Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions

another good source on dating methods is Dr. Roger C. Wiens
Radiometric Dating He speaks as a christian as well as a scientist, and pays particular attention to the C versus E debate issues. He also brings the topic down to high school level of discussion.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

WT -- you are getting hammered here, but I have to add one more to the pounding ...You are asking how the scales are established for measuring time into the distant past.We start with known events that are observable and that get recorded within objects.Example -- tree rings: there are species of trees that produce well formed annual rings and others that do not, and the ones that do are easliy distinguished from the ones that don't. Oaks for instance.We also see a correlation between seasonal variations and the variations in the sizes of the tree rings, so not only do we have annual rings, there is climatological evidence as well.Take the same kind of evidence in other tree species and they also show the same climatological data and that data also matches historical records.Lots of correlations, lots of similar data from a number of different sources from different places all over the earth.But tree rings only get back to about 10,000 years ago.Then there are lake varves where annual layers of diatoms from summer growth are covered by annual layers of clay settling out over the winter.These layers also show climatological variations that match those of the tree rings.Then there is the Carbon-14 dating methods which can be compared with the tree rings and the lake varves and they not only show a correlation with the ages measured by counting those actual annual layers but with those same climatological variationsThis gets back to 50,000 years ago and we haven't even gotten to the ways of measuring older artifacts ...BUT the methods are consistent with age with climate with each other.For one of them to be wrong, they must all be wrong, and not just plain scrambled data wrong, but wrong in a peculiar manner that mimics the annual and climatological information in entirely different systems in entirely different locations on the earth.See the {Age Correlations and an Old Earth} forum
EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth
for more information on all the correlations that must be explained by some miracle or other in order to discredit geoplogical timeNOTICE IN PARTICULAR -- one set of data of annual layers is from a formation of calcite layers in a cave that not only count out to an age of the formation of 567,700 years but that this age is correlated to Thorium-230 dates and Protactinium-231 radiometric dating (two different independant methods) AND to climatological data.A minimum age of 567,700 years for the formation is undeniable by any rational person.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Denial is a wonder filled thing to see fully fledged. What I was saying was that you were being hit on all sides by a number of different people and I was kind of feeling sorry for you being in that position, but that there were points that cannot be refuted by rational people. Let’s look at just this scenario. From the forum topic referenced (and which it appears you are too busy to read or have trouble getting beyond the beginning of it), in particular the section on the Lake Suigetsu varves there is a graph in the article where every single C-14 dated object is plotted against the time scale: Please note (1) that the theoretical line would be a diagonal line while the actual data is below that line (things are older than C-14 uncalibrated dates due to climatological changes in atmospheric carbon), (2) there is scatter in the data points and (3) the scatter is within the range of error of the method except for 3 or 4 points and finally (4) that the range of error for each point is given as a verticle line that spreads the data artificially wide but still not enough to make it invalide.Note that ALL the points are presented, not just the ones that work — for that is how science improves. NOTE FURTHER that the trend of the data points is undeniable in the graph they produce -- even with the verticle error ranges -- without even any connecting line between the points: your eye draws the graph.For your point to be valid there would have to be such a scatter of points that it would be impossible to see the trend without some normalizing graph line: this just ain’t so bucko. Draw an envelop around all the data points and then any tested date must fall within that envelop and, while there can be a range of dates that can be applied to the tested object, there is no denying that the object IS older than the youngest end of the range and younger than the oldest end of the range.Also notice that this data alone goes beyond any YEC model I am aware of, and that it shows a MINIMUM UNDENIABLE AGE of the earth of 45,000 years based on the annual layers, and that these annual layers calibrate the C-14 method and VALIDATE it.Now this one piece of evidence is enough to show that the long age of life is a fact, but it does not stand alone: there are other similar pieces of evidence, they are discussed in the forum topic reference, and they all CORROBORATE the dates of this method AND the climatological evidence that goes with it. See the referenced topic for more. Age old insult or observation of truth? The evidence is there in black and white, layer by layer checked correlated and validated: what other conclusion can one make when such evidence is denied? Dawkins gives a number of different possibilities for not understanding evolution — ignorance, stupidity, maliciousness or insanity:When you have been given the information it can no longer be due to ignorance, so that leaves either stupidity maliciousness or insanity.Now I think that calling people stupid or malicious is an insult (and that some people deserve it). I also think that insanity seems a little harsh as it includes self delusion and the mental shutdown when observations are too at odds with core beliefs that they are rejected as impossible, but that does not make the behavior rational. We are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand.Quote the bible all you want -- it won't make the evidence go away, nor will it change the course of evolution or of science in pursuing the truths.The YEC model is as dead as the geocentric model of the universe and for the same reason: overwhelming evidence that the model is just plain wrong.There are people that do still believe in a flat earth as well as those that are convinced that the Earth is the center of the solar system and the universe (I have debated with one on another board).Do you consider these people rational?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

No, they explain why YOU think that I think it is evidence.Didn't read the referenced topic did you? That means that you cannot explain why there is such overwhelming evidence, and so your ONLY reaction is to avoid the evidence, stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes and shout "LA LA LA" as loud as you can.Unfortunately doing so has no effect whatsoever on the reality of the evidence of an old earth.Claiming otherwise does not make it so: you can claim that the tail on your dog is a leg, but that does not turn it into a five legged animal.Also picking ONE piece of anamolous data does not render all the others wrong or irrelevant.If you look at the graphed data above there is one piece early in the data that is way off: if you concentrate on that and ignore the rest you can claim that the data is wildly at variance with the dating concept. Anomolies happen, scientists look for answers to why they happen, creatortionistas ignore the rest of the data and any possibility of a valid reason for the anomaly to declare the rest invalid.One of the rationals of science is that the results be reproducable -- and that if someone comes up with different results then BOTH results AND the methods used are questioned until the conflict is resolved.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

and lets just ignore all those nasty correlations on age dating methods that just keep reinforcing the evidence for an old earth.and an older universe.yep. nonsense quotient in full operation?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

how does not even addressing the issue of correlations challenge anything?try reading Dr. Roger C. Wiens at
Radiometric Datingfor a christian perspective.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

thanks, I'm saving that site for the NEXT time volcanic dating comes up...

half completed post sent by mistake -- deletedThis message has been edited by RAZD, 10-29-2004 04:32 PM

http://EvC Forum: The Interpretation of Evidence Colored by "GodSenseless" worldview seems you know whereof you speak?I would like a real answer instead of an insult if you can spare the time:http://EvC Forum: The Interpretation of Evidence Colored by "GodSenseless" worldviewyou were the one that brought up the search for truth beyond the rationality and methodology of science, and now you seem to have abandoned that topic once it got into actual ways to look at it other than just claiming that you have the inside scoop.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

But this is exactly one of the things that {Age Correlations and an Old Earth} discusses:
http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old EarthAnd it only touches the ice-berg tip of correlations between other radiometric methods, as it only goes back 567,700 years by annual layers of calcite in Devil's Hole, and dates beyond that rely on other correlations (astronomy and the number of days in a year)This message has been edited by RAZD, 10-29-2004 06:53 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I wonder if one could attempt to put together a compiled list of every date ever done, something like the Steve list with people adding their data to it, and plot it all out? like an expanded Lake Suigetsu chart.Problem is what is second ordinate? samples with two dating techniques? How does one know that a date is wrong?just a thought

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}