Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-19-2019 5:30 PM
24 online now:
AZPaul3, edge, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,612 Year: 6,649/19,786 Month: 1,190/1,581 Week: 12/393 Day: 12/30 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Radiometric Dating Really that Accurate?
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3815 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 19 of 114 (15584)
08-17-2002 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Rationalist
08-17-2002 12:25 PM


[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 http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/adam.htm

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Rationalist, posted 08-17-2002 12:25 PM Rationalist has not yet responded

    
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3815 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 26 of 114 (15989)
08-23-2002 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Thunderbird
08-23-2002 1:53 AM


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 http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm or the discussions of radiometric dating here http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/crefaqs.htm )? 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 http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm ?

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Thunderbird, posted 08-23-2002 1:53 AM Thunderbird has not yet responded

    
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3815 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 31 of 114 (16026)
08-24-2002 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by edge
08-24-2002 1:40 AM


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 http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm or the discussions of radiometric dating here http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/crefaqs.htm )? 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 http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm ?

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by edge, posted 08-24-2002 1:40 AM edge has not yet responded

    
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3815 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 78 of 114 (77584)
01-10-2004 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by johnfolton
01-10-2004 1:19 PM


HMM
How do you explain different minerals collected from the same structural levels giving different ages according to your 'model'?

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 1:19 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 2:50 PM Joe Meert has not yet responded

    
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3815 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 83 of 114 (77614)
01-10-2004 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by johnfolton
01-10-2004 3:44 PM


Re: HMM
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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 3:44 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

    
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3815 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 94 of 114 (77644)
01-10-2004 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by johnfolton
01-10-2004 5:37 PM


"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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 5:37 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 8:33 PM Joe Meert has not yet responded

    
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3815 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 99 of 114 (77722)
01-11-2004 9:49 AM


quote:
Joe Meert, Its that simple, actually, argon 40 could be rising up through the fractured metamorphic rocks evidenced in all the super deep wells, up through the microscopic cracks in rocks, its not a soluable gas, it would tend to rise up, they are finding it in the off gases on oil wells, in coal mines, etc...Its not like you need heat for it to penetrate into the microscopic pores of rocks, etc...

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:
P.S. I don't really know much about how the isotopes decay,

JM: No kidding! You also don't know much about radiometric dating in general as indicated by your posts in this thread!

quote:
but if the sun wasn't a star, like would the iron in the earth create super magnetic fields, I was just questioning

JM: One has nothing to do with the other.

quote:
don't put as much faith as you that the istope decay has been constant for all them millions of years, etc...

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 3815 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 103 of 114 (77736)
01-11-2004 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by johnfolton
01-11-2004 11:42 AM


more misinformation
quote:
You have the right to believe whatever makes sense to you, but there are scientists that have Phd's in this field that are honestly questioning the very basis of the argon dating methods, etc...

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:
If water can move by reverse osmosis through basalt rock, it might well be how argon penetrates into the mineral lattices

JM: You show your naivete again via an invalid analogy.

quote:
Think all the talk is getting pretty circular

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by johnfolton, posted 01-11-2004 11:42 AM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by johnfolton, posted 01-11-2004 12:47 PM Joe Meert has responded

    
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3815 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 108 of 114 (77753)
01-11-2004 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by johnfolton
01-11-2004 12:47 PM


Re: more misinformation
quote:
thought the reverse osmosis machines actually put water through a plastic to remove complex molecules, blah, blah, blah..... forward and you will flip your circle a 180 and spin in the same direction as Snelling, etc...

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by johnfolton, posted 01-11-2004 12:47 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019