Buz's refutation of all radiometric dating methods

Buz, Who cares what a bunch of people think are intellectually bankrupt enough to put scripture before evidence?YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT RADIOMETRIC DATING IS FLAWED. "CREATION SCIENTISTS" HAVEN'T SHOWN RADIOMETRIC DATING IS FLAWED. THAT IT IS STILL BEING USED, & DIFFERENT METHODS ARE PRODUCING INCREDIBLY CONCORDANT RESULTS ARE EVIDENCE ENOUGH OF THAT. IN RARE CASES RADIOMETRIC DATING CAN BE DATED AGAINST KNOWN EVENTS SUCH AS THE VESUVIUS ERUPTION, & GOT THE DATE RIGHT TO WITHIN 7 YEARS!!! HOW FLAWED IS RADIOMETRIC DATING WHEN IT CAN DO THAT?Give us data that shows that radiometric dating is flawed to the extent that it should be rejected. Put up or shut up time. Not before you address post 18. After that, sure. You are not going to be allowed to change the subject. I disagree, it is the very reason threads exist on the evidential basis of the flood. To complain about the disqualification the "flood hypothesis" as being unscientific grounds is one of the biggest intellectual cop-outs ever. Listen to yourself: "There's no scientifically consistent evidence that points to a flood? So? That doesn't mean God didn't make it happen & then put everything back again..." , ie the "supernatural factor" you speak of. God writing the bible with its many inconsistencies to see how far people are prepared to go to defend their blind beliefs is as valid a hypothesis as an evidenceless flood hypothesis. The scenario is worse than that, though; there is directly contradicting data, not just no evidence.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This topic has had 60+ messages in the last 48 hours. The many against Buz. There is also controversy over topic digression, although that didn't bother me personally.One thing that I have been having an ongoing concern about, is the possible uneveness of supplying references. The evolution side seems to be real demanding of the creation side to do such, but the evo side are perhaps lax in supplying the references also.Anyhow, comments on my action can be sent to the "too fast closure of threads" topic.Adminnemooseus

quote:

---

bullpucistical

---

I still don't think buz knows what he's talking about at all, but I thought that this word invention was pretty funny.

quote:

---

Why do we have to continually microanalyze everything I say?

---

Because we are talking in scientific terms.That's how it's done. Arguments are picked apart for logical fallacies or facual error, evidence is closely scrutinized, conclusions are challenged, contradictory evidence is presented, etc.Remember, several of the people you have been debating with are professional scientists.Also note that the "evos" do it to each other all the time. I've been corrected several times when my information is wrong. The difference between you and a lot of us, Buz, is that I would never dream of making a claim, as you have done on numerous occasions, without being reasonably sure I knew what I was talking about and was able to provide strong evidence for what I was claiming. If I'm not too sure about my facts, I say so and ask for help from others. I have learned an enormous amount of science while researching creationist questions. If I wasn't informed, I kept my mouth shut because I knew I had no business having an opinion.------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

Buz, here is my initial example of how three different radiometric dating methods return similar ages for a single meteorite.Please address this evidence, as it directly contradicts your claim that all dating methods are bogus. Thanks, and let me know if you would like more examples.

quote:

---

I think that I am more interested in learning how it is that you can explain, if ALL of the dating methods are bogus, how they can be bogus in such an unlikely way as to date the single rock sample dated with several of them at the same age?

​

Here are some results for a meteorite collected in Saint Severin, France which was tested with three different dating methods, and they all show similar ages for the samples. There are more examples at this link:

​

The Age of the Earth

​

4 samples Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.33
10 samples Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.15
whole rock Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.04
whole rock Ar-Ar 4.38 +/- 0.04
whole rock Ar-Ar 4.42 +/- 0.04

​

Notice 2 important things:

​

1) Three different attempts at dating using a single method (Ar-Ar) led to the same result, indicating that a single method gives consistent results

​

2) Moreover, these results are consistent with two ADDITIONAL, independent methods (Sm-Nd, and Rb-Sr), indicating that three different dating methods give consistent results.

​

When you look at these patterns across many different samples and techniques (see the link), you see there MUST be some explanation for the consistency of results. The simplest answer: the methods are valid.

​

...unless you have another explanation, of course.

---

------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

I know that this thread is temporarily closed, and I apologise to the Admin for this post... but I just can't let this go. This is a personal attack and I am not about to take it lightly; I only wish I could have been here sooner to respond before the thread was closed.

quote:

---

It never ceases to amaze me how you people fire off these statements allegedly having gone on 60 million years ago in such detail as if you were discussing historical record of the civil war. You've all become so comfortable with these astronomical figures in the scores of million to billions that I do believe you've lost all sense of just how awfully long ago this was and how awfully much time there has been for the unknown factors to have happened undected by mere modern finite fallible humans. Then you so pompously give creatos unceasing heck for alleging all this order and complicated intricacy was designed by intelligence, using the data we have pertaining to a few thousand years ago.

---

What can I say to this? It's an insult to me and my profession, and to the last hundred years that geologists have spent trying to better understand the world we live in. I did not come to this forum for this - I wanted to engage in debates on what I consider to be a very serious topic. You wish to show that radiometric dating is flawed, and this is your best argument?Pathetic.I apologise to the Admin again. If you feel it is appropriate, you can delete this message the moment I post it - I just hope you understand why I wrote this.The Rock Hound

IrishRockhound, well said. Buzsaw's credibility is negligable, as demonstrated in this thread. He has provided no evidence, except the occassional misrepresentation of a quote, to support his view but continually casts aspertions on others. He has been challenged to put up or shut up and concede his errors. I suspect he will become too busy to continue the thread.

Buz indicated that he was going to be busy elsewhere for a few days. I decided to temporarily close this topic, with the intent of reopening it Sunday night or Monday morning. Because of a topic closure complaint, one of the other admins (don't know which, but I would guess Admin) reopened the topic. See the "thread closed to soon" topic for further commentary, including some quotation from Buz, from up this string.Not that any guidelines were violated - But shouldn't the evo side strive to be a little nicer to the cre side? If you succeed in driving them off, then the debate will end.Cheers,
Adminnemooseus------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Ar-ar dating is contaminsted from the earth's mantle so as to render it unreliable.

quote:

---

Because it is known that excess 40Ar* is carried from the mantle by plumes of mafic magmas up into the earth's crust, it is equally likely that much of the excess 40Ar* in crustal rocks could be primordial 40Ar. Thus, we have no way of knowing if any of the 40Ar* measured in crustal rocks has any age significance. Additional to the primordial 40Ar from the mantle is 40Ar* released from minerals and rocks during diagenesis and metamorphism, so that there is continual migration and circulation of both primordial 40Ar and 40Ar* in the crust which is reflected in their presence in CO2-rich natural gases. Therefore, when samples of crustal rocks are analyzed for K-Ar andAr-Ar "dating," one can never be sure that whatever 40Ar* is in the rocks is from in situ radioactive decay of 40K since their formation, or if some or all of it came from the mantle or from other crustal rocks and minerals. Thus all K-Ar and Ar-Ar "dates" of crustal rocks are questionable, as well as fossil "dates" calibrated by them.

---

Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-28-2003]

quote:

---

Ar-ar dating is contaminsted from the earth's mantle so as to render it unreliable.

​

(quote snipped)

---

Read Schraf's post carefully and then explain to us why there are ANY concordant dates at all. If your source were correct, it should be virtually impossible to have any concordance at all much less concordance between the different radiometric methods. Is this just one huge coincidence?

Thanks Adminnemooseus. Hopefully we can all just get along. I am expected to provide documentation for statements I make, so will have to resort to some links (quote mining, if you will), but I don't see why that matters so long as truth is served and documentation is furnished.

quote:

---

If your source were correct, it should be virtually impossible to have any concordance at all much less concordance between the different radiometric methods. Is this just one huge coincidence?

---

Concordance with itself, I would say quite possible if the contamination is consistent for three attempts. Consistent with the other methods? I suppose that depends on whether its a hit n miss problem and it made a hit here. I don't know.To me, this problem is indicative of my statement to Rocky, that there's just too much time involved in these dating games for unknowns to exist, such as this problem until it was discovered. The same problem with carbon dating can be true with these other methods. How much carbon and nitrogen, etc was in the atmosphere in previous ages? Who knows about the other elements used in dating also. How much or how little of these elements existed and how did they relate to factors involved in the dating processes? No body was around millions or billions of years back to sample and test the data. What other factors contaminated what elements at which age period? How can they assume factors present today to be close enough to being consistent at any given age of the past to know for sure.

quote:

---

Concordance with itself, I would say quite possible if the contamination is consistent for three attempts.

---

We're talking about three different techniques here. Unless you have a specific type of contamination or other error in mind, and a way of showing that it affects three different methods of dating the rock, then your speculation isn't too convincing.How do you interpret the article above about argon dating? Forum guidelines would seem to encourage a bit more commentary on what knowledge you gained from it. Otherwise it's hard to tell what you're bringing to the discussion.

quote:

---

How can they assume factors present today to be close enough to being consistent at any given age of the past to know for sure.

---

Are you suggesting the laws of physics were different in the past? Otherwise, our knowledge of existing mechanisms is sufficient to tell us quite a lot about what happened long before our race existed. It's dirty and tedious work that, thankfully, many people have been willing to do.[This message has been edited by zephyr, 06-29-2003]

quote:

---

Ar-ar dating is contaminsted from the earth's mantle so as to render it unreliable.

---

Buz, you still aren't answering the question I have asked.Remember, I told you that I wasn't going to ask you to explain to me how each of the dozen or so different dating methods were each flawed to such an extent as to render them completely unreliable.Let us assume that all of the dating methods are bogus, as you have claimed. Each and every one is completely unreliable.The three methods I listed in my example returned similar ages for the meteorite from France.How is it that these different methods are each flawed in such a way as to return similar dates for a single rock sample?Unless you deal with this logical issue with regards to your claim, then you are just ignoring evidence.------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-29-2003]

Buz, And your data that suggests there is "too much time involved" is where? Is this just your opinion, again? You may be able to make this claim on a sample dated by one technique, but when two or more are producing similar results using different elements, this complaint is rendered moot. This is how we know the K-T boundary is 65 my old. No matter what technique is used, the same figure constantly appears. Either that, or exactly the same margin of error creeps in for all daughter isotopes. Not very likely. See post 18. Again, the question you have been avoiding since message 18, why, against the vast odds of such a thing occurring by chance, do different methods produce congruent results when different elements are involved? We can be sure that the dates obtained are correct to a very, very high degree. See post 18. I'll lay odds of 70,000,000:1 on the strength of the K-T tektites alone that the K-T boundary alone is 65 million years old to within a 700k year margin of error. See post 18.All of your complaints were dealt with 84 posts ago.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.