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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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