Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
530 online now:
Aussie, AZPaul3, nwr, Percy (Admin), ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx (7 members, 523 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,199 Year: 4,311/6,534 Month: 525/900 Week: 49/182 Day: 21/16 Hour: 3/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Validity of Radiometric Dating
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3958
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 106 of 207 (733530)
07-17-2014 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Dr Adequate
07-17-2014 9:57 PM


Source reference needed!
Sure, let's see what they have to say:

A large amount of nuclear decay...

There REALLY should be a reference given for that.

Forum rule 7:

quote:
Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source.

To all - Anytime anyone is using information from anywhere, be it a direct quote or in their own words, there probably should be a reference given. Of course, there may be practical limits in doing this, but people, how about trying?

No replies in this topic. You are welcome to do such at "The Whine List".

Adminnemooseus

Added by edit- Dr. Adequate has ABE the following reference:

Humphreys, D.R.; S.A. Austin; J.R. Baumgardner and A.A. Snelling, 2003, "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay",Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey (ed.), Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.

After some bumbling around, I found a no longer valid link at Talk Origins. But doing an advanced Google search of icr.org, I was able to find:

http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf

The Dr. Adequate quoted material is on page 3.

So, especially knowing that it was a icr.org thing, I was able to track it down. But it is the posters obligation to include the reference, not the readers job to track it down. And an online version is nice, preferably the original source and not some other source that quotes the material and gives a reference.

Anyway, I do thank Dr. A for the reference he gave.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added by edit.


Or something like that©.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-17-2014 9:57 PM Dr Adequate has taken no action

  
mram10
Member (Idle past 2738 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 107 of 207 (733533)
07-17-2014 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by RAZD
07-17-2014 10:04 PM


Young earth, old earth, is not the point. The point is there was interesting data that came from their work. Many here are spring loaded to anything that might go against what they learned in school. Get used to it. Science books in school said numerous things that have been proven false since.

If you get so offended about studies that might change things as we know them, you are NOT a scientist. You are simply a fundamentalist.

For those interested in continuing this topic, please post. As fort the rest, feel free to continue your bashing elsewhere. It simply takes away form your credibility when you do it

Edited by mram10, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2014 10:04 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-17-2014 10:34 PM mram10 has seen this message
 Message 109 by Coyote, posted 07-17-2014 10:40 PM mram10 has seen this message
 Message 110 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-17-2014 11:09 PM mram10 has seen this message
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 07-18-2014 7:23 AM mram10 has seen this message
 Message 112 by NoNukes, posted 07-18-2014 8:00 AM mram10 has seen this message
 Message 116 by JonF, posted 07-18-2014 8:31 AM mram10 has seen this message

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 287 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 108 of 207 (733535)
07-17-2014 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by mram10
07-17-2014 10:21 PM


The point is there was interesting data that came from their work.

Perhaps you could communicate your enthusiasm by explaining to RAZD just what it was you found so interesting and why.

But maybe RAZD feels more blasé then you do about seeing radiometric data proving that YECs are wrong.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 10:21 PM mram10 has seen this message

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1342 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 109 of 207 (733536)
07-17-2014 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by mram10
07-17-2014 10:21 PM


Re: the RATE study
The point is there was interesting data that came from their work.

The data that came from their work supported what science has found. Their interpretation of that data was that the bible was right all along. You clearly are avoiding their actual data and going with their interpretation. Perhaps you should become familiar with their actual data?

Many here are spring loaded to anything that might go against what they learned in school. Get used to it. Science books in school said numerous things that have been proven false since.

We know that. I wouldn't doubt that some here have helped to prove things in old textbooks false.

If you get so offended about studies that might change things as we know them, you are NOT a scientist. You are simply a fundamentalist.

To turn this around, if you can't follow the data where it leads you are NOT a scientist. You are simply a fundamentalist. And we have seen that creationists like data about as much as vampires like garlic. Creationists typically ignore, misrepresent, or obfuscate any data that gets in the way of their chosen beliefs. So no, we don't look to creationists to tell us how to do science.

For those interested in continuing this topic, please post. As fort the rest, feel free to continue your bashing elsewhere. It simply takes away form your credibility when you do it

The topic is the validity of radiometric dating. So far you have offered no evidence that radiometric dating is not accurate. Don't you think it is about time you tried to do so?

One of my special areas is radiocarbon dating. A couple of other posters here are very familiar with that as well. Care to present your evidence that radiocarbon dating is inaccurate?


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 107 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 10:21 PM mram10 has seen this message

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 287 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 110 of 207 (733537)
07-17-2014 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by mram10
07-17-2014 10:21 PM


Young earth, old earth, is not the point. The point is there was interesting data that came from their work. Many here are spring loaded to anything that might go against what they learned in school. Get used to it. Science books in school said numerous things that have been proven false since.
If you get so offended about studies that might change things as we know them, you are NOT a scientist. You are simply a fundamentalist.

For those interested in continuing this topic, please post. As fort the rest, feel free to continue your bashing elsewhere. It simply takes away form your credibility when you do it

This is a strange response to a post where RAZD explicitly asked to see evidence showing that he, and science books, and what he learned in school, was wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 10:21 PM mram10 has seen this message

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 641 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 111 of 207 (733551)
07-18-2014 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by mram10
07-17-2014 10:21 PM


Young earth, old earth, is not the point.

So you keep saying, yet you seem obsessed with implying that there is some interesting information, but you can't (or won't) answer my simple question. Let me repeat it:

RAZD writes:

Message 105: Tell you what, why don't you post their findings from their last report that show any evidence of a young earth?

Simple task, should be easy to do ... right?

Perhaps the reason is that there is no evidence of a young earth in their report?

If you get so offended about studies that might change things as we know them, you are NOT a scientist. You are simply a fundamentalist.

For them to challenge current knowledge they need to have evidence that shows current knowledge is wrong -- if you think they have it then where is it?

Show me the evidence, mram10, or you are not really interested in the science.

For those interested in continuing this topic, please post. As fort the rest, feel free to continue your bashing elsewhere. It simply takes away form your credibility when you do it

Curiously, you have not established any credibility (a) to take away from and (b) to be regarded as any kind of authority on what credibility is.

Show me the evidence, mram10, or admit you don't really have any.

Just another creationist playing games trying to fool themselves.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : ...


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 107 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 10:21 PM mram10 has seen this message

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 207 (733553)
07-18-2014 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by mram10
07-17-2014 10:21 PM


The point is there was interesting data that came from their work.

When are you going to get around to telling us what was so interesting? All of the quotes and links I've seen posted of the RATE study data have come from other people. You have posted diddly squat. What do you want to talk about?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


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 107 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 10:21 PM mram10 has seen this message

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


Message 113 of 207 (733554)
07-18-2014 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by NoNukes
07-17-2014 3:27 PM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
I was kidding. You've corrected me too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by NoNukes, posted 07-17-2014 3:27 PM NoNukes has seen this message

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


(1)
Message 114 of 207 (733555)
07-18-2014 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Taq
07-17-2014 5:26 PM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
Many creationists will criticize radiometric dating techniques because they rely on an assumption that the daughter product can not move in or out of the rock. Of course, this assumption has been tested inside and out for the main dating methods that geologists use. What is curious is that when the creationists try to devise a methodology, they picked a daughter product that does move in and out of the rock, and does so in a temperature dependent manner.

A little expansion: one major reason creationists focus on K-Ar is because it is a "simple accumulation" method. If there was any daughter product present at solidification or if the system has been disturbed it will produce the wrong answer with no indication from the method of that error. Of course scientists have characterized the rocks in which these issues are likely or unlikely, and Dalrymple showed (in 40Ar-36Ar Analyses of Historic Lava Flows) that the presence of 40Ar at solidification is rare in lava that isn't in the class that is known to have "excess Ar".

The most widely used methods, Ar-Ar and U-Pb and isochrons are "age-diagnostic" and, if they produce an age, they also produce a diagnosis of the validity of that age. Some can even produce a valid age if there was loss or gain of relevant material or there was daughter product present at solidification.

The age-diagnostic Ar-Ar method is applicable to any situation where K-Ar is applicable. (Ar-Ar has come down significantly in price and that's one reason whey K-Ar is so little used today.) There's absolutely no excuse for "creation scientists" to run tests on material with known issues using K-Ar when Ar-Ar or something else is obviously the method of choice.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Taq, posted 07-17-2014 5:26 PM Taq has taken no action

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


(5)
Message 115 of 207 (733556)
07-18-2014 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by mram10
07-17-2014 8:44 PM


EvC forum???? Hmmm... I was expecting real scientists that are comfortable hearing there might be new information we can learn from.

We are comfortable hearing that there might be new information. You haven't presented any and there's no reason for us to suspect that there is any. I am somewhat of an expert on radiometric dating, the RATE group work, and creationist misrepresentations and fraud in radiometric dating.

I'd love to see some new information. Pony some up.

Try reading their findings from THEM, as opposed to reading those that simply contradict them.

I have read the RATE I and RATE II books. I've also read all the YEC "papers" that I know of on radiometric dating.

If you got a new one, let's see it.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 8:44 PM mram10 has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by edge, posted 07-18-2014 1:50 PM JonF has replied

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


(3)
Message 116 of 207 (733558)
07-18-2014 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by mram10
07-17-2014 10:21 PM


The point is there was interesting data that came from their work

Yes there was. It's been thoroughly analyzed and their conclusions have been rejected for objective and widely promulgated reasons.

Many here are spring loaded to anything that might go against what they learned in school.

No, we're just tired of the same ol' same ol' ignorant creationist claims. You are one of many we've seen over the years. You obviously have no knowledge of the subject, you're just regurgitating YEC website errors. I've learned a lot since I left school many many moons ago, and I'm continuing to learn. If you can produce some new information let's see it.

If you get so offended about studies that might change things as we know them, you are NOT a scientist. You are simply a fundamentalist.

I'm not offended by the RATE studies in general (although I am offended by Humphreys' lying to hire Farley to do the zircon diffusivity analyses). I am offended by some other obvious YEC dating frauds. I am also offended by ignorant YECs who know nothing more than parroting YEC claims. E.g. you.

For those interested in continuing this topic, please post. As fort the rest, feel free to continue your bashing elsewhere. It simply takes away form your credibility when you do it

As I wrote in my first reply to you. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. I've answered the few questions you've asked with summaries and references. You've resorted to ad hominem and bashing in response. Matthew 7:5.

Do you have any interest in learning about radiometric dating or discussing what you know? Then start doing so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 10:21 PM mram10 has seen this message

  
edge
Member (Idle past 942 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 117 of 207 (733581)
07-18-2014 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
06-27-2014 10:21 PM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
It's typical of popular accounts of Evolutionist and Old Earth conclusions: They do not bother with giving you any of their reasoning, it's only their conclusions stated as absolute fact.

"Absolute"? I don't remember that ever being the case.

Perhaps you overstate your position, or maybe you are simply projecting? If anyone is an absolutist around here, that would be you.

What is presented to the public is generally the current state of knowledge about the universe. I don't suppose you'd be as concerned if the 'six-day creation/global flood' story was presented as fact, would you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 10:21 PM Faith has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 942 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 118 of 207 (733582)
07-18-2014 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by JonF
07-18-2014 8:17 AM


I have read the RATE I and RATE II books. I've also read all the YEC "papers" that I know of on radiometric dating.

My sympathies. I could only take very small doses, confined to specific topics. Did RATE ever provide actual, positive evidence for a young earth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by JonF, posted 07-18-2014 8:17 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by JonF, posted 07-18-2014 3:12 PM edge has taken no action

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


Message 119 of 207 (733585)
07-18-2014 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by edge
07-18-2014 1:50 PM


RATE ever provide actual, positive evidence for a young earth?

The did provide evidence which they interpreted as being evidence for a young Earth. Some of it was obviously (to the knowedgeable) generated specifically to point to that conclusion without making it obvious (to the hoi-polloi) how the process had been manipulated. E.g. their isochron results. Some of it could be interpreted as evidence for a young Earth but could equally well be interpreted as evidence for an old Earth by one who understands the geology and diffusion. E.g. the zircon results. Finally, some of it may be fraudulent; there's some evidence that the three data points on which Humphreys hangs his hat are invalid because it's below the equipment detection range and Humphreys has been asked to release the lab report and has refused (he did release an earlier report from the same lab without being asked). Not enough to be fully compelling, but enough to raise a question.

(Dr. Farley, the lab operator, is so pissed that Humphreys deceived him as to what he was being hired for that he won't say anything about it to anyone. Pity).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by edge, posted 07-18-2014 1:50 PM edge has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 1:22 PM JonF has replied

  
mram10
Member (Idle past 2738 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 120 of 207 (733635)
07-19-2014 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by JonF
07-18-2014 3:12 PM


Sorry folks, been a little busy with work. As for what interested me about their findings I will post them one at a time. To be clear, I am not arguing anything, simply wanting an answer as to why/why not their findings were valid.

1. The helium levels from the granite were higher than expected due to the diffusion rates. They said the helium should be gone if the zircons were that old.

Instead of saying, "they are wrong" can someone with UNDERSTAND and EXPERIENCE in this fields explain how their research was flawed

Edited by mram10, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by JonF, posted 07-18-2014 3:12 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2014 1:32 PM mram10 has seen this message
 Message 122 by NoNukes, posted 07-19-2014 2:00 PM mram10 has replied
 Message 123 by RAZD, posted 07-19-2014 2:14 PM mram10 has seen this message
 Message 124 by NoNukes, posted 07-19-2014 2:15 PM mram10 has seen this message
 Message 126 by JonF, posted 07-20-2014 9:00 AM mram10 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