Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 1:58 PM
32 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,123 Year: 5,160/19,786 Month: 1,282/873 Week: 178/460 Day: 23/97 Hour: 5/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Author Topic:   Is Radiometric Dating Really that Accurate?
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3788 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 31 of 114 (16026)
08-24-2002 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by edge
08-24-2002 1:40 AM


Thunderbird,
Did Austin also run those samples via the Ar-Ar method? If not, why? Do you feel it is important that every sample dated must give a correct age or the method is suspect? How do you explain the volumes of concordant ages (for example see http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm or the discussions of radiometric dating here http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/crefaqs.htm )? If radiometric dating is so wrong and untrustworthy, why do so many practicing scientists use it? Do you think that science turns its back on the anomalies as part of a grand conspiracy? Do you think that there are no Christian scientists who use radiometric dating to verify an old earth? Can you please cite any of Austins or Snellings peer-reviewed literature on radiometric dating that shows they have a clue as to how to collect, process and run the samples they are collecting? Why do creationists involve themselves in pseudoscientific pursuits such as the RATE project http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm ?

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by edge, posted 08-24-2002 1:40 AM edge has not yet responded

    
gene90
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 32 of 114 (16082)
08-26-2002 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Thunderbird
08-23-2002 1:53 AM


[QUOTE][B]What reason is there to
believe that accusation?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Because YECs are known for such. Also Austin's work is not peer-reviewed like real science is.

Since you narrowed it down to Austin I was able to find fairly detailed information about this "incident".

From TalkOrigins

[QUOTE][B]First, Austin sent young, low-potassium (and therefore very low in radiogenic argon) rocks to Geochron Laboratories, which specifically states in its advertisements: "We are not in a position to analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y." (Geotimes 1995-7). He did it anyway and specifically states in his paper that "No information was given to the lab concerning where the dacite came from or that the rock has a historically known age (Austin 1997)". This puts potentially large error-bars on the data and also opens his research to ethical questions. In response to the original post, Andrew MacRae replied "...all Austin has proven is that if you do something silly, and misapply K/Ar dating to rocks erupted yesterday, you get nonsensical age results" (MacRae 1998). Henry Barwood notes that "Bad measurements, like bad science, reflect only on the measurer (Austin), not on the measurement (the procedure) (Barwood 1998)." [/QUOTE]

[/B]

In the next paragraph it points out that Austin did mention that there were xenoliths present in the lava, and assured us that he avoided them. There is no satisfactory way for us to confirm that (this is why reproduciblity is important in science).

The article then points out that Austin has a history of botching radiogenic ages.

One final issue: an error of 350,000 years isn't so bad, that lab should be commended for a job well done, particularly considering the ridiculous circumstances.

[This message has been edited by gene90, 08-26-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Thunderbird, posted 08-23-2002 1:53 AM Thunderbird has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3141 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 33 of 114 (19113)
10-05-2002 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by EvO-DuDe
07-20-2002 11:05 AM


What do ever one think of the reasoning shift from BIOTITE to Zircon in the recent ICR A&Fs?? I know that people object to creationism becasue it always seems to be able to re-invent itself etc. But the ins and out of "the debate" seem to me to imply that this is no longer what is simply happening to the participants engaged in its disucsion. HOW can one tell when the re-iteration of either sided as advertised or assumed is not actually an "adaptation" to the involved evolution of society itself?? which for some time had been handed the creationists as a criticism (I am sorry I do not remember where this was writ.)???

The issue of rates of radioactive decay is becoming impossible for me to seperate from Wolfram's notion of computational equivalence with respect to search speed ups in an electronic world but some of us can remember a time when 8-tracks came out and vision was other than the TV but becoming more the computer (with or without the notion that any is a computation of AI promotion etc).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by EvO-DuDe, posted 07-20-2002 11:05 AM EvO-DuDe has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Aryeh Shavit, posted 12-25-2002 3:44 AM Brad McFall has responded

    
Aryeh Shavit
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 114 (27828)
12-25-2002 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Brad McFall
10-05-2002 2:55 PM


Hi all,

When I read YEC articles (and some posts here) about the radiometry, I canít help feeling I read another conspiracy theory.

Indeed, if the radiometry (which exists from the days of Rutherford) is that provably incorrect, then what, except from a worldwide conspiracy, can explain its wide usage?

I am a computer scientist and sometimes I notice a lot of stupid and baseless assumptions in my field, but there is little doubt that the majority of the computer scientists know what they are doing. I have no reason to assume that the situation is dramatically different in other sciences. Unless there is a worldwide conspiracy of the Satan-driven evolutionists against the Bible.

So I would like to ask those who claim the radiometry methods are incorrect, what is their explanation of the situation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Brad McFall, posted 10-05-2002 2:55 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by mark24, posted 12-31-2002 10:43 AM Aryeh Shavit has not yet responded
 Message 41 by Brad McFall, posted 01-02-2003 12:50 AM Aryeh Shavit has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3304 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 35 of 114 (28195)
12-31-2002 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Aryeh Shavit
12-25-2002 3:44 AM


Aryeh,

quote:
I have no reason to assume that the situation is dramatically different in other sciences. Unless there is a worldwide conspiracy of the Satan-driven evolutionists against the Bible.

Shhhhhhh! You'll give it away......

Mark

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Aryeh Shavit, posted 12-25-2002 3:44 AM Aryeh Shavit has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Watson, posted 01-01-2003 3:43 PM mark24 has not yet responded

    
Watson
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 114 (28250)
01-01-2003 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by mark24
12-31-2002 10:43 AM


The heavens opened and the fountains of the earth were cracked.
A large radioactive asteroid say 200 miles across, moveing at
40 thousand mph, trying to land like a jet approaching a runway.
But the force is so great that the earths surface collaps below
causing instant earthquakes. Fire and brimstone rain to the ground.
let"s give this event a location The Black Sea heading west over
the Mediterranean Sea out into the Alantic. Lets give this a time
frame of 4500 to 13000 years. 500 miles west into the alantic the
asteroid hits a volcanic mountain and levels it to the sea floor.
Blasting volcanic glass rocks as far away as greenland, california,
brazil, and as far away as the antarctica. The asteroid is uplifted
somewhat and continues west but is broken into several parts. Each
part slaming into the glacers forming the greatlakes and again
cracking the surface. Imagine molten magma meeting glacer, It would
have rained 40 days and 40 nights, The word fountain means fresh
water, Since 8 tents of the worlds fresh water in the bibles times,
was the blacksea, the mediterranean, and the greatlakes area.
This must be the areas the bible is talking about. The heavens
opened. If it was an asteroid? It would have to be a special kind
of asteroid. A asteroid that doesn't match anything in our solar
system. There are only two that I know of. The first is the mars
metorites. Even NASA admits the mars rocks doesn't match anything
known on mars. There S.W.A.G.ing this one. The second meteorite
that matches the bible is the Pallasite. And guess where you can
find these types of meteorites? answer. around the mediterranean
and the greatlakes area. And the answer to your question why can't
we find the right dates [answer] The areas in general are
contaminated with still today radioactive rocks that are not from
this earth and are from another timeframe.
Watson
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by mark24, posted 12-31-2002 10:43 AM mark24 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 01-01-2003 4:43 PM Watson has not yet responded
 Message 39 by gene90, posted 01-01-2003 7:24 PM Watson has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18373
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 37 of 114 (28251)
01-01-2003 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Watson
01-01-2003 3:43 PM


Perhaps Wmscott, TC or TB would like to comment on this?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Watson, posted 01-01-2003 3:43 PM Watson has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by edge, posted 01-01-2003 6:39 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4518
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 38 of 114 (28260)
01-01-2003 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Percy
01-01-2003 4:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
Perhaps Wmscott, TC or TB would like to comment on this?

--Percy


I don't know about them, but I'm speechless. It was entertaining, though...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 01-01-2003 4:43 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 39 of 114 (28262)
01-01-2003 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Watson
01-01-2003 3:43 PM


quote:
Each part slaming into the glacers forming the greatlakes

No impact craters, melts, or shock morphs of quartz.

quote:
Even NASA admits the mars rocks doesn't match anything
known on mars.

Quite the contrary the SNCs contain vesicles gas that match the Martian atmosphere. I also recall a match between x-ray spectrometry from the Mars Pathfinder rover and the SNC suite. I've been trying to find that chart recently.

Plus, you are trying to infer that the SNC achondrites originated on an asteroid, which is impossible because they are basalts. Basalts only occur on differentiated bodies, asteroids lack sufficient gravity to differentiate. Plus they don't fall in large quantities, the largest so far is Nakhla (fall, 1911) with a total known weight of only 40 kilograms.

quote:
And guess where you can
find these types of meteorites? answer. around the mediterranean
and the greatlakes area.

You can also find them in Chile (Imilac) Antarctica (Yamato 8451; Theil Mountains) Kansas (Bremen) Russia (Brahin) Australia (Huckitta; Molong).

I have read of meteorite finds being concentrated by type in certain geographic areas, because soil conditions favor preservation of a certain class or because finders are only taught to recognize a particular type. But I have never heard of any pallasite concentration around the Great Lakes or the Mediterranean Basin.

quote:
The areas in general are
contaminated with still today radioactive rocks that are not from
this earth and are from another timeframe.

We would notice that with a Geiger counter.

Plus, don't you find it odd that there are no radioactive meteorites falling today?

And finally, just scattering radioactive elements across a sample won't necessarily make a young specimen look old. If you happen to be scattering more radioactive parent element you will actually make a specimen look *younger* than it really is. That hypothetical asteroid would have to have exactly the right elements in exactly the right concentrations. And those concentrations would be immediately skewed as they began to spread across the planet.

Then you have the observation that meteorites and lunar samples still give old ages. How do you explain those?

[This message has been edited by gene90, 01-01-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Watson, posted 01-01-2003 3:43 PM Watson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Watson, posted 01-01-2003 11:11 PM gene90 has responded

  
Watson
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 114 (28272)
01-01-2003 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by gene90
01-01-2003 7:24 PM


Wow what a response Thank you.
The glaciers move north to south,The finger lakes in NY. is a
good example. look above the Finger lakes and you will see the
Niagara Escarpment carved east to west, just like lake erie.[explain]
I have had a lot of spectrographic analysis done on glass rocks
found in lake erie and the boys at NASA said spectrographic
analysis is not reliable is this true?.
An asteroid could be a planet that has never formed or a large
piece of a planet that has been distroyed. right? So why couldn't
basalts occur in asteroids? The word earth means elements of the
universe. NEXT Some of these rocks do set off a geiger...
Next Draw a line from Brenham kansas east through lafayett Indiana
[mars rocks found in Lafayett] You will see the line continues
through the center of lake erie, in the same direction as the
Niagara Escarpment. Is this a coincidence? I don't think so.
Continue the line east through the mediterranean. Now lets go to
Allen hills antarctica [mars rocks found] again draw a line northeast
through Governador Valadares Braz. [mars rock found] continue the
line northeast till the line crosses the first You will see the lines
cross west of Gibralter, Thats where Plato said Atlantis was.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by gene90, posted 01-01-2003 7:24 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by gene90, posted 01-02-2003 2:00 AM Watson has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3141 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 41 of 114 (28275)
01-02-2003 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Aryeh Shavit
12-25-2002 3:44 AM


Ya know, I am even less sure now of what is the material response of creationists if Helmhotlz is correct that Riemann may have violated Newton's third law. Certainly post-Weisacker "transfomationists" (term used to refer to elemental change in the periodic table TAKEN from biology explicity) could be materially mistaken if the implications for other than chemicalcality (the use of behavior can be application to Faraday's criticism of contact theory but being much more expensive to test has never been done) be found in outwork of chemical universality to higher levels of organization in a simple program of Wolfram. Because the science of this is SOOOOOoooo much up in the air I had suggested we may think about introducing haptic information transfer in discussions such as this that in the mean time we can still have something other than isolation to afford the functionality to continue. If one was to respond to you from an internal creationist position only the response would be much simpler.

Again I do not have much of an opnion on this matter as of yet for before this became as well funded in a creaton or same like kind association I was aware of Kevran's claim and others assertion that he had been nominated for a Noble (in France) for his position on biological transmutation of elements. Weinberg denied Wolfram's interest in particle physics acutal kinematics which rather than Kervran could COMPUTATIONALLY be proven. Proving that baking bread changes the nuclues of an atom was not even known to have seriously crossed elite scientists minds once I asked in the 80s if anyone had heard of this. Wolfram's will however seems a bit more easy to communicate however. Situation Awareness is my rather not adaquate response at this time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Aryeh Shavit, posted 12-25-2002 3:44 AM Aryeh Shavit has not yet responded

    
gene90
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 42 of 114 (28277)
01-02-2003 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Watson
01-01-2003 11:11 PM


quote:
The glaciers move north to south

I checked a field guide on the Finger Lakes region, yes I'll agree that the glaciers were flowing N-S there.

I did an online search for the origin of the escarpment when the guide failed to discuss it and could find no reference to it being carved by glacers. Instead it seems to be an erosional remnant in a syncline.

http://www4.vc-net.ne.jp/~klivo/gen/geology.htm

If that were a crater there should be shock products throughout the structure, a lens of impact breccia beneath Michigan Basin, and lots of faulting in the escarpment itself.

quote:
I have had a lot of spectrographic analysis done on glass rocks found in lake erie and the boys at NASA said spectrographic
analysis is not reliable is this true?.

Could you describe these glass rocks a bit?

Who did the analysis? Also, which NASA facility was involved?

quote:
An asteroid could be a planet that has never formed

That's the current thinking. But if that's the case then most wouldn't be able to differentiate enough to form a basalt.

If there were meteorites falling that were consistent with Earth's mantle material then I would be more open to basalt asteroids.

But I've looked into this a little further and found that now some scientists are arguing that Vesta is partially covered by a basaltic rock, based on HST observations.

quote:
or a large
piece of a planet that has been distroyed

It's very unlikely that there are any asteroids formed by destroyed planets because achondrites are so rare. Most meteorites are undifferentiated. If there were meteorites with compositions like solid slabs of olivine or peridotite falling in large numbers I would be more open to the possibility.

quote:
So why couldn't basalts occur in asteroids?

Most asteroids are too small to retain enough heat and hold a graviational field significant enough to allow differentiation. I think I may need to read up on Vesta to see what researchers are claiming has happened there to facilitate production of basalt.

This is a surprising find and you'll notice that people in the following article suggested that perhaps it should be thought of as a small planet.

http://www.xtec.es/recursos/astronom/hst/hst2/9540.html

quote:
Next Draw a line from Brenham kansas east through lafayett Indiana

I see that that the three line up but I don't understand the significance. Brenham is a pallasite and Lafayette is an SNC. Brenham is often terribly weathered and Lafayette is fresh. And also, Lafayette was found in a Purdue collection. Nobody knows where it was found (though I wish I did!), it was brought to Lafayette by human agency from some place unknown. There has even been speculation it may be a Nakhla that was misplaced (but it has been discredited by lab work). For this linear trend to be valid we must assume that the rock was found right there in Lafayette.

But that itself doesn't necessarily say much. So many meteorites are known that I can use them to draw lines to any place I want.

Where does Atlantis fit into this?

And I still don't understand why there would be any sort of "politics" involved with this. The Sudbury impact structure is only a few hundred miles from there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Watson, posted 01-01-2003 11:11 PM Watson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Watson, posted 01-02-2003 5:59 AM gene90 has not yet responded

  
Watson
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 114 (28278)
01-02-2003 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by gene90
01-02-2003 2:00 AM


I am sure the mars and the brenham are from the same sorce
I would like to show you some pictures but im not sure how
to do it yet. The only meteorites involved is the pallasite
and the mars rocks Those two draw the lines. I will respond
tonight. Thanks Watson
This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by gene90, posted 01-02-2003 2:00 AM gene90 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Watson, posted 01-02-2003 3:36 PM Watson has not yet responded

  
Watson
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 114 (28322)
01-02-2003 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Watson
01-02-2003 5:59 AM


Sorry I got so far away from the important dateing subject.
Carbon 14 is a heavey radioactive form of carbon used in dating
archaeological and geological materials says Webster. A Asteroid
rich in Uranium, Cobalt, and Barium. scattered over the landscape
I beleive would change the outcome of carbon 14 dateing more or less.

I would like to continue a debate about an asteroid being responsible
for the Flood. I have a lot of information including Lab Reports,
Pictures, And meteorite use in past history in Ohio. I would like
to share this info. Maybe we can continue this on a different string.
Thanks Watson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Watson, posted 01-02-2003 5:59 AM Watson has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Coragyps, posted 01-02-2003 4:10 PM Watson has not yet responded
 Message 46 by wmscott, posted 01-02-2003 4:10 PM Watson has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5381
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 8.5


Message 45 of 114 (28325)
01-02-2003 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Watson
01-02-2003 3:36 PM


quote:

Carbon 14 is a heavey radioactive form of carbon used in dating
archaeological and geological materials says Webster. A Asteroid
rich in Uranium, Cobalt, and Barium. scattered over the landscape
I beleive would change the outcome of carbon 14 dateing more or less.

Carbon 14 is only useful up to about 50,000 year ages, so it's more for archaeological rather than geological dating. And it's only applicable to things that were once alive. I don't see any real influence of U, Co, or Ba on it either: C-14 is primarily formed by cosmic rays hitting nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere. And what do those three have in common anyway?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Watson, posted 01-02-2003 3:36 PM Watson has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
45678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019