|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,589 Year: 2,846/9,624 Month: 691/1,588 Week: 97/229 Day: 8/61 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Radiometric Dating Really that Accurate? | |||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1696 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: You might also ask why there are ANY convergent radiometric dates at all. If the methods are so unreliable, it would seem that dates would be all over the chart. But they aren't. I think one thing that needs to be sorted out here regarding the accuracy of radiometric dating is that, sometimes, it ISN'T accurate. But then sometimes my watch is wrong too. Sometimes a BP measurement is wrong. Sometimes a bathroom scale is off.... Do we throw these things out? No, because we can usually detect the errors and explain them, and even fix them sometimes. Do the creationists come out against tape measures because a carpenter makes a mistake on his measurements once in a while? Why not? So, there are times that we throw out an anomalous reading because a source of error is detected. Does that carpenter use a board the wrong size? No, he knows that it is wrong and cuts another piece of lumber. Do the creationists say that he is hiding his results because the wrongly cut piece ends up in the junk pile? No, they compliment the guy on his workmanship. I guess my point is that the ability to detect errors, explain them and correct them means that the system works. On the other hand YECs interpret this as 'throwing out (or hiding) divergent data' in some kind of conspiracy. Then they say that anything that is not absolutely accurate is not accurate at all. Kind of a dogmatic approach, don't you think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1696 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Care to be a bit more specific? This is not exactly informative.
quote: A bit vague here. Can you amplify a bit?
quote: Well, the subject of this thread, for one. Why do you ignore the systematic dates arrived at by radiometrics?
quote: Good point. Every reliable date we have is actually a minimum.
quote: In the realm of absolutism, I agree. However, radiometric dating gives us a defensible method that is coherrent with other geological data and basically works.
quote: Ah, good. Then you can direct us to the correct places. What is your BEST clock for telling the age of the earth?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1696 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I know of no varves in the Grand Canyon. Unfortunately, this is a little understood geological feature and many times they have been misidentified. Creationists, of course have come to the logical(?) conclusion that they do not exist at all. The strata of the Grand Canyon are generally of the slowly deposited type occurring on the continental shelf, from epeiric seas. The problem is that, indeed, some layers can be deposited quickly. Naturally, creationists have taken this to mean that ALL strata are deposited quickly, and we can ignore the amount of time between the layers, or the record of time that has been erased by erosional periods. They seem to ignore the fact that depositing a maajor formation such as the Entrada is different from forming a set of laminae related to a storm deposit. They also take glee in informing the geological community about rapidly deposited layers which elicits a chorus of yawns.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1696 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I understand the the basic evidence goes back to historical measurements of the speed of light, some dating to over a hundred years ago. They show a general decline in measured speeds up until about 1960 when the decline miraculously stopped. In fact, much of the overall slope of the line graph I remember seeing relied heavily on one early measurement. To some, this means that the speed of light coincidentally stopped declining at about the time technology to measure it developed. The reason it would stop is unclear. Since this observation, elaborate stories have emerged as to how this could happen. Most ignore the effects on the physical universe that a much higher lightspeed would have, but those are just details. As to evidence for c-decay, I haven't really seen any.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1696 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Ah, but we do have evidence that Steve Austin has committed fraud. Read this reference, specifically the Introductory Lecture. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visit/bartelt1.html
quote: But, if someone's agenda is to 'prove' that radiometric dating was invalid, would you trust them to do the sampling? You should learn to critically analyze your sources.
quote: Well, see above.
quote: Why not? Should they also not have small amounts of fluorine? Do you really understand geochemistry and radiometric dating?
quote: Not at all. Sometimes it is possible to measure the original content of the sample. In other methods, the actual amount of daughter nuclides does not affect the date. In others, it is a safe assumption that there was no daughter in the sample at the time of formation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1696 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: You obviously didn't read my link. Austin has been caught in a lie. If that isn't deception, then perhaps you should give me your definition of the word.
quote: Wow! Johnny Cochran is looking for you!
quote: No, the conclusion was predetermined. Clearly the work was one of very poor scholarship and deceptive. You have already said that you cannot determine much of the conditions of the experiment. This was by design.
quote: But no geochronologist would conduct his analysis in this way. Why would Austin break protocol?
quote: But he omits Dalrymples explanation. That is deception.
quote: It has been shown to be inaccurate in incompetent hands and under conditions that are not acceptable in mainstream science.
quote: This has yet to be shown. You have been deceived. By Stuart Nevins, or was that Steve Austin.
quote: Not at all. Where did you ever get this idea from. It is simply that Ar-Ar dating give more information regarding the thermal history of the sample.
quote: Nothing.
quote: Nonsense. Do you really know anything other than what you read in creationist tracts?
quote: Nope. Austin did his level best to get invalid answers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1696 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I don't know about them, but I'm speechless. It was entertaining, though...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024