Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 19 of 217 (144952)
09-26-2004 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object
09-26-2004 7:57 PM


Re: KBS Tuff
quote:
How did they know it was too old ?
First, because the dates did not match those in the same formation elsewhere. Second, the fact that it didn't agree with the expected age of the fossil. In other words, there were inconsistencies noted, much as you might find in any kind of measurement.
I would guess that this really became a test of the sampling techniques for K/Ar and Ar/Ar dating in this formation. Perhaps you can see why sampling is such a critical factor in age dating, often overlooked in the field. Or perhaps you don't understand...
quote:
Isn't the reason why they are dating is because they don't know ?
Not really, they had an idea of the age within pretty well-constrained limits. That is why the inconsistency arose.
quote:
How did they know the date settled on was "quality" as you put it ?
I would say that it was because the dates became consistent and all of the data (including the fossil data and comparable radiometric ages of the formation) became internally consistent and there was a very good explanation for the early inconsistencies. In other words it all made sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-26-2004 7:57 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-27-2004 9:23 PM edge has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 22 of 217 (145215)
09-28-2004 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object
09-27-2004 9:23 PM


Re: KBS Tuff
quote:
IOW, they are dating via previous evolutionary scale expectations. There is no integrity in this.
I didn't think you'd get this. No, they were dating against other dates. When there are inconsistencies they must be explained. When the dates didn't agree with the fossil evidence they had reason to believe the that first dates were wrong. Do you understand that some measurements might be wrong, and that there is a reason that they are wrong... and that as scientists we try to determine why they are wrong? Do you expect every measurement you make to be perfectly accurate?
quote:
How were the "formations elsewhere" dates determined ?
Ah, I knew you wouldn't get this either. First, I wrote 'formation' not 'formations'. SEcond, they do it by mapping.
quote:
This is pure bullshit.
Well, something here is bullshit.
quote:
We have Isochron method - a method specifically touted to be free of anomalous errors.
Who said that. All measurements have sources of errors. In fact, I'll bet your watch is off a bit. Better get rid of it!
quote:
The discarded dates are arbitrarily and capriciously tossed until the method coughs up a date which "happens" to coincide with what they need to match other dates "independantly and objectively" arrived at.
I knew you wouldn't get this, either. The whole point is that nothing is done capriciously, as the quote from Jar shows.
quote:
And the sampling dates were determined by what ?
I knew you wouldn't understand this. I really did waste my time on you. Your question makes no sense.
quote:
Let me guess.
Like I have a choice?
quote:
A scenario which doesn't harm 4.6 billion age of earth ?
It has nothing to do with the age of the earth... But you probably wouldn't understand this, either.
quote:
IOW, you understand exactly what I am driving at and to thwart such an attack you have fired off a preemptive strike of saying my objections are ignorance.
No. Make that 'willful ignorance.'
quote:
IOW, you have no defense/scientific basis of determination of the sampling dates or any dates EXCEPT the requirements of evolutionary scenario/needing billions of years.
I knew you wouldn't understand this. You have been give evidence and perfectly logical reasons, but you are determined to be pathologically deluded. I am sorry, but you cannot be helped.
quote:
Then why the hell do they/we need Isochron method ?
Probably just bullshit, right? Really, do you measure the thickness of a sheet of paper by using paralax? There are different measures for different ages and compositions of materials. This is pretty elementary stuff, Willow.
quote:
Is it to impress the general public at large to be some sort of black box ruse which gives the appearance that our dates are scientifically determined ?
The truth is out there for any one to find. Evidently you don't care about that. I suppose some people prefer to remain ignorant and happily unaware.
quote:
IOW, they chose a date which was compatible with what evolution previously said.
No. They chose a date that makes sense and is consistent. THis has been pointed out to you before. However, I knew that you probably wouldn't understand.
quote:
"If we could go back and salvage every discarded date from the waste basket and create a graph the diagram would refect the mechanism by which evolution occurrs - CHANCE."
Again, you do not understand the role of chance in evolutionar theory.
quote:
Since when does the "sense" of a scientist have to come into play when the claim is that experiments and research and results are determined by objective scientific basis ?
Once again, your question does not make any sense. Would you rather that a theory not make sense? Never mind, I think I know the answer to that one.
quote:
Tell me what scientific law or principle allows for the results to be determined by the subjective decisions of said scientists ?
Do you have an alternative? What is your method of drawing conclusions? Perhaps you are God?
quote:
I thought we were talking about science and not religion ?
Correction. I was talking about science. You were talking about superstition and ignorance of science.
Truly,I understand your frustration. And your anger. You have no background in science and it must be very difficult for you to fathom what is going on here. However, if your attitude improves, perhaps you will listen and learn by reading these pages.
This message has been edited by edge, 09-27-2004 11:49 PM
This message has been edited by edge, 09-27-2004 11:51 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-27-2004 9:23 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 09-28-2004 12:51 AM edge has not replied
 Message 24 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-29-2004 8:07 PM edge has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 27 of 217 (145833)
09-29-2004 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Cold Foreign Object
09-29-2004 8:07 PM


Re: KBS Tuff = Comedy Central
quote:
EIGHT HILARIOUS TIMES THE ABOVE THOUGHT IS REPEATED IN THIS POST !
Repetition is a proven teaching method. In this case, I'm not so sure. Maybe nine or ten times might have been appropriate but I grow bored with your rants. You come on with no background whatsoever and proceed criticize work done over many generations as bullshit and lacking integrity.
quote:
This post of yours confirms that "whatever makes sense" is the "objective scientific criteria" by which the accept dates are accepted and the reject dates are rejected.
I see that you would rather it NOT make sense. Very well. But no, that is not what I wrote. Sometimes things don't make sense and are still correct, but not in this case.
quote:
I am greatly pleased to see you have to attack me as your defense of this indefensible subjective criteria of date determinations.
What goes around comes around.
quote:
You are right - I don't understand - but now I do.
Pardon me, but I seriously doubt that.
quote:
Accept dates are dates which reflect what evolution has already spoken up for !
That is what you have been told. You are being willfully deceived. I cannot help you.
quote:
Now that is objective !
LOL! Do you see the irony in your statement? You are probably going to quote references from people who sign agreements that they will abide by the tenets of creationism regardless of their results!
quote:
What dates what evolution has already spoken up for ?
Dating by various methods which are consistent and repeatable. I could go on but I think it would be a waste of time.
quote:
Answer: some evos guess somewhere in the past is your "objective and scientifically determined" benchmark. LOL !
Again, it is evident you do not understand the basis for geological dating. You have rejected the entire geological establishment for the words of some charlatans with internet websites. Do you ever wonder why these people don't come here and debate if their evidence is so convincing?
quote:
Would you like me to post the known dates of said objects that all your infallible dating methods misdated by enormous lengths of time ?
Feel free. They have all been refuted before.
quote:
The only thing certain is that evo dating has no objectively determined benchmarks - only the estimates of its biased priests and bishops. From these sacred cows are the accept dates accepted - what deception to hide behind terms like "Isochron dating method" etc.etc.
Very good. You have thrown out decades of scientific work on the subject based on fringe religious beliefs. Pathetic.
quote:
My next post will be evidencing the swiss cheese of evolutionary dating nonsense
Please try. It hasn't worked yet. Just remember that most of these dates from professional creationists are ginned up by people misusing the techniques in order to disprove them. Talk about integrity!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-29-2004 8:07 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 31 of 217 (146860)
10-02-2004 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Cold Foreign Object
10-02-2004 8:55 PM


quote:
What satisfactorily silences the criticism that evos are dating everything in accordance with a 4.6 billion age of earth ?
To you? Nothing. Ever.
quote:
What external benchmark criteria established the initial dates from which the convergence is based upon ?
There are many sources of information that are independent of each other. First there was the principle of superposition. Radiometic dating has been found to confirm stratigraphic dating and also can be checked by stratigraphic and structural data.
quote:
I can test a scales accuracy by an object of which its weight is already known.
No. According to your own logic, you are making a BIG assumption in that you know the actual weight of the test. How do you know this? Perhaps because you have been told by the high priests of YEC?
quote:
If age of material is known and dating methods fail to date accordingly then by what basis is confidence in these methods maintained ?
By determining the reason for discordance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-02-2004 8:55 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 35 of 217 (146878)
10-02-2004 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Coragyps
10-02-2004 9:24 PM


quote:
....His Table 4.1, for example, quotes ages using three different isotope systems determined by five different reasearch groups on the Uivak gneisses of Labrador:
3.76 +/- 0.15 billion years (uranium - lead}
3.55 +/- 0.07 billion years ( rubidium - strontium)
3.56 +/- 0.08 billion years ( Rb - Sr)
3.61 +/- 0.20 billion years (Rb - Sr)
3.56 +/- 0.20 billion years (samarium - neodymium)
I might add that, according to YEC doctrine, this concordance is is virtually impossible. Or maybe it's just a coincidence...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Coragyps, posted 10-02-2004 9:24 PM Coragyps has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 39 of 217 (146906)
10-03-2004 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Cold Foreign Object
10-02-2004 11:59 PM


quote:
Like I said way back when this present exchange began, the real thriller of interest is in all the discarded dates. If they could be retrieved and plotted on a graph it would substantiate the evolutionary sacred cow of chance.
Yes, you have SAID this. Now, please provide some support for this assertion, if you can.
quote:
IOW, you have no independantly determined date of said event. The starting point is the estimate of a evolutionist.
You were just given several independent lines of evidence. Perhaps you missed them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-02-2004 11:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 41 of 217 (146922)
10-03-2004 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Cold Foreign Object
10-03-2004 12:16 AM


No shit Cory !
quote:
They discard every date which is not consistent with immense age Earth.
Please support this assertion with evidence.
quote:
This is the core of my criticism which you and others keep confirming. LOL ! LOL !
How do you know?
quote:
You evos are hammering yourselves - I just provide the generic bait.
You call that 'bait'? I call it unsupported assertions. Very well, now please provide evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-03-2004 12:16 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 65 of 217 (148550)
10-08-2004 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Cold Foreign Object
10-06-2004 9:46 PM


Re: The guidelines
quote:
In fact, it is not at all astonishing when you know that today's accepted date has been derived not from an absolute, independant source but from conjectures including Lyell's.
Unmitigated nonsense. Are you saying that if two age estimates are close, that they both must be wrong and there is some kind of conspiracy to make them similar? That is poisoning the well, WT. In other words, mainstream geochronology can NEVER be correct. Pretty strong statements coming from one who has no background whatever in the field!
By the way, do I have to exlain to you that 65 my is 15 MILLION years less than 80 my. Is that now a trivial difference to YECs?
quote:
Ever since Lyell estimated that the end of the Cretaceous was 80 million years ago, the accepted value has been in this ballpark. Any dating scientist who suggested looking outside the ballpark, at 20 million years or 10 or 5 would be looked on as a crackpot by his colleagues. More significantly, perhaps, he would not be able to get any funding for his research."
Lots of geologists look outside the 80 my 'ballpark'. They just don't find the Cretaceous. Another silly argument. Where do you get your material?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-06-2004 9:46 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-08-2004 11:05 PM edge has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 67 of 217 (148560)
10-08-2004 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Cold Foreign Object
10-08-2004 11:05 PM


Re: The guidelines
quote:
My source said what you disagree with.
So, do you often quote works that you disagree with?
quote:
Atheist Richard Milton.
That's an authority? I suppose that if you disagreed with Milton that it would be his opinion. Well, I suppose it can still be funny. Even from an atheist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-08-2004 11:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 83 of 217 (152159)
10-22-2004 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Cold Foreign Object
10-22-2004 7:04 PM


quote:
In the waste basket.
In that case, how do you know about these discordant dates?
(added by edit)
quote:
Milton, page 51:
"Published dating figures always conform to preconceived dates and NEVER contradict those dates. If all the rejected dates were retrieved from the waste basket and added to the published dates, the combined results would show that the dates produced are the scatter that one would expect by chance alone."
And how does Milton know this? Could it be pure biased speculation on his part?
THis is utter nonsense and you have fallen for it...
This message has been edited by edge, 10-22-2004 10:07 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-22-2004 7:04 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 84 of 217 (152163)
10-22-2004 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Cold Foreign Object
10-22-2004 11:02 PM


quote:
What about the discard dates in the KBS Tuff dating fiasco ?
As I asked above, if they were discarded, how do you know about them?
quote:
Those discard dates ranged from one half million to 17.5 million years. (already posted - do you want me to retrieve them ?)
Obviously, there weren't discarded, they were explained.
quote:
This is the precise context of the accusation.
Your context makes no sense.
quote:
Milton claims they were only discarded because they did not fit in with other previously known dating determinations.
No. They were not used because there was a valid reason that they were in error.
quote:
How ironic that the accept dates fit in nicely with everything ever published ?
Well, as I remember it didn't fit exactly. But that's not the point.
quote:
Now enter the unplanned snapshot dating incident and volcanic lava and even in archaeology where the date of Egyptian mummy's are known and a technique fails miserably.
Yes, when abused, radiometric dating does not work. Especially when conducted by avowed YECs determined to prove that they don't work. Doesn't this tell you something?
quote:
Our only point is that these spot incidences provide an objective falsification that has yet to be satisfactorily answered or appeased.
Nonsense, again. They prove that science cannot be trusted to YECs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-22-2004 11:02 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 86 of 217 (152167)
10-22-2004 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Cold Foreign Object
10-22-2004 6:55 PM


Re: Scientific Circles
quote:
"In 1991, Oxford University’s radiocarbon accelerator unit ...
What the heck is a radiocarbon accelerator?
quote:
...dated some rock paintings found in the South African bush as being around 1,200 years old.
Found? By whom? How were they sampled? This story is so full of holes they create a negative gravity anomaly on this message board.
quote:
Almost as old as Guess Who.
I'd rather not.
quote:
But then an art teacher named Joan Ahrens turned up and proved that they were her students’ paintingsthey had been stolen by vandals from her garden in Capetown."
Riiiight! WT, your chain of custody on these samples grows more and more tenuous. And you trust Milton as a source?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-22-2004 6:55 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-28-2004 5:18 PM edge has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 87 of 217 (152168)
10-22-2004 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Cold Foreign Object
10-22-2004 4:18 PM


Re: Scientific Circles
quote:
Consider the Geological Column (Van Eysinga/1975) and look at the thickness of the rocks in each period compared with the length of time assigned to those periods.
Note that there is remarkable consistency between assigned age and thickness of deposit. For instance the Cretaceous period is said to have lasted 65 million years and is 15,000 meters thick - an average annual rate of deposition of 0.2 millimeters.
Now look at the Silurian period: this, too yields an average rate of deposition of about 0.2 millimeters per year - as does the Ordovician, the Devonian, the Carboniferous, and the rest. It is only when we come to relatively modern times in the Cenozioc era that rates of deposition vary much, and here they appear to speed up slightly.
This is a very remarkable finding. One naturally expects Uniformitarian geology to favor uniformity, but this is too much of a good thing.
WT, did it ever occur to you that perhaps column was scaled to time and not thickness? This is so silly, that I cannot fathom. You have been taken in by a professional here.
Geological systems are not the same thickness in every location. This is well understood by geologists. To make a general column it does not really make sense to assign a thickness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-22-2004 4:18 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-28-2004 5:50 PM edge has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 90 of 217 (152177)
10-22-2004 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Percy
10-22-2004 11:35 PM


quote:
The only way that agreement could be reached without reliable dating techniques is if there were secret scientific meetings where it was decided how old everything was going to be, and where groups of scientists were assigned to conduct literally hundreds and hundreds of fake field studies so they could write fake papers announcing the predecided dates, and where after decades and decades no one has broken the code of silence. That must seem ridiculous even to you.
Not only that, but can you imagine the expense of conducting an indefinite number of analyses until you got the right one to satisfy the committe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 10-22-2004 11:35 PM Percy has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 146 of 217 (153980)
10-29-2004 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Cold Foreign Object
10-28-2004 5:50 PM


Re: Scientific Circles
quote:
quote:
e:Geological systems are not the same thickness in every location. This is well understood by geologists. To make a general column it does not really make sense to assign a thickness.
This is Milton's point - one of them.
Nope. Milton's point is that sedimentation should be uniform and continuous. This is not the geological understanding. In other words Milton creates a strawman.
quote:
The inconsistency of the Geological Column next to Uniformitarian theory/assertions.
No again. One of these columns is actually a time scale, not a stratigraphic column. If Milton were were more knowledgable, he would not be making such ludicrous statement. And you wouldn't be swallowing it whole.
quote:
Why does the column assert uniformity except in relatively modern times ?
The column asserts nothing. Your statement makes no sense, once again.
quote:
Where does the column imply time and not thickness ?
It is obviously scaled to years and not thickness. Check the scale.
quote:
At any rate, the time involved and the thickness could not be capable of fossilizing entire forests etc.etc.
This is your problem. Time and thickness are not directly related. THis is a naive assumption
quote:
Milton's criticism is so obvious and valid - you are looking foolish.
Actually, Milton's ignorance is obvious here. And he takes advantage of YOUR ignorance which is evidently much deeper.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-28-2004 5:50 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-29-2004 12:52 AM edge has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024