|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Radiometric Dating Really that Accurate? | |||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5670 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rationalist:
[B]There is good reason to believe that radioactive decay was not faster in the past than it was today, at least on the order of 6,000 years. Radioactive decay generates heat, and this heat would be rather intense if we were to accellerate the decay of radioisotopes to the point where the decay products would match a 6,000 year old earth. [/quote] [/b] JM: Correct! See ROASTING ADAM-Creationism's Heat Problem Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5670 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
Thunderbird,
Did Austin also run those samples via the Ar-Ar method? If not, why? Do you feel it is important that every sample dated must give a correct age or the method is suspect? How do you explain the volumes of concordant ages (for example see One of the main objections to radiometric dating or the discussions of radiometric dating here Frequently Asked )? If radiometric dating is so wrong and untrustworthy, why do so many practicing scientists use it? Do you think that science turns its back on the anomalies as part of a grand conspiracy? Do you think that there are no Christian scientists who use radiometric dating to verify an old earth? Can you please cite any of Austins or Snellings peer-reviewed literature on radiometric dating that shows they have a clue as to how to collect, process and run the samples they are collecting? Why do creationists involve themselves in pseudoscientific pursuits such as the RATE project More Faulty Creation Science from The Insitutute for Creation Research ? Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5670 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
Thunderbird,
Did Austin also run those samples via the Ar-Ar method? If not, why? Do you feel it is important that every sample dated must give a correct age or the method is suspect? How do you explain the volumes of concordant ages (for example see One of the main objections to radiometric dating or the discussions of radiometric dating here Frequently Asked )? If radiometric dating is so wrong and untrustworthy, why do so many practicing scientists use it? Do you think that science turns its back on the anomalies as part of a grand conspiracy? Do you think that there are no Christian scientists who use radiometric dating to verify an old earth? Can you please cite any of Austins or Snellings peer-reviewed literature on radiometric dating that shows they have a clue as to how to collect, process and run the samples they are collecting? Why do creationists involve themselves in pseudoscientific pursuits such as the RATE project More Faulty Creation Science from The Insitutute for Creation Research ? Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5670 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
How do you explain different minerals collected from the same structural levels giving different ages according to your 'model'?
Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5670 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
Whatever,
You are way off the wall with your answer. You're proposing wild scenarios rather than answering the question directly. The rocks in question are chemically identical granite. The minerals cooled at the same structural level and yet the minerals show different ages. Geologists have a very good, clear and consistent physical-chemical explanation for this observation. Do you? Why not admit you don't yet have the scientific training necessary to understand the nuances of the problem. As I mentioned before, it's no crime to admit needing to learn something. What's the old saying "It's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove that you are"? Learn, study and then come back here and debate. Right now, you are out of your league and beyond your intellectual abilities. Remember, all of that can be changed if you want. Try taking smaller bites instead of trying to disprove everything all at once. By the way, you've totally butchered the points contained in the lecture you cited. Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 01-10-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5670 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
"I guess I'm just going to agree to disagree, you have your fantasy, and I have mine, etc...so lets just end it, that we agree to disagree, etc"
JM: It's not that simple. You can disagree if you want, of course; however, it's not because you made any scientifically valid arguments for your case. You've jumbled a number of bad ideas together into one horrendous argument. That it makes sense to you only indicates how poorly you understand what is being said (from both sides!). Take your time, learn something and then come back. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5670 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Sigh, this only reinforces the fact that you don't know what you are talking about. Let me try to explain. Excess argon, the type we worry about, is incorporated into the mineral lattice not the pores of rocks. This occurs at the time of formation of the mineral or during a subsequent period where the mineral is reheated above a certain temperature. Even assuming that your argument is correct, if argon can penetrate the pores, it can also leave the pores. It would be a dynamic system and we should no more expect a deficit than an excess. If you would have read the link you provided carefully, you would have also noted that we can check for excess argon via inverse isochron and isochron diagrams and also correct for its presence. You look at the exceptions where the method does not work and cast aspersions on the method (despite the fact you don't understand). If you are consistent in your logic, you would not buy a car (because not all of them work well), a watch (because they all don't work well) etc etc. This is why I remind you to learn about what you criticize and then criticize it.
quote: JM: No kidding! You also don't know much about radiometric dating in general as indicated by your posts in this thread!
quote: JM: One has nothing to do with the other.
quote: JM: Except all the evidence indicates it has. Unless you can show otherwise via scientific means (proclamations of disbelief don't count), you don't have any argument. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5670 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Not from the creation side. Neither Snelling nor Austin have Ph.D.'s in geochronology nor were they trained in geochronology. They have not published in mainstream geology on geochronology. What you refer to is normal science. All radiometric dating methods are being refined, checked and improved. Argon-Argon dating is used because it works! Again, no method is perfect, but overall Ar-Ar is consistent and works very well.
quote: JM: You show your naivete again via an invalid analogy.
quote: JM: From your side it appears that the circle is not only imperfect, it resembles more of child's nonsensical scribbling. Is it hard for you to admit you don't have any idea what you are talking about? If so, I don't think you have much hope of ever learning. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5670 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Snelling has no publications. If I flip to that direction, I am in big trouble. YOur premise of comparing osmosis to argon diffusion into mineral lattice sites is wrong. It would help if you understood the process of osmosis, diffusion and mineral chemistry. That does not appear to be on your horizon or interest so what other examples of scientific misunderstanding can you toss out? Cheers Joe Meert
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024