Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 6:22 PM
27 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, Coragyps, JonF, ooh-child (4 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,836 Year: 9,872/19,786 Month: 2,294/2,119 Week: 330/724 Day: 55/114 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Radiometric Dating Really that Accurate?
JonF
Member
Posts: 4899
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 71 of 114 (77448)
01-09-2004 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by johnfolton
01-09-2004 7:58 PM


Ah, your running away was only from that thread where everyone was thoroughtly sick of your repeated unsuported assertions, not from this board.

There was no need to test, Austin's results are easily explained without any further tests, and do not prove anything other than Austin's dishonesty. Criticism of the ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project. Austin's paper fools only the gullible and ignorant.

When one studies the real data, the dating methods do agree with each other.

Etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by johnfolton, posted 01-09-2004 7:58 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by johnfolton, posted 01-09-2004 9:12 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4899
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 76 of 114 (77560)
01-10-2004 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by johnfolton
01-09-2004 9:12 PM


When are you going to discuss or apologize for your insulting claim that K-Ar dating is "rigged"?

Nobody ever claimed that all argon is tied up within rocks. Call back when you have some proof that argon actually does diffuse into rocks in significant amounts. And address the consistency of various radiometric dates; the ones listed at Consistent Radiometric dates will do for a start.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by johnfolton, posted 01-09-2004 9:12 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 1:19 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4899
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 80 of 114 (77595)
01-10-2004 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by johnfolton
01-10-2004 1:19 PM


JonF, So you agree that argon is not all tied up in the inner earth, and that argon can diffuse into the sediments

Yes, I agree that argon is not all tied up in the inner Earth. However, the diffusion rate of argon into the igneous rocks (not sediments) that we date with K-Ar and Ar-Ar is too low to significantly affect the results. Call back when you have some evidence that it actually happens.

The link I gave explains that there can be a problem with samples in which argon has diffused out, explains how to avoid the problem, and points out that the problem is rare.

how do they know its a fact, that the isotopes are decaying at the rates they say, if they were off a bit, this too would affect the dating accuracy

How many times must I point out that you have no idea what you are talking about and that you are terrible at making stuff up?

The decay rates have been measured, pretty accurately, and they are measured over and over and over again at different times by different labs using different methods under different conditions. The decay rates don't change noticeably1. They are known precisely enough to induce at most a percent or two error into the dates. One of the reasons for the popularity of concordia-discordia dating is that the decay rate of uranium is known significantly more accurately than any other. I bet you're not smart enlugh to figure out why, although it should be obvious.

seems they are making an assumption about these changing decay rate

Yuo are making up fantasy. No assumptions. Measurements.

--------------

1Many creationists got all excited recently at the news that someone had ademonstrated an effect that was predicted in the 1940's, in which a particular type of decay (that is not present in almost all types of dating) was sped up several percent under conditions that would destroy the entire Earth instantaneously.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 1:19 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4899
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 81 of 114 (77597)
01-10-2004 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by johnfolton
01-10-2004 2:50 PM


Re: HMM
Thought they try to date basalt that has no impurities, like minerals like granite, or other sedimentary rock melding with the basalt, that would cause age abnormalities

That has no relationship to his question. He's pointing out that your "model", such as it is, predicts that different minerals (in which argon diffuses differently) from one level should yield different dates, and this is the oposite of what we observe. Your "model" does not correspond to what we see in the real world. Try answering the question that he asked.

Also address the consistent dates he has posted at Consistent Radiometric dates.

I was just thinking that argon doesn't dissolve into solution

Argon does dissolve in high-pressure magma. The solubility depends on a lot of factors.

[This message has been edited by JonF, 01-10-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 2:50 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 3:44 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4899
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 88 of 114 (77634)
01-10-2004 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by johnfolton
01-10-2004 4:31 PM


JonF, How do we know if solar energy of the sun isn't affecting the rate of the decay of the isotopes

Because we understand the process very well, both theoretically and practically, and nothing affects radioactive decay rates noticeably wihtout destroying the Earth or leaving other such subtle traces.

would question that how do you know the rates of decay have remained constant over 100's of millions of years

If the radioactive decay rates had changed enough to make a 6000-year-old Earth look 4.5 billion years old, it would have released enought energy to melt the Earth several times over.

it was the scientists that made the assumption that the sun was a star for more than 12,000 years,

Not an assumption. A solidly founded conclusion based on measurements and evidence.

and created a forumla that the decay ratio has not changed, off this premise

The fact that decay rates do not change is supported by experimental and theoretical evidence from many fields. If they had changed, it would have left traces. We don't see those traces.

however, the creationists belief that the sun has only been shining 6,000 years

Yes, we know that. The creationists are wrong, and have no evidence for their fantasy.

I was kind of winging it

We know. It's obvious.

it will all come down to the sun, was it or wasn't it

Ws it or wasn't it what? The Sun has been shining for circa 4.5 billion years. That we know. Call back when you have some evidence instead of just unfounded fantasy.

is argon rising up from the inner earth

No. Call back when you have some evidence instead of just unfounded fantasy.

so the creationists will never agree that the isotope dating method has merit

We know. Denying reality and ignoring the evidence are creationist specialties, and you have demonstrated both abundantly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 4:31 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 5:37 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4899
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 90 of 114 (77638)
01-10-2004 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by johnfolton
01-10-2004 5:13 PM


Chiroptera, If the sun wasn't shining, how cold would the surface of the earth be

I don't know, but it would be noticeably above absolute zero, due largely to the heat released by radioactive decay.

I thought things moved a bit slower, at absolute zero, properties change, etc...

Many things change near absolute zero. Radioactive decay rates don't. This has been tested.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 5:13 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4899
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 91 of 114 (77639)
01-10-2004 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by johnfolton
01-10-2004 5:37 PM


Thought the only evidence you had that the sun was old, was a moon rock

No, there's lots more evidence than that. We understand how the Sun works very well, and hav measured many of its characterisitcs. If you had read the thread to which I pointed you about the age of the Sun you would understand a very little bit of the vast amount of evidence we have about the age of the Sun.

I guess I'm just going to agree to disagree, you have your fantasy, and I have mine, etc

The appropriate defintion of "fantasy" is defined as "fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements." The mainstream scientific explanation of the age of the Earth and Sun and life does not meet any of the definitions of fantasy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 5:37 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Eta_Carinae, posted 01-10-2004 5:55 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4899
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 98 of 114 (77721)
01-11-2004 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by johnfolton
01-10-2004 8:33 PM


argon 40 could be rising up

So what? Call back when you have some EVIDENCE THAT IT ACTUALLY HAPPENS. That's going to be very difficult, because THE OBSERVED EVIDENCE CONTRADICTS YOUR CLAIM.

its not a soluable gas

It is soluble. Noble gases dissolve just like other gases.

if the sun wasn't a star, like would the iron in the earth create super magnetic fields

No.

I was just questioning something thats apparently been etched in stone

It's not etched in stone. It's supported by a vast amount of interconnected evidence that you don't understand. You are not even aware that the evidence exists. The only "evidence" that you know is that you don't like the conclusion.

don't put as much faith as you that the istope decay has been constant for all them millions of years

We know you don't like it. The constancy of radioactive decay is supported by a vast amount of interconnected evidence that you don't understand. You are not even aware that the evidence exists. The only "evidence" that you know is that you don't like the conclusion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 8:33 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4899
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 100 of 114 (77728)
01-11-2004 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by johnfolton
01-10-2004 9:10 PM


I just thought it interesting that the evolutionists didn't date Austins rock with the other dating methods, suspecting had the wrong parent materials for the other dating methods

The "evolutionists" did date the formations from which Austin's rocks came, with various dating methods. They did this before Austin showed up, and maybe after (I don't know). In fact, Austin initialy started his project by mis-using data pblished in an "evolutionist" study.

Austin carefully selected samples, probably using the "evolutionist" study as a guide, to appear to give an erroneous isochron. He ignored the procedures by which real geologists detect erroneous isochrons.

From A Criticism of the ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project, to which you have been pointed before:

quote:
Before the Grand Canyon Dating Project began, in his 1988 Impact article, Austin admitted in print that the selected lava flows fell into two different stratigraphic stages. That is, the very information which he used to select the flows, also clearly indicates that they did not all occur at the same time. In his subsequent book (1994, p. 125), Austin indicated that his five data points came from four different lava flows plus an extracted "phenocryst" (large mineral which likely formed in the magma chamber and was not molten in the lava flow). We had known from the Impact articles that Austin's samples were not all cogenetic; years later we found out by his own admission that no two of them are so.

but whatever, they said it didn't work in the Grand Canyon

Dating works just fine in the Grand Canton, except when a charlatan deliberately creates a fraud.

its enough for me to believe it is penetrating (diffusing) into the pores of the very basalts your dating

You can believe anyting you want for any reasons that make sense to you. If you wish to claim that your beliefs have some relationship to reality, or that scientists should consider your beliefs, you need evidence.

because it insoluable

It's soluble.

the diamond is proof it can even age things excessively

There may be, and probably are, a few erroneous dates. It is not possible that all the dates are erroneous. There's just too much agreement between various radimetric methods, non-radiometric mehtods, and historical knowledge.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 9:10 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4899
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 101 of 114 (77729)
01-11-2004 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Eta_Carinae
01-10-2004 5:55 PM


Guys, the more I read this thread the more I am convinced 'whatever' is just yanking your chains.

It's pretty probable you're right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Eta_Carinae, posted 01-10-2004 5:55 PM Eta_Carinae has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by johnfolton, posted 01-11-2004 11:42 AM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4899
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 104 of 114 (77743)
01-11-2004 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by johnfolton
01-11-2004 11:42 AM


or whatever its worth, here's Snelling's impact article's,

You've posted those before, and we have pointed out some of the many errors in them and posted links to the more detailed refutations. I've read those propaganda tracts several times, and I bet Joe and others have too. Until you want to discuss the refutations, give up posting those links.

there are scientists that have Phd's in this field that are honestly questioning the very basis of the argon dating methods

Joe has already pointed out that their formal qualifications are not as you claim. There is good reason to believe that they are not honestly questioning; they appear to me to be "liars for Jesus" who promulgate things they know are false because they think it serves a higher purpose ... which makes them very dangerous people if I'm right.

And, of course, they are not scientists, because they have pledged to ignore evidence that contradicts their preconceptions.

perhaps in time scientists will work it all out

A lot of it has been worked out, such as the age of the Earth and Sun and life on Earth. Refinements and corrections will come, but major changes will not happen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by johnfolton, posted 01-11-2004 11:42 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019