Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions

I don't think your analogy is really to the point crash.

Already known? You have to weigh that object in some fashion or define a standard weight to compare to (which is, in the end, what is done).The use of radiometric dating is rather analogous to this case. We make measurements over known periods of time to define "standards". We compare other measurements to those standards.However, since (as is pointed out by creationists) we have to go outside of the range in which we measure for the standards we can't simply take the comparison and leave it at that. There have to be further checks.I'll see if I can extend the analogy a bit. We have a standard weight. We can use that to wear various minerals and other substances. We then sample a mountain and determine it's volume. We say that the measured samples of it's constituants can be extrapolated to megatons even though we only measured kilograms directly. If we do that it would be a good idea to check with some independent means.We could then do a gravity survey of the mountain. Is there enough mass measured that way to compare to our other measurement? Is there is we have a much increased confidence in our determination.If you calibrate a scale by using a standard weight (and it's not a balance beam scale) and then weigh something 100 times the weight of the standard you can NOT be sure that the degree of accuracy obtained with the standard is there. What do you do if you need to know about how much in error you might be? (note we do NOT ever expect to get a "perfect" answer -- we simply need to know how big the worst error can be).You measure the weight again with a system that is different than the first one. Maybe you go from a spring system to a pieziolectric pressure system. If the two are in reasonable agreement you become a bit more sure of your figure. Then you might try it with two or three other independent systems.If they all agree within a given range then you have a high degree of confidence in your measurement and that you know the error range.This is exactly why we can be very, very confident in the dating done for geology. It can be done with many different means to see how well they agree.Note that if you looked at a block of rock the size of a telephone booth you would NOT expect a measurement in the area of a couple of kg. You would expect tonnes. This is what happened with dates before the middle of the last century.It was already apparent that the geological data and the processes required an earth that was millions of years old not thousands.In addition, over the previous century the order of geologic formations had been well studied.When the radiometric dating methods became available a couple of things could have happened.
1) The different methods could have had no consistent agreement with each other.
2) The order already determined could have had nothing to do with the dates determined by the new means.
3) The magnitude of the dates could have been in 1,000 or 100's of billions of years and have had little to do with the rough magnitudes expected.In fact what happened was the methods agree within errors in techniques; the order was the same and the dates were of the right sort of size (though about 10 to 100 times greater than had already been determined to be the minimum possible).The issue isn't the techniques used. It is the care in the processes around them. If you attempt to measure the wrong thing you get a bad answer.In the weighing example: If I am trying to determine the density of basalt I would measure it's weight and volume. I can use a very, very accurate scale and use more than one type. I can then use a caliper and other means to determine volume. Then the density can be calculated.However, this is all garbage if I pick basaslt that is in the form of a cooled gas filled lava. The volume I'm measureing could then contain a bunch of empty pockets and the density would be utterly wrong. I have to pick what I measure carefully.Since I have a rough idea of the density of rocks like basalt I would be surprised to get something about a third of what I expect. If I did I wouldn't decide right off the bat that I had found a new strange form of basalt that was not dense as expected.Instead I would then try to see if anything could have thrown it off. If I opened the sample and found the pockets I would have that explanation. At that point throwing out the measurement I had done would not be "fudging the data".The same kind of things arise with dateing.

It might occur to you that the ICR then can bring this fraud that you allege down easily. All they need to do is go through a thorough dating process themselves. They could then easily show that when you don't discard "bad" dates the results are all over the map.However, they don't do this do they?They, instead, deliberately take inappropriate samples (and small numbers at that) then trumpet the results as if they have shown something.I'm sure that most of them know what you don't understand: these methodologies work. They know they can not disprove them so they don't really try, do they?

Since it appears your statement about Lyell has been demonstrated to be half right (just off by a third of a century as to when he said it) you don't have to do the work. I'm not nearly as impressed with how accurate Lyell was because it is so much later but still pretty impressed.Since you won't be posting here anymore I guess we can leave it to someone else who might like to discuss it.Maybe someone will try to support your false accusation of fraud by the entire scientific community. You sure won't be able to and know it which is why you are bowing out again. The fraud accusation is what someone makes when they are totally at a loss to explain why, most of a century later, new technologies come up with independent dates that are much closer to the geological estimates that to the 6,000 years. Is a cry of "fraud" all you have? Is that the totality of your argument?Why don't you go back to something simpler. Reading a map perhaps? LOL You ran from that one too didn't you?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-06-2004 09:48 PM

They weren't. They were published.The replacement of them was done in the plain light of day with reasons given in detail.Milton or others have to attack those reasons.

Since the dating is being "fixed" by throwing dates out all the various organizations like ICR have to do is commission carefully monitored collection of independant samples, over see the lab processes and publication of the results.They don't have to keep ranting, they can use controlled sceintific processes to show that this is all wrong.They haven't, they won't and they know why not. They are liars.

That's why it should be done using more than one decay series. If they agree then it gets very hard to argue with what is going on other than the old "god the liar" explanation.

No, No, No! Jar!This is "complicated numbers". WT can't do "complicated numbers" until he finds his grade school helpers.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-28-2004 07:59 PM

Most of your post is off topic nonsense and one completely ignorant comment about tar pits but in all of that you left out any explanation of why the ICR and others don't actually do some carefully controlled dating to expose the lies that you go on and on and on about.WT, let's face it. This is all too complex for you to understand. This involves "complicated numbers" again. Since you couldn't handle the "complicated numbers" in the rather more simple (but I won't name it ) thread why do you think you'll be able to handle them here. Then why the absurd objections to the dates? Only a YEC would have the slightest reason to go nuts like you have. You should at least be consistent.It seems you have only one answer to everything you don't like: "It is a lie."The fact that you can't back up that claim is some mix of amusing and annoying.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-28-2004 08:57 PM

Uh, that big guy with tusks is not a dinosaur WT. That was what Cory was talking about.I think I finally understand your problem with map reading. You're not a dumb as all that you just need glasses. Boy, do you ever need glasses.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-28-2004 09:06 PM

Your post 121, WT, for just one of many examples.Are you now NOT saying that the geologists are twisting the data to fit a given date? Are you saying you never suggested that was the explanation for the information on dating that Mark gave you?Just exactly what are you saying? Message 121You've gone on about our asserting things as lies. When we do that we give reasons for it. We point out where the individuals involved are both wrong and our reasons for thinking that they should know that they are wrong. When you publish material that you know is wrong then that is close enough to a lie, dontcha think?Now why did you leave out my implied question about you as a Non-YEC going on and on about dates?Care to explain that?

Cory, have you been there? There is a beautiful display of a columbian mammoth (Mammuthus columbi ) there. It is lit in such a wonderful way to be very impressive.It is also BIG! Very, very big. This would, to someone in very bad need of glasses, make them think DINOSAUR. That is what WT has gotten out of all his visits there. That is how carefully he reads.

First we might need to get this clear. We assumed that you were talking about the Los Angles Natural History Museum at La Brea. Is that correct?If so, prove that they said such a thing or anything even a little bit close to it. Give me as clear a statment of what you think they said and I'll try to contact them but you won't believe me when I tell you that they said no such thing.So why don't you check?If it isn't the La Brea museum I guess there may well be a museum who says such a completely stupid thing. What museum was it then?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-28-2004 10:51 PM

It occurs to me that the more fundamentalist inclinded (Buz, Mike, Lys, etc.) should have a go at pretending to be moderators and attempt to help boths sides figure out how to communicate with the other.I'd at least be interested in finding out if they all agree that WT has somehow or another been answering questions or agree with any part of what he says.It is odd that they don't jump in here or in the LLM topic to offer a somewhat different viewpoint of the issues. Even knowing why they don't is would be interesting.

So we already knew that a H. erectus like form was around as little as 18,000 years ago and that is why H. floresiensis was dated at that age?You keep esculating the sillyness of your assertions without, still, any attempt to back anything up. Very good, now what percentage of the time do they work and what percentage of the time do they not work?You have left a trail of unanswered questions. Perhaps it is time to back up and cover them.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-30-2004 07:54 PM