known geologist and evolutionist from Cal. State Long Beach. He told us that the upper end of the flow was dated at 100,000 years, the middle of the flow was dated at 50,000 years, and the toe of the flow was dated at 20,000 years. He then noted that the whole flow probably occured and solidified (the surface at least) within weeks. He then said, based on his observation of the rates of evolution of desert environments he thought the flow was less than 10,000 years of age. He then said "radiometric dating is the cornerstone of modern historical geology and we get this kind of variation?" Clearly he was not happy with the published dates on the Simi flow.

He was also not happy with the published dates on the flows in the Nevada Atomic Bomb Test site where one of the volcanic flows showed a reversal of isotope ratios and gave a value of 20,000 years in the future! These data were, in fact, published in Science magazine in about November of 1988. Please note, these were not MY ideas but the statements of a convinced, tenured, evolutionary geologist who apparently really wanted to beleive in the credibility of radiometric dating. I am just reporting what HE said![/QUOTE]

[/B]

So this is a story from an unnamed friend of Plaisted (a Professor of Computer Science) about comments by an unnamed geologist. Well, that's convincing evidence! The anolomolous dates all look very young for radiometric dating. Could it be that they all fall within the experimental error range of the method employed?

I'm afraid the above examples of "problems" with radiometric dating are only convincing to those who want to believe in a young earth for fundamentalist religious reasons. Maybe this illustrates the point best:

During the Arkansas trial, Harold Coffin, a Creation Research Society member from Loma Linda University, was asked about the Burgess Shale fossil site, which has been dated to the early Cambrian period:

"Q: The Burgess Shale is said to be 500 million years old, but you think it is only 5,000 years old, don't you?

COFFIN: Yes.

Q: You say that because of information from the Scriptures, don't you?

COFFIN: Correct.

Q: If you didn't have the Bible, you could believe the age of the earth to be many millions of years, couldn't you?

COFFIN: Yes, without the Bible." (Trial transcript, McLean v Arkansas, cited in Berra, 1990, p. 135)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by blitz77, posted 08-18-2002 4:35 AM blitz77 has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022