Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8993 total)
77 online now:
dwise1, ICANT, nwr, Pollux, xongsmith (5 members, 72 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,212 Year: 10,960/23,288 Month: 212/1,763 Week: 179/390 Day: 68/32 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Uranium Dating
Percy
Member
Posts: 19851
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 19 of 153 (562857)
06-02-2010 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Fiver
06-02-2010 4:26 AM


Fiver writes:

And yet we can use watches to be very certain of the time by comparing our watch with the watches of others, and with clocks in the area. Even though each of these 'dating' methods require assumptions, we can be very certain of the correct time by correlating them together.

I really like this analogy. Your digital watch might be wrong, your friend's analog watch might be wrong, your other friend's watch synchronized to the signal from the National Bureau of Standards time signal might be wrong, your computer clock might be wrong, your grandfather's wind-up watch might be wrong, everyone else's watch in town might be wrong, but what would be the odds that they all give the same wrong time?

Creationists require long odds like these to not only come through but to have a rational and natural explanation.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Fiver, posted 06-02-2010 4:26 AM Fiver has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19851
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 38 of 153 (573402)
08-11-2010 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by archaeologist
08-10-2010 5:31 PM


this is my first post and i am trying to figure out how your system works so bear with me please... i am used to having a quote button as it makes things easier when quoting multiple people but i do not see one here so look for the "".

Quotes are really easy. A quote begins with [qs], and it ends with [/qs]. For example, this:

[qs]This is a quote.[/qs]

Will end up looking like this:

This is a quote.

If you want to include the name of the person the quote is from then just include the name in the opening quote after an "=" like this:

[qs=Moses]This is a quote.[/qs]

And that will end up looking like this:

Moses writes:

This is a quote.

Moving on to the rest of your post:

archaeologist writes:

Percy writes:

I really like this analogy. Your digital watch might be wrong, your friend's analog watch might be wrong, your other friend's watch synchronized to the signal from the National Bureau of Standards time signal might be wrong, your computer clock might be wrong, your grandfather's wind-up watch might be wrong, everyone else's watch in town might be wrong, but what would be the odds that they all give the same wrong time?

This position fails because it does not take into account the possibility that all people from the same town could set their watch by one central time piece. let's say the town square clock, for sake of argument.

So how is the real world like your analogy where everyone in town sets their clocks and watches according to one central clock? In the real world, what is the central clock for the many types of radiometric dating, geological layers, fossils, lake varves, glacial ice layers and tree rings?

in other words scientists ASSUME they have the correct date because all dating systems tell them what they want to hear...basically the dating systems are manipulated to fit the bias of the scientist doing the dating.

Ah, yes, the vast scientific conspiracy that happens to include many scientists who are Bible-believing Christians.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by archaeologist, posted 08-10-2010 5:31 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19851
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 133 of 153 (574283)
08-15-2010 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by archaeologist
08-15-2010 4:05 AM


Hi Everyone!

Adminnemooseus is now on duty in this thread, so I'm going to switch to being a normal participant. Ohboyohboyohboyohboy!

Hi Archaeologist!

You're obviously strongly influenced by what you believe the Bible says. You believe not only that Biblical testimony trumps real world evidence, but that your interpretation of the Bible trumps anyone else's outside your faith group and that it even gives you the right to declare who is a Christian and who is not.

But while it's fascinating watching someone demonstrate fundamentalist faith in real time, that's not what this thread is about. If you'd like to discuss the Biblical foundation for your faith then there are many threads for that over in The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy. Here in forums like this one we discuss the scientific evidence.

Most of your objections to dating methods seem to be based upon a belief that we couldn't possibly know with any certainty what we claim to know. Rest assured that we can know these things with as much certainty as that Lincoln and the Civil War occurred in the 19th century. If you truly believe that much uncertainty surrounds Lincoln and the Civil War then there's no point in trying to convince you of anything, so if you were serious about that then it would be good to know up front so that those presenting science to you can make an informed decision about whether they're wasting their time.

archaeologist writes:

One of the requirements for isochron dating is that the samples be cogenetic, meaning that they all formed at about the same time from a common pool of material in which the relevant elements and isotopes were distributed reasonably homogeneously.

that is a very big problem given what the author of the article wrote about very few rocks being 4 billion years old.

There are very few places on Earth where the rocks approach 4 billion years in age, but Greenland is one of those places. Here's a table of references to scientific papers that dated rocks from Greenland, taken from Brent Dalrymple's The Age of the Earth. Click to grow the image to readable size:

Another of your concerns is about sample contamination:

All radiometric dating methods require, in order to produce accurate ages, certain initial conditions and lack of contamination over time

which means that you are basing the dates upon ideals and assumptions that the certain conditions were present throughout those 4 billion to say 3 million years before the sample was dated.

With isochron dating, a contaminated sample does not yield a straight line. When the analysis yields a straight line it means no contamination occurred. This graph and the caption is from Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective:


Figure 4. A rubidium-strontium three-isotope plot. When a rock cools, all its minerals have the same ratio of strontium-87 to strontium-86, though they have varying amounts of rubidium. As the rock ages, the rubidium decreases by changing to strontium-87, as shown by the dotted arrows. Minerals with more rubidium gain more strontium-87, while those with less rubidium do not change as much. Notice that at any given time, the minerals all line up--a check to ensure that the system has not been disturbed.

Another of your concerns was how we could know the original concentration of daughter material. As you can see in this graph, the original concentration is the Y-intercept:


Figure 5. The original amount of the daughter strontium-87 can be precisely determined from the present-day composition by extending the line through the data points back to rubidium-87 = 0. This works because if there were no rubidium-87 in the sample, the strontium composition would not change. The slope of the line is used to determine the age of the sample.

Uranium dating, the topic of this thread, is not an isochron method, which means that independent methods must be used to determine the original amount of daughter material, and this isn't always possible with the necessary accuracy. Those of you active in the field please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe plain old U/Pb dating is a commonly used dating method today.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by archaeologist, posted 08-15-2010 4:05 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by JonF, posted 08-15-2010 5:41 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19851
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 136 of 153 (574303)
08-15-2010 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by archaeologist
08-15-2010 8:35 AM


archaeologist writes:

you secularists are all the same, you want dialogue or discussion but you have to keep tilting the playing field inyour direction. if you can't wirte the rules then you do not want to play.

There are over 30 forums at EvC Forum covering a wide range of topics. You can discuss pretty much anything you like here as long you stay roughly on-topic in any given thread. This is from the Forum Guidelines:

  1. Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.

In the science forums we discuss topics from a scientific perspective, and there's even a forum for discussing alternative approaches to science: Is It Science?. If you really believe the playing field is tilted in the direction of science and would like to discuss how the rules should change then that's the place to do it.

i have proven, using a man who lost his faith, that objectivity is impossible yet you keep wanting to force it because you do not want to hear the truth nor contradictory arguments to your viewpoints.

We wouldn't be here if we didn't want to hear your viewpoints. Expressed in threads where they're on-topic, of course.

Objectivity is an ideal that science approaches by developing consensus through the gathering of evidence and making successful predictions. In science theories aren't thought true because they are widely accepted. Rather, theories become widely accepted because they are likely true due to the presence of a broadly interconnected network of persuasive supporting evidence and successful predictions.

and i can tell you that you do not know as you use assumption for fact and my point about lincoln was very simple--you can cast a shadow of a doubt on anything by using the evidence at hand.

I think you must have a mistaken impression about the nature of certainty within science. In science nothing is known for certain. This is known as the principle of tentativity. In science all knowledge is considered tentative and open to change in light of new evidence or improved insight.

This means that at EvC Forum you are welcome to cast as much doubt as you like upon anything within science. Your argument about possible contamination is an example of taking this very valid approach.

last i looked greenland wasn't the whole earth and its tempatures and situation would do a lot to alter the isotopes in those rocks. instead of going graph by graph, i will just say htins, all you did was reprint what i have already read from authors who think like you. that is not being objective but biased and presenting your point of view when you disallow mine.

If you have actual arguments against the evidence presented to you then this is the place to make them.

By the way, your views are not disallowed, but you may find that you'll have to take different views to different forums. Views that the rules of science should change are discussed in threads in the Is It Science? forum. We take this approach because otherwise those with this view use it in every thread in all the other forums, and this causes the topic of discussion in multiple threads to become whether God and Bible should be accepted as scientific evidence. In order to insure that threads stay on their original topic we centralize such views in the Is It Science? forum.

here are a couple of articles that point out the flaws of isochron dating:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/...on/v14/i2/radioactive.asp

http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/isochrons2.html

If you have an argument based upon those links then please present it yourself in your own words and use the links as references. This is rule 5 from the Forum Guidelines:

  1. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by archaeologist, posted 08-15-2010 8:35 AM archaeologist 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 © 2020