|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Correlation Among Various Radiometric Ages | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Please, everyone, when JesusFighter returns, do your best to help him get the hang of how debate works at EvC Forum. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
He is just another classic Liar For Christ. He has already registered and posted as Casey Powell.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Face it my friend....your "dating" methods really suck.....I don't know how else to put it really. Yes - because you don't know what you're talking about. Thanks for making it obvious, though. Although I'm amazed that you thought you could overturn a century of geology just by saying that it "sucked." Somebody call the USGS!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
...your "dating" methods really suck... Now there is a substantiated position ... Try reading Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective, by Dr. Roger C. Wiens Take your time. Look up things you don't understand or ask questions, but the fact is that the dating methods also "belong" to the whole world whether you want it or not, including Christian scientists interested in the truth and who are not afraid of an old earth.
They don't directly measure the ages of rocks. Dr. Wiens will tell you just exactly how they do measure the age of rocks ... and other objects, by several different methods, and WHY it works. Denial of evidence does not make it go away, nor is it faith:
quote: You have been deluded, mislead, lied to, whether you remain steadfast in your delusion is up to you. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
Now there is a substantiated position ...
about as good as the best Evolution arguments I've ever seen. But you're right, two wrongs don't make a right. Try reading Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective, by Dr. Roger C. Wiens
Wiens...not the most accurate on the topic, he's been thoroughly rebutted in Jonathan Sarfati's book, "Refuting Compromise." Take your time. Look up things you don't understand or ask questions, but the fact is that the dating methods also "belong" to the whole world whether you want it or not, including Christian scientists interested in the truth and who are not afraid of an old earth.
Yup, and YECS use them too. But...they're dating results are always inaccurate, because...they're not good for dating! They don't directly measure the ages of rocks. Dr. Wiens will tell you just exactly how they do measure the age of rocks ... and other objects, by several different methods, and WHY it works.
Dr. Sarfati will tell you why he's a fool. Denial of evidence does not make it go away, nor is it faith:
Good, then why don't you start listening to YECS for a change? quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- delusion” -noun 1. an act or instance of deluding. 2. the state of being deluded. 3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur. 4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You have been deluded, mislead, lied to, whether you remain steadfast in your delusion is up to you. Enjoy.
Thanks for Ad Hominizing me to death. Will you ever present some evidence..since you seem to talk so big on it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
I have already stated that they do serve benefits (the USGS included!). Just no good in dating anything accurately and directly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
RAZD, well oh my goodness, you just broke my itty bitty heart.
I've read both sides to those arguments...and YECS provides the more convincing arguments here. Sorry, but thats a big time no go (every single bit was covered from the Igneous rocks to the Thermoluminensce, etc.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Just no good in dating anything accurately and directly. But you can't explain why. And the decades of reliable dates we've gained by these techniques proves you wrong. I mean, there you are saying the techniques don't date anything, and here we are with a big ol' pile of corroborated dates. And we're supposed to believe you over our lyin' eyes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks for Ad Hominizing me to death. Telling you that you have been deluded is not an ad hominem, but an observation based on your posts.
Dr. Sarfati will tell you why he's a fool. Now this is an ad hominem comment and an argument from authority as well that provides no information on what safarti's argument IS or HOW it refutes weins. Safarti is one of the ones who is deluding you. Why? Because he is intentionally misusing the science to measure things where he knows in advance he can get false results, NOT because the method is wrong but because the application of it is intentionally wrong. Now you could actually attempt to post what safarti says to substantiate your position - that would be the proper thing to do instead of making endless troll-like posts full of nothing. Saying things like
Just no good in dating anything accurately and directly. Does not SHOW that they are no good at dating anything accurately and directly, yet you have repeated this many times with no further information behind this bald assertion than the first time. One conclusion I can reach from this is that you are a troll and not interested in actual debate, just in causing disruption. Another conclusion I can reach is that you do not understand the information enough to debate it, so all you can do is rely on the argument from authority, and hence don't want to substantiate it as you are not able to defend safarti's (or whoever's) argument when it is shown what the errors in those arguments are. Another conclusion I can reach is that you are just unknowledgable in the field of science involved in each case, having only absorbed one side of the argument while remaining clueless of the other side and the depth of knowledge there. We have already touched on being deluded. The question is whether you can demonstrate that you are not any of these categories. Enjoy. Looks like my prediction of band-width wastage on the Age Correlation thread is validated, seeing as the thread is now closed due to your trolling behavior on it instead of addressing the issue of the thread. I'll address the points you raised there here.
Message 149 Wait a minute, you mean....that theres as much evidence for Evolution as there is for a Flat Earth? Wow, typical that you commit an error, then blame it on someone else....... Message 150 Secondly, you might be able to help me find this evidence for a flat earth....just can't seem to pull it up when I google it. First, I did not "blame" it on anyone. All I said was that you could find evidence for it. Try http://www.lhup.edu/%7Edsimanek/fe-scidi.htmhttp://www.lhup.edu/%7Edsimanek/febible.htm My implication is that we know this is a false position, even though you can find evidence FOR it, because there is TOO MUCH evidence that refutes it. I also notice you do not have any comments on the similar reference to the example for a geocentric earth. Are you going to make the same argument there or concede that it is the case that you can find evidence for a geocentric earth? I'll take further ignoring of this example on your part to be a concession of this fact. Just to help you along.
Message 150 The oldest living trees in the world are the Bristlecone Pines, which are 4723 years old. You're way off here. The oldest living single tree is a Bristlecone Pine, the trees themselves are much older as a species and there is a continual tree-ring chronology back to 8,000 years and some floating pieces of data older than that. The problem is magnified when you know that samples are not taken from just one tree but from several, so that they can be compared to eliminate false rings.
Another problem...well it deals with the method you use. Its a circular reasoning fallacy: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 So the effect that "Dr" Batten is talking about has already been taken care of during the dendrochronology process. From your link by Don Batten
quote: .... be lying to you if he said that these were identical species with identical tree-ring behavior. Yep, you have been lied to again. By someone who should know better.
Nor do they even look the same:
Monterey Pine, Pinus radiata versus Bristlecone pine, Pinus longaeva He is comparing a coastal species with a high altitude species and saying they are the same? A species that grows in an entirely {different habitat\ecology}? One where he can intentionally take samples from ones living in an entirely different seasonal growth environment? Shame on you for being so gullible. Notice that the European Oak also arrives at the same dates for the same climates based on the ring data, and you have not addressed the issue of that correlation at all. Oh look. You've been suspended indefinitely for posting like a troll. My bad for taking you seriously. I'm done. I'll leave this post here for future readers to wonder at your inability to deal with the facts. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Percy (IIRC) posted some jpegs of tables from a book showing dating correlations by several different methods.
It seems to me that this would be a good thread for {presentation\recording} of that information. I found the post. Now all I need is readable copies (or on-line versions that can be linked) and reference. http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth Edited by RAZD, : found post
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
They're at:
http:///DataDropsite/greenland_dates.jpg http:///DataDropsite/lunar_dating_1.jpg http:///DataDropsite/lunar_dating_2.jpg They're just images of pages from Brent Dalrymple's book on the age of the earth. I've found them useful when addressing the argument that radiometric dating is unreliable and yields dates all over the map. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
There are several correlations between radiometric dating methods, all showing broad consistency in results when properly applied:
Radiometric DatingRadiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens: quote: Let's look at some of those numbers: Are Radioactive Dating Methods Consistent?Are Radioactive Dating Methods Consistent With Each Other? by Don Lindsay quote: All of those ages overlap within the margins of error for each method - an actual age of 214x10^6 years ago is consistent with each one.
www.ncseweb.org/.../vol20/RadiometericDatingDoesWork...Radiometeric Dating Does Work! by G. Brent Dalrymple: quote:(Note image used is originally from this website and was only copied to a mirror site to reduce bandwidth traffic on the original source). That's 187 results between minimum 63.1 million years ago and maximum 66.5 million years ago, from a number of different sources and techniques. But that is not all: Are Radioactive Dates Consistent?Are Radioactive Dates Consistent With The Deeper-Is-Older Rule? by Don Lindsay quote: Layer by layer the stratigraphic measures older by radiometric dating, entirely consistent with the long term deposition of sedimentary layers (and not some jumbled debris of some fantasy flood scenario). None of the K-Ar Dates overlap into the wrong sedimentary layers. There is also one layer that is not measured - the Orellian - and here is dated by the "sandwich" method (layers above and below) to 25.6 to 31.6 million years ago (this essentially makes a prediction that dating will fill this gap within this range). This demonstrates how this type of dating of objects works.
www.ncseweb.org/.../vol20/RadiometericDatingDoesWork...Radiometeric Dating Does Work! by G. Brent Dalrymple: quote:(Note image used is originally from this website and was only copied to a mirror site to reduce bandwidth traffic on the original source). Excluding the Sm-Nd isochron (4 points) dating of St. Severin meteor - which runs from 4.22 billion years ago to 4.88 billion years ago - that's 44 results between 4.34 billion years ago and 4.61 billion years ago (and also within the envelope of the St. Severin meteor Notice that these correlated dates all imply an age for the earth of ~4.5 billion years. This is one piece of evidence of the extreme old age of the earth. Radiometric DatingRadiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens: quote: Matching data on the earth, on the moon and from meteors. The essential element of measuring the age of the earth is NOT finding evidence that the earth is young - that is easy on an old earth - but in finding the oldest available evidence - evidence of age that just cannot be made compatible with any young earth creation model no matter how hard the creationists try. Reasonable age of the earth = 4.5 billion years based on this data. For comments related to common creationist arguments against radioactive dating techniques see Chris Stassen's comments at:TalkOrigins Archive - Feedback for January 1999 Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
They're just images of pages from Brent Dalrymple's book on the age of the earth. I've found them useful when addressing the argument that radiometric dating is unreliable and yields dates all over the map. I was doing some scanning and decided these might be useful, so here's a belated Christmas present:
Radiometric Ages of Some Early Archean and Related Rocks of the North Atlantic CratonRadiometric Ages of Some Mare Basalts Dated by Two or More Methods Links to PDF versions at those pages. I'm not guaranteeing how long they'll stay up; feel free to grab them and squirrel them away. I'll see if talkorigins.org has any interest in hosting them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks, that's what I thought but wasn't sure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
cool - hope they stay a while (maybe a few billion years?)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024