Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
37 online now:
dwise1, ICANT, PaulK (3 members, 34 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Happy Birthday: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,419 Year: 18,455/19,786 Month: 875/1,705 Week: 127/518 Day: 1/52 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Radiometric Dating Really that Accurate?
JonF
Member
Posts: 5518
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 91 of 114 (77639)
01-10-2004 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by johnfolton
01-10-2004 5:37 PM


Thought the only evidence you had that the sun was old, was a moon rock

No, there's lots more evidence than that. We understand how the Sun works very well, and hav measured many of its characterisitcs. If you had read the thread to which I pointed you about the age of the Sun you would understand a very little bit of the vast amount of evidence we have about the age of the Sun.

I guess I'm just going to agree to disagree, you have your fantasy, and I have mine, etc

The appropriate defintion of "fantasy" is defined as "fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements." The mainstream scientific explanation of the age of the Earth and Sun and life does not meet any of the definitions of fantasy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 5:37 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Eta_Carinae, posted 01-10-2004 5:55 PM JonF has responded

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 2658 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 92 of 114 (77641)
01-10-2004 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by JonF
01-10-2004 5:45 PM


Guys, the more I read this thread the more I am convinced 'whatever' is just yanking your chains.

There are people that stupid but they are somewhat rare.

He is either lying or he truly is so ignorant of science (and too stupid to learn) that it just isn't going to sink in.

He is like a four year old trying to figure out topology or abstract algebra. It can't be done.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by JonF, posted 01-10-2004 5:45 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Chiroptera, posted 01-10-2004 6:03 PM Eta_Carinae has not yet responded
 Message 101 by JonF, posted 01-11-2004 10:04 AM Eta_Carinae has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6802
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 93 of 114 (77642)
01-10-2004 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Eta_Carinae
01-10-2004 5:55 PM


quote:
Guys, the more I read this thread the more I am convinced 'whatever' is just yanking your chains.

I'm a bit skeptical about whatever, myself. I almost said the very same thing, but I was afraid I was going to seem rude.

The only other example of people I know of who exhibit the same incoherent thought processes are some of the homeless people I talk to around where I live.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Eta_Carinae, posted 01-10-2004 5:55 PM Eta_Carinae has not yet responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3963 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

    
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3874 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 95 of 114 (77656)
01-10-2004 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Joe Meert
01-10-2004 6:52 PM


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...

P.S. I don't really know much about how the isotopes decay, but if the sun wasn't a star, like would the iron in the earth create super magnetic fields, I was just questioning something thats apparently been etched in stone, even though I believe argon is rising up causing problems in the argon dating methods, don't put as much faith as you that the istope decay has been constant for all them millions of years, etc...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Joe Meert, posted 01-10-2004 6:52 PM Joe Meert has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Chiroptera, posted 01-10-2004 8:47 PM johnfolton has responded
 Message 98 by JonF, posted 01-11-2004 9:47 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6802
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 96 of 114 (77660)
01-10-2004 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by johnfolton
01-10-2004 8:33 PM


What evidence do you have that this is a problem, that argon from the interior of the earth is contaminating the samples being dated? And what about other dating methods? This argon contamination, even if it exists, would not affect these other methods. And the dates given by these other methods, when they can be done on the same sample, give the same ages as the argon dating. How does this argon contamination affect all the different dating methods, and why does it cause every dating method to give consistent ages?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 8:33 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 9:10 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3874 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 97 of 114 (77664)
01-10-2004 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Chiroptera
01-10-2004 8:47 PM


Chiroptera, I've seen on the Grand Canyon special, probably over 5 years ago, on Sky angel, they mention that this does not always hold true, they said the dating methods conflicted when dating rocks in the Grand Canyon, though suppose you could find a site where it wouldn't, but whatever, they said it didn't work in the Grand Canyon. I just thought it interesting that the evolutionists didn't date Austins rock with the other dating methods, suspecting had the wrong parent materials for the other dating methods, etc...
P.S. I mentioned the diamond Snelling said had excess argon, quoted a lecture that they were concerned about excess argon, mentioned that off gases from oil wells have argon gas, as do coal mines, though I can't prove beyond this, its enough for me to believe it is penetrating (diffusing) into the pores of the very basalts your dating, because it insoluable it would tend to not be dissolved thus staying diffused within the rock microstructure, etc...I believe Dr. Andrew Snelling wrote the article about believing argon gas is causing the rocks to give false ages(its really not my idea), the diamond is proof it can even age things excessively, though think its happening more uniform, as the argon rises over thousands of years, though pockets of off gases with argon should explain its there, its not soluable, its not going away, etc...

[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-11-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Chiroptera, posted 01-10-2004 8:47 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by JonF, posted 01-11-2004 10:04 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5518
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 98 of 114 (77721)
01-11-2004 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by johnfolton
01-10-2004 8:33 PM


argon 40 could be rising up

So what? Call back when you have some EVIDENCE THAT IT ACTUALLY HAPPENS. That's going to be very difficult, because THE OBSERVED EVIDENCE CONTRADICTS YOUR CLAIM.

its not a soluable gas

It is soluble. Noble gases dissolve just like other gases.

if the sun wasn't a star, like would the iron in the earth create super magnetic fields

No.

I was just questioning something thats apparently been etched in stone

It's not etched in stone. It's supported by a vast amount of interconnected evidence that you don't understand. You are not even aware that the evidence exists. The only "evidence" that you know is that you don't like the conclusion.

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

We know you don't like it. The constancy of radioactive decay is supported by a vast amount of interconnected evidence that you don't understand. You are not even aware that the evidence exists. The only "evidence" that you know is that you don't like the conclusion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 8:33 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3963 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


    
JonF
Member
Posts: 5518
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 100 of 114 (77728)
01-11-2004 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by johnfolton
01-10-2004 9:10 PM


I just thought it interesting that the evolutionists didn't date Austins rock with the other dating methods, suspecting had the wrong parent materials for the other dating methods

The "evolutionists" did date the formations from which Austin's rocks came, with various dating methods. They did this before Austin showed up, and maybe after (I don't know). In fact, Austin initialy started his project by mis-using data pblished in an "evolutionist" study.

Austin carefully selected samples, probably using the "evolutionist" study as a guide, to appear to give an erroneous isochron. He ignored the procedures by which real geologists detect erroneous isochrons.

From A Criticism of the ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project, to which you have been pointed before:

quote:
Before the Grand Canyon Dating Project began, in his 1988 Impact article, Austin admitted in print that the selected lava flows fell into two different stratigraphic stages. That is, the very information which he used to select the flows, also clearly indicates that they did not all occur at the same time. In his subsequent book (1994, p. 125), Austin indicated that his five data points came from four different lava flows plus an extracted "phenocryst" (large mineral which likely formed in the magma chamber and was not molten in the lava flow). We had known from the Impact articles that Austin's samples were not all cogenetic; years later we found out by his own admission that no two of them are so.

but whatever, they said it didn't work in the Grand Canyon

Dating works just fine in the Grand Canton, except when a charlatan deliberately creates a fraud.

its enough for me to believe it is penetrating (diffusing) into the pores of the very basalts your dating

You can believe anyting you want for any reasons that make sense to you. If you wish to claim that your beliefs have some relationship to reality, or that scientists should consider your beliefs, you need evidence.

because it insoluable

It's soluble.

the diamond is proof it can even age things excessively

There may be, and probably are, a few erroneous dates. It is not possible that all the dates are erroneous. There's just too much agreement between various radimetric methods, non-radiometric mehtods, and historical knowledge.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 9:10 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5518
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 101 of 114 (77729)
01-11-2004 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Eta_Carinae
01-10-2004 5:55 PM


Guys, the more I read this thread the more I am convinced 'whatever' is just yanking your chains.

It's pretty probable you're right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Eta_Carinae, posted 01-10-2004 5:55 PM Eta_Carinae has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by johnfolton, posted 01-11-2004 11:42 AM JonF has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3874 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 102 of 114 (77735)
01-11-2004 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by JonF
01-11-2004 10:04 AM


For whatever its worth, here's Snelling's impact article's,

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-307.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-309.htm

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...

http://www.earth2o.com/source.htm

If water can move by reverse osmosis through basalt rock, it might well be how argon penetrates into the mineral lattices, if JonF is right that nobel gases dissolve in water, or why once it lodge within, stay lodged within, etc... Think all the talk is getting pretty circular, perhaps in time scientists will work it all out, etc...

[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-11-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by JonF, posted 01-11-2004 10:04 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Joe Meert, posted 01-11-2004 12:03 PM johnfolton has responded
 Message 104 by JonF, posted 01-11-2004 12:34 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3963 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

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 5518
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 104 of 114 (77743)
01-11-2004 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by johnfolton
01-11-2004 11:42 AM


or whatever its worth, here's Snelling's impact article's,

You've posted those before, and we have pointed out some of the many errors in them and posted links to the more detailed refutations. I've read those propaganda tracts several times, and I bet Joe and others have too. Until you want to discuss the refutations, give up posting those links.

there are scientists that have Phd's in this field that are honestly questioning the very basis of the argon dating methods

Joe has already pointed out that their formal qualifications are not as you claim. There is good reason to believe that they are not honestly questioning; they appear to me to be "liars for Jesus" who promulgate things they know are false because they think it serves a higher purpose ... which makes them very dangerous people if I'm right.

And, of course, they are not scientists, because they have pledged to ignore evidence that contradicts their preconceptions.

perhaps in time scientists will work it all out

A lot of it has been worked out, such as the age of the Earth and Sun and life on Earth. Refinements and corrections will come, but major changes will not happen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by johnfolton, posted 01-11-2004 11:42 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3874 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 105 of 114 (77745)
01-11-2004 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Joe Meert
01-11-2004 12:03 PM


Re: more misinformation
I thought the reverse osmosis machines actually put water through a plastic to remove complex molecules, was more pure than distilled water, filtering out phenoms, and other molecules that only vaporize, where these particles would be a part of distilled water, though would think the same principles would of allowed the argon gas to not be filtered out below the basalt layers, but to be drawn into the very basalt by capillary osmosis, depositing argon and other molecules in the very mineral lattices, including Rd, in a proportional ratio, etc...with water leaching, translocating minerals, etc,,, as it filtered up through the basalts, etc...If it would of been true reverse osmosis it would need a more impermeable layer of plastic, to filter it out before being absorbed into the mineral lattices, don't think there is enough water pressures in the sediments to cause capillary osmosis through an impermeable plastic, but thats not what we find in basalt, capillary osmosis should work fine, with cationic, anionic charges in the mineral lattices powered by the electron sink(earth ground) to draw the argon out of solution, or even if not in solution into the mineral lattices, etc...
P.S. I just don't buy that the argon isn't being absorbed into the basalts, but yes my circle in this subject are not as circular as yours, etc...perhaps in time, science will move forward and you will flip your circle a 180 and spin in the same direction as Snelling, etc...

[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-12-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Joe Meert, posted 01-11-2004 12:03 PM Joe Meert has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Chiroptera, posted 01-11-2004 12:56 PM johnfolton has responded
 Message 108 by Joe Meert, posted 01-11-2004 1:07 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