Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions

You really don't get it, do you WT?Edge is not calling you an idiot, but simply pointing out that Milton has made so many mistakes with respect to the geologic column that it is QUITE obvious to the geos here that he doesn't know what he's talking about. He is absolutely clueless about geology and you, not knowing any better either, are just slopping it up like a starving pig.

Willowtre, you've got the wrong Mark - there are two of us posting here.Now, on the substantive issue: My judgement of Milton on this issue is independent of the actual merits of the argument: it depends soley on the contents of the paper and its iterpretation.Milton states that in the paper recent lava was dated as being old.I repeat the title of the paper (again with my emboldenment):Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii, J.G. Funkhouser and J.J. Naughton, Journal of Geophysical Research 73:14 pp. 4601-4607 (15 July 1968)Now there are three and only three ways in which Milton can haved used this paper:1:He has both seen and read the paper.In this case he has uttered a lie direct, since the paper clearly states that the lava was dated to 0, and that it was the inclusions that showed old, but, as predicted by theory, inconsistent dates.1:He has seen the paper (or at least it's title) but not read it.
In this case he has still uttered a lie direct, since the title alone indicates that the lava was not the subject of the paper, can gives no indication that it was even dated.2:He has not seen or read the paper, but simply did a cut and paste from another creationist source.
In this case it is the lie indirect about the actual facts of the case, since he can from his own knowledge state any conclusion. It is, however, a lie direct in that he claims without foundation that the source supports his position as to the unreliability of radio-dating.In each case Milton has lied.Over to you, Willowtree.

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

The column implies time in two ways:1: It implies relative time - the order in which sediments were laid down.2: It takes time to lay down a sedimentary formation. In many cases this rate can be observed in formations being laid down today. In some cases estimates - and I stress estimates - of the time take to lay down a formation can be made. It was for those reasons that creationist geologists abandoned a young earth decades before Darwin.

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

Willowtree, I quoted the relevent part of an article, then made my own argument & calculations. What's your problem? That's the way it's supposed to be done. Don't be a twat, WT, Lyell didn't "date" the Cretaceous! Good grief! The Cretaceous system was identified relatively in that period, it's age wasn't iidentified until long after Lyell's death, & then it was pinned down by multiple, different, corroborative measurements, one of which is under discussion. No, it's not obvious. The published dates could contradict each other. But they didn't. Your objection seems to be that most dates agree, & that these are published. Tough.If the sum total of your argument is that the people who perform radiometric dating are simply being dishonest, then you'll need more than your say so before anyone accepts this v.serious charge.I understand you aren't a YEC, but you didn't answer a SINGLE question. This is the evasion we have come to expect of you.Please do the honest thing and answer A, C, & D in post 107 which do not assume anything of your position. The supporting maths can be found in the original post.A/ How do you account for four corroborating radiometric dating methods dating the tektites so closely at 65 m.y. old, given the odds of it occurring by pure chance?C/ If you DO accept that half lives affect the resultant date, even to a small degree, what percentage would you be prepared to accept that radiometric dating is influenced by half lives, the rest being just plain chance? And how do you come by this figure, evidentially?D/ How do you rationalise the odds of all four radiometric methods being wrong by a factor of 10,733 each, when the odds of such an occurrence is 13,272,064,019,753,086:1 of them being wrong by the same factor?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Still waiting for an answer to the question asked in Message 128.Once we get that settled we can go on to the next question.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

I am not playing games with you Marky.You have created a post which acts like I didn't answer your points/questions.I did answer - its just that you don't like my answers, therefore you confound the debate and assert otherwise.This type of nonsense and your insults can only be seen as deliberately deflecting away from the invulnerable common sense logic and evidence which sufficently answers how evos all come to the same conclusions and dating parameters.But to make it very simple and easy to understand: Dating scientists who are evos are engaged in fraud in the exact same manner Pyramidologists who are theists are engaged in fraud. Because your evidence is seen to support your claims then it must be fraud or unsupported assertions or a combo of both. That was the answer given to me when my Great Pyramid claims were spectacularly proven so why doesn't it apply here ?(that is a rhetorical question, whatever smart-ass answer you reply with will suffice in reverse to your claims here).This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-29-2004 02:19 PM

Prove it. All the quotes from Milton I have seen - including yours - only give the authors Yes, he said it was the lava that was dated. My point exactly. Because, when heated, rocks outgass Argon, thus distorting the results. No, his point was that the lava could not be dated. Every creationist source I have seen that quotes Milton makes this point. All concerned with radio dating expected this result: but it was worth checking - an unbiased check - something creationists avoid at all costs.The point is that in this particular instance radio dating: in particular Kr/Ar dating is unreliable and should not be used. However, even though it is acknowledeged that Kr/Ar dating is one of the least reliable methods, it is still valid. Dalyrmple's work on recent lavas showed that maximum errors were between +1,00,000 and -30,000 years: and then only on about a quarter of samples. Important, yes. But trivial for dating old rocks (say c200,000,000+ years). Incredible. You have just written off about 3,000 years of scientific thought. The whole point of science is to makes predictions based on theory, check them and then, if necessary, refine the theory.That the theory - radio-isotope dating - was able to make a correct prediction - that the method was invalid in this case - confirms the validity of the theory.

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

Willowtree, Well, that's easily rectified, then, isn't it. A simple cut & paste job is all that's required.Please quote the relevant parts of post 130 that directly address the following:

quote:

---

A/ How do you account for four corroborating radiometric dating methods dating the tektites so closely at 65 m.y. old, given the odds of it occurring by pure chance?

​

C/ If you DO accept that half lives affect the resultant date, even to a small degree, what percentage would you be prepared to accept that radiometric dating is influenced by half lives, the rest being just plain chance? And how do you come by this figure, evidentially?

​

D/ How do you rationalise the odds of all four radiometric methods being wrong by a factor of 10,733 each, when the odds of such an occurrence is 13,272,064,019,753,086:1 of them being wrong by the same factor?

---

For example, an answer to "A/" would begin something like, "I explain the four corroborating radiometric dating methods by...". Followed by similar for C, & D.I read your post carefully & maintain that you did not directly answer questions A, C, & D. You may have posted a response, but that's no guarantee of an answer, is it? You offered reasons not to address the points, like, " I hate to butcher it but anyone can evidence anything with probabilities and lottery analogies". This is not addressing the questions, it is evasion. You clearly can make an argument from probability when you know what the probability is of something occurring by chance, compared with experimental results. Medical drug studies do it all the time. You've taken medication before, no? It is entirely possible you indirectly owe statisticians a lot more than the ability to calculate your lottery chances. This kind of argument is only possible when something meaningful & odd-defying is consistently observed. Clearly if this hadn't occurred, I wouldn't be able to make an argument based on probabilities, but it has been observed, & I am making such an argument. So please kindly address, on a point by point basis, the three questions posed.Thank you,Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Willowtree. You make a claim that there is an organised, systematic conspiracy going on to defraud the populace on the age of the earth by supressing discordant results.In that case, why do you (and other creationists) not expose it?It would be easy - trivially easy.Take samples of rocks conventionally dated at one age.Take them to a lab, and give as target date that of similar rocks of a different age.If you are right, that will be the age returned due to the geologists conspiracy.If we are right, they will return the predicted age.I obviously exclude from the "age check" scenario the creationists trick of sending young (1,000's of years old) rocks to labs that only check rocks that are millions of years old - it should be quite easy to find similar rock samples in the 20's and 200's of millions of years age brackets for example.If this was done it would blow the whole "conspiracy" out of the water.Why has it never been done?

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

They are accepting accept dates based on what is already known, BUT the appearance of the research is a "objective scientific determination", which is a gross distortion that they have no interest in removing = deception = basis not to trust = basis for valid suspicion.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.What is already known IS NOT external independant verification - that is internal compatibility.Independant external verification of the reliability of the dating technique only comes via rare unplanned circumstances that arise. Known age of material and dating failures also contribute to unreliability charges.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."Ballpark thinking" also is a source of error. No scientist would dare to cross the accepted consensus and commit professional suicide.Why would a creo date something that has zero chance of ever being accepted much less known ?Why would a creo use a techique or any of the techniques seeing how all are unreliable ?Do techniques work sometimes ?Yes, but not all the times. This and the reasons stated above equate to the absolute declarations that evolution makes and believes tantamount to crying wolf. Why do you trust atheist scholars who lie about the Bible ?The Bible begins with a miracle (In the beginning God....) yet persons who do not believe in miracles are somehow qualified to judge religion based upon supernatural miracles.Milton's arguments are common sense based on evidence - not a matter of trust in the way you are using it.Milton is an atheist which makes his material rise considerably in the objective department.Every argument in this post (most) was derived from Milton and none of them have been satisfactorily answered.Do have to be a geologist to know something about geology ?What about geologists who are creationist, you don't trust them ?Now we are discussing philosophy again. Nothing has been ignored.It has been challenged and the baloney exposed: rocks dating fossils and fossils dating rocks, round and round, nothing silences this criticism. Quite the contrary. Milton has exoposed the fudge and misrepresentations contained in geological theories. Milton can be equated to one giant source of falsification to certain evo sacred cows which they allow to exist under the respectability of "scientific research".Evo dishonesty is exposed. What is going on here is the absolute refusal and inability to admit error pertaining to something already spoken up for and that is putting it nicely.

WT, have you ever answered a single question asked of you in all the time you've been around this board? All you do is whine - possibly as much as Rush Limbaugh does! Crap, man!

Cory:You need to obtain a little honesty.Producing one line insult posts is a dead giveaway for someone who is infuriated by things argued and evidenced.I also saw the fear in your heart when you learned the Cretaceous was dated by a Lyell guess and the accepted date has since been ballpark close.I have been to the La Brea Tar Pits at least 10 times in my life.All their displays match what the tour guide says: Dinosaur extinction came about when they became trappped in the pits and died. The creatures were too dumb to avoid them.Just reporting what they claim.The pits are a fascinating sight I must admit and every school kid in L.A. has been there at least 6 times in their life.Looks like you evos don't know what other evos are saying.

so can you answer the lab test question - why can't you crevos expose us evos that way?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 10-29-2004 03:59 PM

---

Creation science at work: "There is nothing wrong with claiming an archaeologist said something--even if he does not reveal his name."

Does anyone here know what the fuck he's blathering about? Other than "dinosaurs" at La Brea, I mean.