Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions

quote:

---

It is Percy's and Ned's continual argument which they initiate first whenever a theist is seen to evidence a vital claim: Theist conspiracy and or fraud and or the evidence shouted down as assertions.

---

WT, theists arguing that the earth is young are shown time and time again to be wrong. Take Austin's dating of Mt. St. Helens. Austin knowingly used rock contaminated by older rock. There is no need to scream "conspiracy" when their scholarship is so poor.

quote:

---

This is Milton's point - one of them.

​

The inconsistency of the Geological Column next to Uniformitarian theory/assertions.

---

Uniformitarianism does not require each geologic layer to be the same thickness world wide. Uform states that geologic features in the column were created through the same mechanisms that we observe today.

quote:

---

Why does the column assert uniformity except in relatively modern times ?

---

This makes no sense. If you are asserting that sedimentation rates are uniform world wide then you are misinformed. The mechanisms of sedimentation are the same world wide however.

quote:

---

Where does the column imply time and not thickness ?

---

Have you been reading anything in this thread? It is the ratios of radioactive isotopes in certain types of rocks that allow us to date sediments and the column itself. Thickness has nothing to do with it.

quote:

---

At any rate, the time involved and the thickness could not be capable of fossilizing entire forests etc.etc.

---

Forests are being buried all of the time. Lahars, volcanic eruptions, estuary infill, etc. There are several mechanisms observed today that can explain fossilized forests in the geologic column.

quote:

---

The threat of intellectual blacklisting by peer status quo and the inability to retain funding because of this threat keeps the lid on anyone crossing the rubicon.

​

Most of the crybaby yuppie ass kissing intellectual wimps of today have none of the qualities of a Velikovsky.

​

The reaction to him proves the hypocritical religious zealotry of scientism.

---

Ahh yes, the death throws of the argument. Cry conspiracy and act as if the evidence supports your views. Next you'll be telling us Nixon was an honest man.If Milton or others think that dates are thrown out, or readjusted to fit a preconcieved time line, why doesn't Milton or people like him test the K/T tektites? Why don't they sample the same rocks that you claim are associated with bad dates? What do you think will happen when creationists HONESTLY date shocked quartz associated with the K/T boundary? I really want an answer to that last one.The answer is simple, creationists know what the results would be. They know that the results are consistent and reliable. So what do they do? They misuse dating methodologies, misquote scientists, and just plain lie and then cry "BIAS" when they are caught. Austin's misuse of dating methodologies to arrive at an erroneous date at Mt. St. Hellens is a prime example of this type of behavior. There are numerous other occasions where the same dishonesty has been recorded and uncovered. How can you honestly support such behavior?

Willowtree,I would like to add a few questions to Mark24's post #154.1. If scientists are lying about the actual dates, then why don't creationists like yourself date those tektites and expose the inconsistencies?2. If dating is so inconsistent, then why don't creationists date the same rock formations using the same methodologies and show that scientists are throwing out dates?3. Why do you trust Milton, who is not a trained geologist, while ignoring data put forth by trained geologists? Milton has already been shown quote mining and misrepresenting geologial theories. Milton's dishonesty has already been shown while the data put forth by geologists has not been shown to be faulty.

Read the question again, Willow. I want you to answer the question. According to you, creos have no bias nor any expectations for the ratio of potassium and argon in those tektites. Therefore, they will not throw out any dates. So, why don't creationists go out and measure the ratios of potassium and argon in those tektites. They could reveal the supposed fraud once and for all. WHY DON'T CREATIONISTS LIKE YOURSELF DO THIS? ANSWER MY QUESTION?

quote:

---

The rejected/discard dates are as such BECAUSE of what is already widely known and published. Multiple attempts and the one that "seems" correct (based upon what is already known) is "surprisingly" accepted.

---

Prove this happens or shut up.

quote:

---

What is already known IS NOT external independant verification - that is internal compatibility.

---

Multiple investigators dating the same rock formation is external corroboration. One of those multiple investigators could be a creationist. So why doesn't this happen?

quote:

---

Errors by dating scientists and the subsequent "intellectual phase-locking" is a scientific euphemism for correcting the error in favor of something already accepted. This is nothing more than cheating under the false pretense of scientific proof.

---

Don't you understand how easy it would be to expose this practice if creationists dated those tektites?You are all blab and no action. Show me the evidence, not someone's opinion that is derived from quote mines.

quote:

---

You are demanding that trust and faith be granted to you evo-scientists.

​

I thought trust and faith were anathema to scientific enquiry ?

---

There is no trust or faith involved. Again, you are ducking my questions. When geos date a rock they give the PRECISE location of the strata that they are dating, the exact type of rock, and the exact methodology that they used to date the rock. AGAIN, take the tektite example. You and other creationists don't have to trust anybody, YOU CAN DATE THE TEKTITES YOURSELF!!!!! WHY DON'T CREATIONISTS DO THIS!!?? If you want to claim that dates are being thrown out, here is a simple way to prove it:1. Go with a geologist who can show you where these tektites exist.2. Work with a geologist who will help prepare the samples.3. Gather a few tektites and send them to a lab without telling the lab what they are or where they came from.3. Compare the dates you get with the dates already in the literature.Why do you keep ducking this very simple way in which you could demonstrate fraud on the part of scientists? Has Milton ever done anything like this? If not, why hasn't he?