|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions | |||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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: Not really, they had an idea of the age within pretty well-constrained limits. That is why the inconsistency arose.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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: Ah, I knew you wouldn't get this either. First, I wrote 'formation' not 'formations'. SEcond, they do it by mapping.
quote: Well, something here is bullshit.
quote: 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: I knew you wouldn't get this, either. The whole point is that nothing is done capriciously, as the quote from Jar shows.
quote: I knew you wouldn't understand this. I really did waste my time on you. Your question makes no sense.
quote: Like I have a choice?
quote: It has nothing to do with the age of the earth... But you probably wouldn't understand this, either.
quote: No. Make that 'willful ignorance.'
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: Again, you do not understand the role of chance in evolutionar theory.
quote: 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: Do you have an alternative? What is your method of drawing conclusions? Perhaps you are God?
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: What goes around comes around.
quote: Pardon me, but I seriously doubt that.
quote: That is what you have been told. You are being willfully deceived. I cannot help you.
quote: 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: Dating by various methods which are consistent and repeatable. I could go on but I think it would be a waste of time.
quote: 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: Feel free. They have all been refuted before.
quote: Very good. You have thrown out decades of scientific work on the subject based on fringe religious beliefs. Pathetic.
quote: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: To you? Nothing. Ever.
quote: 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: 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: By determining the reason for discordance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote:I might add that, according to YEC doctrine, this concordance is is virtually impossible. Or maybe it's just a coincidence...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Yes, you have SAID this. Now, please provide some support for this assertion, if you can.
quote: You were just given several independent lines of evidence. Perhaps you missed them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
No shit Cory !
quote: Please support this assertion with evidence.
quote: How do you know?
quote: You call that 'bait'? I call it unsupported assertions. Very well, now please provide evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: So, do you often quote works that you disagree with?
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: In that case, how do you know about these discordant dates? (added by edit)
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: As I asked above, if they were discarded, how do you know about them?
quote: Obviously, there weren't discarded, they were explained.
quote: Your context makes no sense.
quote: No. They were not used because there was a valid reason that they were in error.
quote: Well, as I remember it didn't fit exactly. But that's not the point.
quote: 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: Nonsense, again. They prove that science cannot be trusted to YECs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: What the heck is a radiocarbon accelerator?
quote: 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: I'd rather not.
quote: Riiiight! WT, your chain of custody on these samples grows more and more tenuous. And you trust Milton as a source?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote:quote: 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: 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: The column asserts nothing. Your statement makes no sense, once again.
quote: It is obviously scaled to years and not thickness. Check the scale.
quote: This is your problem. Time and thickness are not directly related. THis is a naive assumption
quote: Actually, Milton's ignorance is obvious here. And he takes advantage of YOUR ignorance which is evidently much deeper.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024