Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
91 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 89 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,045 Year: 5,157/6,534 Month: 0/577 Week: 68/135 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Validity of Radiometric Dating
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 325 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 61 of 207 (730440)
06-28-2014 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Faith
06-28-2014 3:53 AM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
But their treatment of the KT boundary is simply, flatly, not at all as you have described it. Your example is not an example. It is something you made up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 3:53 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 4:08 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 718 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 62 of 207 (730443)
06-28-2014 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Dr Adequate
06-28-2014 3:59 AM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
I did not make it up so now I have to prove it to you? Maybe later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 3:59 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 4:11 AM Faith has taken no action
 Message 65 by mram10, posted 07-16-2014 11:31 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 325 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 63 of 207 (730444)
06-28-2014 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Faith
06-28-2014 4:08 AM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
Yes, maybe later you'll prove that the article I've just read and quoted doesn't say what it says. Or maybe not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 4:08 AM Faith has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 64 of 207 (730446)
06-28-2014 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Faith
06-28-2014 12:09 AM


TRUE vs accepted reality
That is far from the point I'm trying to make. I don't care about the detailed arguments, what I care about is how the public is being brainwashed by a presentation of questionable material as fact. There is no way to rationalize this....

Because (1) it is not brainwashing -- nobody is being forced to learn it -- it is just information being made available (that's what the purpose of wiki is after all), (2) because it is not questionable material, it is the best explanation known at this time, and (3) it is not presented as fact, but as the best explanation known at this time.

... Presentations of TRUE science don't do this to the public.

What is "TRUE science" Faith?

Every science is based on the objective evidence and the best explanation of that evidence known at the time. There is no such thing as "TRUE" in science ... what we have instead is accepted facts, science is shades of grey rather than black and white.

Global climate change is a non-historical science based on observed facts of temperature rising in the atmosphere and in the ocean, it shows a very clear trend of increasing energy absorption by them, not just in temperature. This is why there is over 90% acceptance of these facts by the scientific community, and why people that read and understand science are concerned that actions should be taken.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 12:09 AM Faith has taken no action

  
mram10
Member (Idle past 2776 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 65 of 207 (733334)
07-16-2014 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Faith
06-28-2014 4:08 AM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
Faith,
I share some of your concern. I have many questions that have not been logically explained by secular science. There are not many TRUE scientists that seek truth. As you have seen here, true science is discouraged if you disagree. The massive fossil beds can both be explained by a massive meteorite strike 60m years ago, or by a global flood at some point. I digress, but I too have questions about the validation of radiometric dating methods that are too old to verify by observation. But, what do I know? I only have a few posts, which shows I am new to this whole "science" thing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 4:08 AM Faith has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by JonF, posted 07-16-2014 11:58 AM mram10 has replied
 Message 67 by Coyote, posted 07-16-2014 12:23 PM mram10 has seen this message
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 07-16-2014 1:06 PM mram10 has replied
 Message 69 by Taq, posted 07-16-2014 9:29 PM mram10 has replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 66 of 207 (733336)
07-16-2014 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by mram10
07-16-2014 11:31 AM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
If you have questions, we will be glad to answer them. If you are interested in learning the basics of radiometric dating, a very good place to start is Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective (Dr. Weins is an evangelical Christian). In case you are interested, at least one widely used radiometric method has been "calibrated" against history, the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD: Precise dating of the destruction of Pompeii proves argon-argon method can reliably date rocks as young as 2,000 years (press release) or 40Ar/39Ar Dating into the Historical Realm: Calibration Against Pliny the Younger (technical paper, free registration required to get full text).

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mram10, posted 07-16-2014 11:31 AM mram10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 12:17 AM JonF has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1379 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 67 of 207 (733342)
07-16-2014 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by mram10
07-16-2014 11:31 AM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
But, what do I know? I only have a few posts, which shows I am new to this whole "science" thing

Welcome!

You have come to the right place, as a number of us are very familiar with science.

If you have questions about radiocarbon dating, please let me know and I'll try to answer them.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mram10, posted 07-16-2014 11:31 AM mram10 has seen this message

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19614
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 68 of 207 (733348)
07-16-2014 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by mram10
07-16-2014 11:31 AM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
mram10 writes:

There are not many TRUE scientists that seek truth. As you have seen here, true science is discouraged if you disagree.


That's false.

Science depends entirely on disagreement. Scientists try to falsify their own hypotheses - if they don't, somebody else might do it for them and make them look bad.

mram10 writes:

I have many questions that have not been logically explained by secular science.


I would suggest that all of your questions have been answered many times; you just don't know the answers yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mram10, posted 07-16-2014 11:31 AM mram10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 12:21 AM ringo has replied
 Message 197 by Phat, posted 05-09-2018 11:11 AM ringo has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8524
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


(4)
Message 69 of 207 (733389)
07-16-2014 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by mram10
07-16-2014 11:31 AM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
I digress, but I too have questions about the validation of radiometric dating methods that are too old to verify by observation.

Perhaps it might help to list the observations that do verify radiometric dating.

1. The observed decay rate of isotopes, and the constancy of the physical laws that govern radiometric decay as seen across the entire universe verify the validity of using decay rates as clocks. Even a small amount of an unstable isotope can produce thousands of decay events in a few minutes, even for isotopes with very long half lives. This means that measuring their decay rates does not require us to sit around for billions of years. We also know that the stability of isotopes is governed by atomic forces, the very same atomic forces that govern the power output of stars and the spectra that they produce. We observe that stars all have the same power output throughout the universe, and have the same spectra.

2. The observed properties of newly formed rocks verify the validity of the models used for radiometric dating. For example, we observe that the chemistry of zircon formation results in the inclusion of uranium and the exclusion of lead. Therefore, we can know that any Pb found in a zircon got there from the known decay products of U.

3. The cross correlation of different radiometric methods is another independent test of the methods validity. There are many different radioisotopes used in dating, and they each have a different stable product. Three examples are K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr dating. Different isotopes have different decay rates, and there are different types of decay processes (e.g. beta and gamma). Therefore, if radiometric dating didn't work, then there would be no reason why dates from completely different isotope pairs would produce the same dates, but they do. Different methods using different isotopes give us the same dates.

4. Correlation of radiometric dating with non-radiometric dates is also a very strong source of validation. For example, if radiometric dating really does work then we should see a strong correlation between radiometric dates and specific fossils and sediments. That is exactly what we see. This is exactly what they did with radiometric dating and the famous K/T boundary which marks the end of the dinosaurs. The K/T boundary had already been defined at several places around the globe well before radiometric dating came along. When they used radiometric dating on that boundary it returned the same date at every location.

If you want to argue that radiometric dating doesn't work, then you need to explain all of these correlations, be they correlations with fossils or correlations between different radiometric dating methods. In science, this type of consilience (a very important term to understand) is the gold standard for validating a method.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mram10, posted 07-16-2014 11:31 AM mram10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 12:31 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8524
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


(2)
Message 70 of 207 (733390)
07-16-2014 9:43 PM


How do creationists explain these correlations?
Below is a chart from the article "Radiometric Dating Does Work" written by G. Brent Dalrymple, and expert in radiometric dating.

Dalrymple does a good job of summarizing the data.

"First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible."

I would love to see someone who discounts radiometric dating to explain how it is possible to get such consistent results.


Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Coyote, posted 07-16-2014 9:54 PM Taq has taken no action

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1379 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 71 of 207 (733393)
07-16-2014 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Taq
07-16-2014 9:43 PM


Re: How do creationists explain these correlations?
I would love to see someone who discounts radiometric dating to explain how it is possible to get such consistent results.

1. They claim there is a difference between "true" science and those "other" sciences.

2. They refuse to accept the consistent results no matter what the evidence.

3. They claim that radiometric dating is based on assumptions as if that was an automatic disqualification. Finally, they ask...

4. "Were you there?" As if that was a valid challenge to huge amounts of evidence.

In other words, all they need to do is fool themselves, which is apparently surprisingly easy for them to do.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Taq, posted 07-16-2014 9:43 PM Taq has taken no action

  
mram10
Member (Idle past 2776 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 72 of 207 (733398)
07-17-2014 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by JonF
07-16-2014 11:58 AM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
JonF,
Thank you for the respectful post. I have not read that book, but have spent a lot of time studying RMD. I wish I had my own lab for my own testing As for K-Ar, I have a tough time with any dating methods that range starts at 1mil years for accuracy. I trust observation and do not care for assumptions that I cannot verify. I am very interested in the RATE team that is working these issues now. Either way, thank you and I will try to check out that book when time allows.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by JonF, posted 07-16-2014 11:58 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by NoNukes, posted 07-17-2014 12:42 AM mram10 has replied
 Message 80 by JonF, posted 07-17-2014 7:49 AM mram10 has seen this message

  
mram10
Member (Idle past 2776 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 73 of 207 (733399)
07-17-2014 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by ringo
07-16-2014 1:06 PM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
Zombie,
As for my experience, I have not met many true scientists. Fact Every time I have questioned macro ev, I get the "you must be a ...." treatment. I mentioned piltdown, nebraska, etc being found to be flawed, to make sure they were no longer part of the debate and I get met with the above

Again, there are very few TRUE scientists in MY EXPERIENCE. Ask someone if they believe in the possibility of unicorns or aliens and see what you get met with


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 07-16-2014 1:06 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by ringo, posted 07-17-2014 11:53 AM mram10 has seen this message
 Message 96 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2014 4:36 PM mram10 has seen this message
 Message 98 by Taq, posted 07-17-2014 5:35 PM mram10 has seen this message

  
mram10
Member (Idle past 2776 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 74 of 207 (733403)
07-17-2014 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Taq
07-16-2014 9:29 PM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
Taq,
Thank you for your respectful post. Good info, just a couple questions I have about each.
1. I have been reading about helium dating of rocks from 0-12000 ft in new mexico done by the RATE team. The article mentioned the uranium alpha particles becoming helium levels were different than originally thought, thus making the age based on helium dating, younger. It was the first I had heard of this, so I am seeking more info.
2. I also have questions about the assumptions you listed (rate been a constant, etc). Again, I read a study by the same RATE team, that I need to link, stating ideas to the contrary. I need to read more, but it did raise a red flag.
Again, thank you for the info and the way it was presented. I will keep learning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Taq, posted 07-16-2014 9:29 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Coyote, posted 07-17-2014 12:51 AM mram10 has seen this message
 Message 81 by JonF, posted 07-17-2014 8:10 AM mram10 has seen this message
 Message 97 by Taq, posted 07-17-2014 5:26 PM mram10 has seen this message

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 207 (733406)
07-17-2014 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by mram10
07-17-2014 12:17 AM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
I am very interested in the RATE team that is working these issues now.

Interesting. You are aware of some recent work by the RATE team?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 12:17 AM mram10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 1:24 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022