Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
Yes, that is my problem all right, along with the fact that the Flood is the only reasonable explanation for the strata and the fossils, and the fact that the Old Earth explanations of the strata and the fossils are just plain ridiculous, and quite a few other things.
Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
quote:
Yes, that is my problem all right, along with the fact that the Flood is the only reasonable explanation for the strata and the fossils, and the fact that the Old Earth explanations of the strata and the fossils are just plain ridiculous, and quite a few other things.
In reality it is the Old Earth explanations that make sense and the Flood story that is ridiculous. That's why the Old Earth is accepted as scientific fact and the Flood is rejected as a myth.
Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
Yes, that is my problem all right, along with the fact that the Flood is the only reasonable explanation for the strata and the fossils, and the fact that the Old Earth explanations of the strata and the fossils are just plain ridiculous, and quite a few other things.
There really is no point in discussing these things with you.
Your grasp of reality is so tenuous that you wouldn't accept a cliff even if you walked off it.
So, here's to you!
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
Leave the tree rings and varves out of this please. The subject is the radiometric dating methods. ...
And the tree rings and varves are the evidence that radiometric 14C dating is accurate, especially with the same 14C results obtained from different sources that are the same tree ring age, within 0.5% error over 8,000 years.
So yes, this is about radiometric dating, and no, you cannot leave out the evidence that validates the results.
... Did you really answer my question?
Say volcanism really only began on the planet at the time of the Flood. What kinds of readings would you get from your methods?
Either 4,300 years or the lower practical limit of the measuring system: you need sufficient time for the decay to occur to produce measurable results, so the longer the decay rate of the isotope you are measuring the more time needs to pass to obtain measurable results, hence there is a lower limit to what can be dated, and anything younger than that limit is normally reported as "less than {lower limit} age" ...
... just as the practical limit for 14C dating is ~50,000 years because after that the amount of 14C remaining is too small to measure, and the age is normally reported as "greater than 50,000 years) ...
You can't use a yardstick to measure a micron and you can't use a micrometer to measure a mile.
Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
Well, you've been told and it's nothing like what we actually see. So either you need to invent some new physics which just happens to result in many different dating methods giving consistently wrong results - despite relying on different processes. Or admit that radiometric dating is an effective falsification of YEC.
Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
In reality it is the Old Earth explanations that make sense and the Flood story that is ridiculous. That's why the Old Earth is accepted as scientific fact and the Flood is rejected as a myth.
No way does a stack of disparate sediments represent time periods, that's nuts, nothing sensible about it. You can rationalize it all in terms of the Old Earth but it's a strain on common sense, and billions of fossils is just too perfectly the result of the worldwide Flood. Not to mention the other problems I've pointed out in the GC examples. No, the OE explanations do not make sense, you're just used to them.
Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
If the earth really is only 6000 years old, and there was a worldwide Flood about 4300 years ago, what would that do to your dating methods? (Since the majority of the methods can only measure enormous time spans)
Without a major change in the fundamental laws of Physics, there would be no effect.
Many radiometric and non-radiometric methods, aside from the obvious carbon-14 method, are useful for historic ages. Ar-Ar has been used to date the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD (although that was somewhat of a tour-de-force and is unlikely to be repeated. U-Th disequilibrium dating is useful for about 10,000 years to 500,000 years. Fission track deating is good for about 20,000 yearts to several billion years. Thermoluminescence (which is not radiometric) is good for about 300 to 100,000 years ago. Racemization (again not radiometric) covers about 5,000 to 1,000,00 years. Electron Spin Resonance (again not radiometric) covers from a "few thousand" to a million years.
Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
faith writes:
No way does a stack of disparate sediments represent time periods, that's nuts, nothing sensible about it.
We all did the experiment when we were eight years old: a handful of dirt in a jar, fill it with water, shake and let it settle. It proves that all of the strata we observe could not be deposited in one event. Sequences of strata sorted by density require sequences of events. The flood scenario doesn't work.
Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
I'd really like to know. If you're all assuming millions and billions of years and most of the dating methods are for measuring such enormous time spans, but the earth really is only 6000 years old, what kinds of results would you expect to get from your methods?
We'd get too little signal (accumulated daughter product) to make a determination. Note that I pointed out above that daughter product present at formation doesn't fool most methods.
Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
Say volcanism really only began on the planet at the time of the Flood. What kinds of readings would you get from your methods?
As already explained by RAZD, we would get "less than whatever the minimum detectable age of the particular method is". {ABE} For example, if we were using U-Th disequilibrium, we would get "less than 10,000 years". If we were using fission track dating, we would get "less than 20,000 years".
Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
No way does a stack of disparate sediments represent time periods, that's nuts, nothing sensible about it. You can rationalize it all in terms of the Old Earth but it's a strain on common sense, and billions of fossils is just too perfectly the result of the worldwide Flood. Not to mention the other problems I've pointed out in the GC examples. No, the OE explanations do not make sense, you're just used to them.
Sorry Faith but it needs to be pointed out that you have NEVER presented the model, process, method or natural explanation the explains how your imaginary flood sorted fossils or materials as we see them in reality.
When you can present the model, process, natural explanation or methods we can discuss them. Until such time you are simply posting bullshit and falsehoods.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Brief responses to Faith's individual errors, references on request:
Assumption: Whatever portion you are able to get and analyze should tell you about the age of the whole
Samples are carefully selected to be representative, and it's common to take multiple samples from separated parts of the same formation. But whether the age is taken to be the age of the rock formation or the age of that portion of the rock, it's an age that rebuts your YE claims.
Assumption: How much of either atom was already present at the origin of the substance
The amount of parent isotope present at the origin of the substance is irrelevant and does not appear in the calculation. The amount of daughter product present at the origin of the substance is key. But nobody assumes anything. We use other available information.
E.g. for U-Pb dating of zircons We know (and the RATE group acknowledges) that it is physically impossible for any significant amount of lead to be incorporated into a zircon at formation without major changes to the fundamental laws of physics, 'cause the lead atoms just can't fit. Any significant amount of lead in a zircon is due to decay of uranium or thorium in that zircon after it formed.
Or Ar-Ar dating: it detects whether there was argon in the sample when it formed and can often produce a valid date anyway. The samples from the Vesuvius eruption in 79 AD, mentioned above, contained argon when they were formed but the method corrected for it.
Or the isochron method, which requires multiple samples from the same source, which produces the amount of daughter product at formation as a byproduct of the analysis. Very useful in cases where we are sure there was daughter product present when the sample was formed.
What exactly the origin of a substance is supposed to be. When it came out of the volcano? When it was laid down in the strata?
The date produced is the time at which the sample cooled to the point (the "closure temperature") where the parent and daughter products were no longer mobile but rather were crystallized. What happened before that does not affect the method. For lava the date is very shortly after it came out of the volcano. For sedimentary rocks (rarely dated, but it's sometimes done) the date is when the "glue" that holds the grains together was formed.
Assumption: Any errors you find can just be discarded. What exactly is an error anyway and how would you know?
Errors can be and are found, results they are never discarded without objective and specified reasons. The most widely used methods are what Dalrymple calls "age-diagnostic". That is, they produce both an age and a diagnosis of how reliable that age is. U-Pb concordia-discordia dating compares two independently derived ages for the same sample. Isochron dating produces a straight line for good dates and scattered points for bad dates. Ar-Ar dating also does multiple measurements of the same sample while it is slowly heated to vaporization, and the results produce a flat "plateau" on an appropriate diagram if the age is valid.
Replication/testing: Too much slippage for this to be reliable from one testing lab to another. You really have only whatever result you are willing to accept, that fits with your other assumptions about time etc.
You sure do love to make stuff up and claim it's fact! no, just ain't so. Dating labs are constantly calibrating their equipment against recognized standards, and constantly exchange samples to make sure that similar analyses by different labs produce the same results. There's no "slippage", whatever that may be, between labs. E.g as of 1998 one of the common standards, the For example, the Fish Canyon sanidine, had been analyzed 380 times by different labs and many times since then. Or the University of Waikato lab participated in a five-lab twelve-sample 14C dating test which produced:
The maximum difference between labs in that test was about 1%.
Conclusion:...
The only possible conclusion from that mish-mosh is that you don't have a scintilla of a clue about how radiometric dating, and science in general, is performed.
And with all that you left out one of the standard creationist lies about radiometric dating!
As expected, no comment on her many errors in describing radiometric dating.
Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
... So either you need to invent some new physics which just happens to result in many different dating methods giving consistently wrong results - despite relying on different processes. ...
Note that scientists give their results with a stated uncertainty. They take into account all the possible errors and give a range within which they are 95% sure that the actual value lies. The top number, 3.600.05, refers to the range 3.60+0.05 to 3.60-0.05. The size of this range is every bit as important as the actual number. A number with a small uncertainty range is more accurate than a number with a larger range. For the numbers given above, one can see that all of the ranges overlap and agree between 3.62 and 3.65 billion years as the age of the rock. Several studies also showed that, because of the great ages of these rocks, they have been through several mild metamorphic heating events that disturbed the ages given by potassium-bearing minerals (not listed here). As pointed out earlier, different radiometric dating methods agree with each other most of the time, over many thousands of measurements. Other examples of agreement between a number of different measurements of the same rocks are given in the references below..
The Age of the Earth
We now turn our attention to what the dating systems tell us about the age of the Earth. The most obvious constraint is the age of the oldest rocks. These have been dated at up to about four billion years. But actually only a very small portion of the Earth's rocks are that old. From satellite data and other measurements we know that the Earth's surface is constantly rearranging itself little by little as Earthquakes occur. Such rearranging cannot occur without some of the Earth's surface disappearing under other parts of the Earth's surface, re-melting some of the rock. So it appears that none of the rocks have survived from the creation of the Earth without undergoing remelting, metamorphism, or erosion, and all we can say--from this line of evidence--is that the Earth appears to be at least as old as the four billion year old rocks.
The earth cannot logically be younger than the oldest rock formations found on earth ... unless the evidence lies.
™ Version 4.2
