[QUOTE]Originally posted by EvO-DuDe: [b]that different dating techniques give totally random dates when dating the same rock[/QUOTE]
Not correct, unless the sample is contaminated. Different techniques will NOT give identical dates however. Each method has it margins of error and I have seen this useds to create the illusion that the methods don't line up. For example, I've seen it claimed that two dates are millions of years off and so the radiometric dating methods are unreliable. What isn't explained is that material being dated is 300 million years old, so a few million years is only a percent or two of the date-- well within the method's margin of error.
Also remember that if possible many different methods are used so that some of these errors can be averaged out.
[QUOTE][/b]that radioisotope dating is based on several assumptions[/b][/QUOTE]
It is. It is based on the assumption that things work in the past like they work now. Most of science depends on this assumption as well. In the case of radiometric dating, the rates of radioactive decay are assumed to remain constant.
quote:and that geologists have a fixed idea in their minds about how old a rock is from the strata it's found in
I'm sure this is true, but it doesn't effect the outcome of the lab tests.
quote:and if they date it radiometrically and the date is different from what they thought it would be, they just throw the rock away saying the date is meaningless.
Creationists would like you to think that geologists are selecting dates from a wide range of possibilities-- selecting the five dates they want from the hundred they don't want. It doesn't work that way. There will always be anomalous results, those are discarded. Think about it. Twenty results come back within 2% of each other. Two results come back wildly different. Which date makes sense?
quote:Originally posted by EvO-DuDe: I do not doubt that many things that generally take a long time to form can be formed rapidly, for example fossils, strata, and petroleum
hmmm..... I doubt this.
A quick search on 'rapid fossilization' for example returns ALL creationists sites, so we can dismiss those results out of hand. (Hi TB! )
Strata can be formed rapidly but it wouldn't and doesn't look like slowly formed strata.
The combination we have of strata and fossil record is a much bigger problem. I have yet to hear a sufficient explaination of rapid deposition that accounts for the enormously complex ordering of the fossil record.
quote:Originally posted by EvO-DuDe: Gosh. It sounds to me like those creationist websites are trying to decieve people by hiding this fact from them.
Part of me wants to be the good and say that these people sincerely believe what they write. Deception, in that case, doesn't apply. On the other hand, I don't know how you can misrepresent data, ignore rebuttals, and remodel every science to fit your dogma; and do it all accidentally.
quote:Those creationist websites gave me the impression that rapidly formed strata and gradually formed strata were identical.
Yeah, that's what they are designed to do. Mt. Saint Helen's has been getting a lot of attention on these forums lately, as the eruption a while back is supposed by some creationist to demonstrate the rapid deposition of strata.
quote:By the way, do you know if all of the strata and varves in the grand canyon appear to be rapidly formed strata (as claimed by creationists) or slowly formed strata?
I don't know, but I'd think that anything older than 6-10 thousand years would have to be assumed to have been rapidly formed. Except in old Earth creationism....
quote:Originally posted by Thunderbird: I don't think you can assume that someones viewpoint makes them untrustworthy or imcomptent and that they would intentionally decieve people by collecting deceptive samples.
Read it more carefully.
Using a dating method known to be inaccurate at less than 2 million years to date recent lava flows, and then using the results to attempt to discredit the method is deceptive.
quote:The very purpose of the Austin experiment was to look at the K-Ar dating method in a critical light and to examine this question; Is this method accurate?
It isn't when applied to recent material. He proved this, not that it needed proving.
quote:The method is based on a scientific principle, but also there are assumptions made so it probably makes since to calibrate the method to rocks of a known historical age and that was the reason for testing the young rocks.
Not really. One does not measure the size of an electron with a yardstick.
quote:Austin also references a 1969 Dalrymple study that shows inaccurate results for rocks at historically active volcanos.
Again. Of course it is inaccurate. 1969 is well shy of 2mya.
quote:The method has been shown to inaccurate. If the K-Ar method doesn't work or is unreliable on rocks of a known age, then why go ahead and use it on rocks on a unknown age.
Its called a margin for error. A date a million years off is tolerable when you are dating something that is 200 million years old. But not when you are dating something 20 years old.
quote:Recently, a new argon method is being used. If scientists are replacing K-Ar method that suggests it is no longer accepted as accurate. What then happens to the all data that resulted from previous K-Ar calculations? Will it be revised to reflect a newer method?
The more methods the better. We cross compare and get a more accurate picture.
Really, I don't think you know how radio-isotope dating works.