Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9041 total)
88 online now:
driewerf, DrJones*, nwr, vimesey (4 members, 84 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 885,913 Year: 3,559/14,102 Month: 179/321 Week: 39/59 Day: 0/4 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Uranium Dating
Posts: 8482
Joined: 03-06-2009

Message 66 of 153 (573734)
08-12-2010 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 5:49 AM

i will remain against all dating sytems because they are too fallible to be reliable.

Just wondering what led you to this conclusion. What evidence do you have that all dating systems are too fallible to be reliable?

in other words, they look at only one portion of the equation, the length of time it takes for an object to reach point a from b and do not examine the set up factor.

That is false. For example, when dating zircons with U/Pb techniques you can be very certain of the set up factor. When zircons form they exclude lead but incorporate uranium. This is due the different charges on U and Pb and how they fit into the growing crystal. This can be confirmed in the laboratory. Therefore, any Pb you find in the zircon is due to the decay of U. The decay of U is determined by the laws of physics.

The only way for U/Pb dating to be wrong is if you completely change all the laws of physics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 5:49 AM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 7:31 PM Taq has responded

Posts: 8482
Joined: 03-06-2009

Message 71 of 153 (573815)
08-12-2010 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 7:31 PM

leave it to the anti-creationist to change the example to make a point. the topic was the sun and light reaching the earth not zircons.

The topic of the thread is Uranium Dating.

you still have to assume that nothing went wrong with the speedometer or radar gun through usage, natural elements or faulty craftsmanship, to name a few things that could go wrong.

Can you name one measuring instrument where this isn't the case? Should we throw out every measurement ever made in science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 7:31 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

Posts: 8482
Joined: 03-06-2009

Message 72 of 153 (573819)
08-12-2010 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 7:29 PM

one, it doesn't omit the supernatural and look in the wrong places for answers.

Then please describe a scientific experiment that includes God as one of the experimental variables.

three, it does not bully, mock, lie, mislead, fabricate, et al.

You do realize that it was Galileo that was put under house arrest, not the Pope.

eave out the 15 billion year date and you would be on the right track.


be careful of 'interpretations' because we are not told to follow them.

Then we will gladly ignore your interpretations of the Bible.

no, the tree rings made by His creative work would not fool you BUT their application by secular people may.

Phillip Henry Gosse, is that you?

Getting back to Uranium dating . . .

I have a question for you. Why can't we find a single dinosaur fossil that is found above rocks that date to 60 million years before present. For now, just ignore the date if you want. Let's just call it "what scientists consider to be 60 million years worth of Uranium decay". Can you explain this? Why is there a correlation between the fossils found and the tiny differences in isotope ratios of the rocks that surround them? Can you explain this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 7:29 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

Posts: 8482
Joined: 03-06-2009

Message 88 of 153 (573987)
08-13-2010 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 4:55 AM

many reasons and the main one is the bad dating of the rock.

How did you establish the "bad dating of the rock"? That doesn't make sense. Let's ignore the date for now. Let's just focus on the isotopes in the rock. Why can't we find a dinosaur above rock that has an isotope ratio consistent with 60 million years of decay as the half lives are measured now? Why is there this correlation between the fossils and the small differences in isotopes in the igneous rocks that surround them?

i just watched a discovery channel show for kids and guess what, they found a dinosaur skeleton near the surface so i highly doubt your statement.

Have you heard of erosion? It's this process where the top layers of rock are worn away revealing older rock. You have heard of this, haven't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 4:55 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

Posts: 8482
Joined: 03-06-2009

Message 93 of 153 (574034)
08-13-2010 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 5:10 PM

ignoring the insinuating tone, that word explains why that particular poster cannot make the claim that all dinosuar skeletons and bones are found in 60,000,000 rock and dirt.

How so?

also just because the bones are found there doesn't mean that the dinosuars lived only at that time,

Then why don't we find any dinosaur bones from other times? Why do we find this correlation between dinosaur bones and the ratio of isotopes in the surrounding rocks? Can you explain this or not?

If radiometric dating is as awful as you suggest then why don't we find rabbits in between igneous rocks that date to 3 billion years old? Why don't we find dinosaurs above rocks that date to 100,000 years before present? Why do we consistently get a relationship between small differences in the make up of igneous rocks and the fossils around them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 5:10 PM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 5:50 PM Taq has not yet responded

Posts: 8482
Joined: 03-06-2009

Message 95 of 153 (574036)
08-13-2010 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 5:24 PM

i generally ignore you as you just post the party line and present no legitimate evidence to support your case.

Then here is the evidence. On this page you can find dozens of meteorites that have been dated using a multitude of different techniques and isotope pairs and they all return nearly the same date. Can you explain why this is?

calibrating against tree rings does not make the date correct, it just means that you got like minded people to agree with your assessment, much like you would accuse me of doing if i presented many creationist papers in support of my arguments.

No, it means that you have empirical evidence for the past 14C concentrations in the atmosphere. These tree rings also correlate with CO2 captured in annual ice layers and for organic debris in annual lake varves. All of these data sets have been taken from multiple continents and multiple scientists. They all agree. How is it possible for tree rings, ice layers, and lake varves to all return the same wrong number? How are they all wrong in the same way? How are bristlecone pines in north america wrong in the same way oaks in europe are? How is it possible for lake varves in Japan to be wrong in the same way that ice layers in Antarctica are wrong? How does this work?

science cannot discover it because origins is outside of its scope and not part of its authority and because it has no way to verify that it is correct.

Why can't we use evidence that exists in the world today to reconstruct what happened in the past? You have heard of forensic science, have you not?

If you were on a jury and the prosecution demonstrated that the defendant's bloody fingerprints, DNA, fibers, shoe prints, and tire tracks were on and around the murder victim would you find the defendant not guilty because there was no eyewitness? yes/no? Afterall, science is not allowed to look into the origin of things, so no one can use science to figure out the origin of those fingerprints on the murder victim, right?

i do not agree with the 6,000 year date but i do not agree with the old earth theories either,

So what kind of geologic formation would convince you that the Earth is old? Any? Or is your position a dogmatic one?

human time was created AFTER the earth and universe, rendering any determination of age impossible.

Rocks were made before humans, so why can't we use them to determine how long the Earth has been around? Why are we not allowed to use evidence in the present to reconstruct the past?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 5:24 PM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 6:22 PM Taq has responded

Posts: 8482
Joined: 03-06-2009

Message 96 of 153 (574037)
08-13-2010 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 5:33 PM

people have free choice and they get to choose whether to follow God or not, believe Him or not thus it is very unlikely that those who reject the Bible will accept biblical data.

Sure, people have a right to their own opinions. However, they don't have a right to their own facts. You are arguing over facts. You are making claims that are simply wrong based on facts.

and one point, it is not 'virtually the whole scientifi community' there are a great number who do not accept evolutionary dating and accept the anti-evolutinary side of theargument.

Less than 0.1% of biologists reject evolution, as discussed here. If you want to trumpet that <0.1% go for it, but it isn't that impressive.

also as an aside, wich kind of God would you want to serve

I would want to serve a God who made a universe that could be used reliably to date itself. You know, a creation we could trust. The universe you describe is a universe made by a trickster God, a God that has purposefully inserted age into the universe for no other reason than to fool us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 5:33 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

Posts: 8482
Joined: 03-06-2009

Message 108 of 153 (574055)
08-13-2010 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 6:24 PM

and you cannot use the fact that they are found in supposedly 60,000,000 ear old rocks as an indication of old age.

Why not? Because you don't like it? We are going to need more than that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 6:24 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

Posts: 8482
Joined: 03-06-2009

Message 110 of 153 (574059)
08-13-2010 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 6:22 PM

havng the same date does not mean they originated at that time.

Since when?

you can have 5 different, independent people examine different objects and all agree to the date of each object but the problem is it is still an assumption.

And that assumption is . . .?

1. because the material dated may not have originated as thought.

How does that affect the date for all of those different dating techniques? Be specific.

2. the objects may not have started with the ideal or accepted amount of isotopes needed to get a date

Then the assays would have returned "no isotope detected" in the instrument. This is not the case. They did get a measurement which means there was enough.

3. given their life conditions, the decline rate may not have proceeded as pre-determined for those isotopes;

How would their "life conditions" change the decay of all of those different isotopes in the same way to give the same wrong date? Please explain what these conditions are.

4. what situations did those objects endure that would have corrupted the sampe and the daters are unaware of the corruption

They endured the cold of space for 4.5 billion years and a few seconds of heating in the atmosphere. This heating is so brief that freshly fallen meteorites are reported to be cold to the touch. What in those conditions is going to change the isotope ratios of all of those different parent and daughter pairs to give the same wrong date? Please explain.

5. there is no way to verify that those dating systems are correct in their assessment.

Cross correlation between labs and between techniques is the verification. They use different isotope pairs that decay through different mechanisms to cross check one to the other. They all match up between techniques and between meteors.

calibrating them against each other is just the same as one evolutionist going to another evolutionist to agree on the evolutionary theory.

Isotopes are not people. Their concentrations are objective facts, facts that you have not explained. All you seem capable of doing is finding excuses to ignore the data. Not a good move on your part.

also you have no ancient corroborration that the material tested is the same date as the objects tested,

Why do we need ancient corroboration? Isotopes decay at a steady rate. That is the clock. We can measure how long the clocks have been ticking. It is very, very simple.

the bolded parts are a very big assumption and cannot be verified nor confirmed. such conclusions mean nothing.

Meteors mark the point at which larger bodies started to form in the accretion disk. They date the beginning of planet building in our solar system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 6:22 PM 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 © 2021