|
Author
|
Topic: Assumptions involved in scientific dating
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 427 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
Message 46 of 222 (798944)
02-06-2017 5:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 42 by ICANT
02-06-2017 1:32 PM
|
|
Re: Assumptions are not wild guesses
The first assumption you have to make is that the universe is x years old, A constant rate of decay, an isolated system in which no parent or daughter element can be added or lost, and a known amount of the daughter element present initially. Addressing them in order, nope, nope, nope, and, finally nope. You do not have an iota of a clue about radiometric dating.
But I don't care what age you tell me a particular rock is I will disagree with you as I believe it is much older than you do, because of what I read in the Bible. I would be glad to explain why you do not have an iota of a clue about radiometric dating, but you make it clear you are not interested in facts.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 42 by ICANT, posted 02-06-2017 1:32 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 427 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
|
Message 47 of 222 (798952)
02-06-2017 5:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 44 by Taq
02-06-2017 2:24 PM
|
|
Re: Assumptions are not wild guesses
We can observe that daughter element does not leave certain crystals, such as Pb in zircons We observe that uranium and thorium are relatively plentiful in zircons, whereas lead is only present in minuscule quantities at solidification, and we understand why. Lead doesn't substitute in the lattice and is too big to fit inside. Uranium and thorium substitute nicely for zirconium. But that means all the lead is radiogenic and is in a place where it does not fit, is not bonded, and is in a damaged portion of the crystal. Lead loss is possible and is by far the most common alteration. The good news is that the method detects lead loss, and often produces a valid date anyway. And geochronologists have developed methods for locating unalterd7samples samples samples.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by Taq, posted 02-06-2017 2:24 PM | | Taq has not replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 427 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
|
Message 48 of 222 (798958)
02-06-2017 5:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 45 by Coyote
02-06-2017 2:37 PM
|
|
Re: Assumptions are not wild guesses
constant decay rate is a good assumption, well supported by the evidence. Only a few creationists disagree based entirely on non-scientific beliefs I prefer "premise" to "assumption". As you know "well supported" is an understatement. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 45 by Coyote, posted 02-06-2017 2:37 PM | | Coyote has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 49 by Modulous, posted 02-06-2017 7:23 PM | | JonF has replied |
|
Modulous
Member (Idle past 244 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
|
|
Message 49 of 222 (798984)
02-06-2017 7:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 48 by JonF
02-06-2017 5:41 PM
|
|
Re: Assumptions are not wild guesses
I prefer "premise" to "assumption" I can't argue your preferences, but 'assumption' was kind of drilled into me when I was at college. Many of my marks for non-trivial questions (more than 1 or 2 marks) relied on my 'stating my assumptions'. 'Assumptions: g, the acceleration due to gravity is a constant 9.8ms -2' was something I must have written a million times 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 48 by JonF, posted 02-06-2017 5:41 PM | | JonF has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 50 by JonF, posted 02-06-2017 8:38 PM | | Modulous has seen this message but not replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 427 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
|
Message 50 of 222 (799005)
02-06-2017 8:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 49 by Modulous
02-06-2017 7:23 PM
|
|
Re: Assumptions are not wild guesses
Yeah, but here you aren't communicating with people who realize that "assumption" is not synonymous with "wild-ass guess".
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by Modulous, posted 02-06-2017 7:23 PM | | Modulous has seen this message but not replied |
|
Pressie
Member (Idle past 234 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: 06-18-2010
|
|
|
Message 51 of 222 (799057)
02-07-2017 5:52 AM
|
Reply to: Message 42 by ICANT
02-06-2017 1:32 PM
|
|
Re: Assumptions are not wild guesses
ICANT writes: The first assumption you have to make is that the universe is x years old,... Nope.
ICANT writes: A constant rate of decay,... Nope.
ICANT writes: ... an isolated system Nope.
ICANT writes: ... in which no parent or daughter element can be added or lost,... Nope.
ICANT writes: ... and a known amount of the daughter element present initially. Nope. You seem to always be wrong.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 42 by ICANT, posted 02-06-2017 1:32 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2391 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 52 of 222 (799292)
02-08-2017 11:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 42 by ICANT
02-06-2017 1:32 PM
|
|
Re: Assumptions are not wild guesses
I will address only radioCARBON dating here:
ICANT writes:
The first assumption you have to make is that the universe is x years old,
No, the age of the universe is irrelevant to radiocarbon dating. We don't need to assume anything about the age of the earth.
ICANT writes:
A constant rate of decay,
No, we don't need to assume a constant decay rate for radiocarbon dating. We only need to assume that, at all times, the decay rate in an unknown sample is the same as the decay rate in the tree rings that are used for radiocarbon calibration. (Note: we have very good evidence, both experimental and theoretical, that the decay rate of radiocarbon IS constant. But even if it weren't, it would not invalidate calibrated radiocarbon dates.)
ICANT writes:
an isolated system in which no parent or daughter element can be added or lost,
It is important that no parent is added or lost (we call this "contamination"). But this is not an "assumption"; contamination can usually be detected by making multiple measurements of a sample, either from different physical locations or with different chemical pre-treatments.
ICANT writes:
and a known amount of the daughter element present initially.
No, for radiocarbon dating the daughter is ignored. Only the parent is measured. Edited by kbertsche, : Corrected "NoNukes" to "ICANT"
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 42 by ICANT, posted 02-06-2017 1:32 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 53 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2017 7:39 AM | | kbertsche has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1664 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 53 of 222 (799319)
02-09-2017 7:39 AM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by kbertsche
02-08-2017 11:00 PM
|
|
Re: Assumptions are not wild guesses
You mean ICANT, not NoNukes. /quibble 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by kbertsche, posted 02-08-2017 11:00 PM | | kbertsche has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2365 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 54 of 222 (799830)
02-16-2017 11:14 AM
|
|
|
Bump (again) for creationist input
To those creationists who say radiocarbon dating is invalid because of "assumptions" -- here's your big chance!
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool 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" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 55 by Diomedes, posted 02-16-2017 1:09 PM | | Coyote has replied |
|
Diomedes
Member Posts: 998 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: 09-13-2013
|
|
|
Message 55 of 222 (799832)
02-16-2017 1:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 54 by Coyote
02-16-2017 11:14 AM
|
|
Re: Bump (again) for creationist input
To those creationists who say radiocarbon dating is invalid because of "assumptions" -- here's your big chance! I am no creationist, but check out this website: The Carbon Dating Game But be forewarned: this WILL give you an ice-cream headache. Here's my favorite quote:
quote:
You may find some people unwilling to listen to any argument against carbon dating, making a statement like, "The scientists would have seen what you are talking about -- I'm sure they can explain it," but that statement ASSUMES that a scientist cannot make a mistake because they have a degree and a labcoat. I'm not kidding, it's that bad; most evolutionists ASSUME another evolutionist can explain their ASSUMPTIONS, and they take that on complete faith! We need to put our foundation on a secure foothold, like the eternal security of Christ's Words, before we are crushed by the tower of assumptions created by faith in men.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 54 by Coyote, posted 02-16-2017 11:14 AM | | Coyote has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 56 by Coyote, posted 02-16-2017 8:40 PM | | Diomedes has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2365 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 56 of 222 (799847)
02-16-2017 8:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 55 by Diomedes
02-16-2017 1:09 PM
|
|
Re: Bump (again) for creationist input
I looked at that creationliberty article you cited. Just the usual creationist nonsense. That same stuff is all over the web on creationist websites. Nonsense start to finish.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool 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" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 55 by Diomedes, posted 02-16-2017 1:09 PM | | Diomedes has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 57 by Pressie, posted 02-17-2017 4:36 AM | | Coyote has seen this message but not replied |
|
Pressie
Member (Idle past 234 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: 06-18-2010
|
|
|
Message 57 of 222 (799857)
02-17-2017 4:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 56 by Coyote
02-16-2017 8:40 PM
|
|
Re: Bump (again) for creationist input
My favourite one was quote:
Simply put, atoms typically have an equal number of protons and neutrons, as seen in the image below (left side). An atom becomes radioactive when it has more neutrons than protons, which makes it heavier then it's supposed to be.
This guy is stupid. That's not an ASSUMPTION.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 56 by Coyote, posted 02-16-2017 8:40 PM | | Coyote has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 58 by NoNukes, posted 02-17-2017 9:06 PM | | Pressie has replied |
|
NoNukes
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 58 of 222 (799930)
02-17-2017 9:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 57 by Pressie
02-17-2017 4:36 AM
|
|
Re: Bump (again) for creationist input
This guy is stupid. That's not an ASSUMPTION. quote:
To determine the origin of something, we must refer to eye-witness accounts (aka historical evidence) because science is limited on what it can determine.
That's right. No point in running DNA tests to determine paternity. We must refer only to eye-witness accounts of penis depositing sperm into vagina. Yeah, quite stupid.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 57 by Pressie, posted 02-17-2017 4:36 AM | | Pressie has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 59 by Pressie, posted 02-20-2017 6:34 AM | | NoNukes has seen this message but not replied |
|
Pressie
Member (Idle past 234 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: 06-18-2010
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 59 of 222 (800114)
02-20-2017 6:34 AM
|
Reply to: Message 58 by NoNukes
02-17-2017 9:06 PM
|
|
Re: Bump (again) for creationist input
That's right. No point in running DNA tests to determine paternity. We must refer only to eye-witness accounts of penis depositing sperm into vagina. And not any old sperm. We must have eye-witness accounts of the exact sperm out of millions penetrating and fertilizing the egg...and recreate the same sperm cells doing exactly the same years afterwards in a lab. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 58 by NoNukes, posted 02-17-2017 9:06 PM | | NoNukes has seen this message but not replied |
|
Pressie
Member (Idle past 234 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: 06-18-2010
|
|
|
Message 60 of 222 (800316)
02-22-2017 6:19 AM
|
|
|
Bump (again) for creationist input
Creationists, Where Art Thou?
|
™ Version 4.2