Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
658 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 656 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,065 Year: 5,177/6,534 Month: 20/577 Week: 8/80 Day: 8/11 Hour: 0/1

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Radiometric Dating and the Geologic Column: A Critique
Inactive Member

Message 51 of 113 (166683)
12-09-2004 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by JonF
12-09-2004 6:13 PM

Glenn Morton ploted the date from Woodmorappe's CRSQ article and here is the result:

Source: Young-Earth Arguments: A Second Look

Re: claims that geochronologists are tossing out "bad" dates which results in "consistent" radiometric dates.

Those who actually work in the field are very clear that this is not the case. Now why should I not accept the word of thousands of workers involved with radiometric dating? It seems for more likely that a handful of YEC critics are full of it. And as Henke has pointed out the tests are not cheap enough to make the YEC claim viable.

I might finally add a good link on the subject: Radiometeric Dating Does Work! by G. Brent Dalrymple.

This message has been edited by Harlequin, 12-09-2004 07:41 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by JonF, posted 12-09-2004 6:13 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 12-09-2004 9:41 PM Harlequin has taken no action
 Message 56 by JonF, posted 12-09-2004 9:51 PM Harlequin has taken no action

Inactive Member

Message 107 of 113 (172896)
01-01-2005 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by edge
12-31-2004 5:00 PM


Umm, did you ever take a geology course? Do you think there is ANYWHERE in geology that we say all geological periods must be represented in any single location? In other words, Woody is creating a strawman argument and bashing it to pieces, then thumping his chest. And guess who is out there cheering him on?

This sort of thing might be the stupidest argument of the YECs. No one in their right mind would expect any spot on Earth to have continually have had strata deposited on it for 4.5 billion years let alone many of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by edge, posted 12-31-2004 5:00 PM edge has taken no action

Inactive Member

Message 108 of 113 (173080)
01-02-2005 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Anti-Climacus
12-31-2004 1:56 PM

Anti-Climacus writes:

My example of the Borg et al study convincingly demonstrates the following points:

JonF has clearly shown that don't understand the Borg et al study or at the very minimum the parts which he quoted. Of course you can begin to redeem yourself by explaining what you think the signicance of the upper and lower intercepts in concordia-discordia dating is. If you understand what is going on, that would be a trivial question. Do understand that concordia-discordia dating is not an isochron method? There are no isochron in concordia-discordia dating unless you are using "isochron" as another word for "line" which is simply misusing the term.

You really should consider reading, at a very minimum chapter 3 of Dalrymple's The Age of the Earth for an explanation. It really is a shame that Talk.Origins does not have an FAQ on that sort of dating (or for that matter argon-argon).

This means that those who support geologic time must again resort to special pleading and rationalizations to explain how, in cases where Tertiary is found lying directly upon Precambrian, 480 million years of geologic time just happened to disappear; or for the other three examples given above – 410 million, 340 million, and 295 million years of alleged geologic time just happened to vanish into thin air.

I have prepared a detailed response to this claim that these gaps are special pleadings instead of observed reality and put it into the proposed new topics since it brings to a subject other than radiometric dating, but rather to relative dating...

{Edited in: The topic was approved: the thread is Unconformities and the age of the Earth: Challenge to Anti-Climacus and other YECs and was placed in the Geology and the Great Flood forum.}

This message has been edited by Harlequin, 01-02-2005 15:13 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Anti-Climacus, posted 12-31-2004 1:56 PM Anti-Climacus has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by JonF, posted 01-02-2005 3:27 PM Harlequin has taken no action

Inactive Member

Message 113 of 113 (178296)
01-18-2005 7:22 PM

Can we now assume that Anti-Climacus has ran away?

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022