Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potassium Argon Dating doesnt work at all
booboocruise
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 133 (36935)
04-14-2003 5:48 AM


The KBS tuff (a lava flow) was K-ar dated as being around 212 million years old. But then they found a perfectly normal human skull underneath the KBS tuff (indicating that the tuff was much, much younger than recently thought). A "40-million-year-old" petrified tree was found with a "50-million-year-old" bee nest inside it!
Here's the kicker--geology professors wanted to test the age of a potassium-granite stone, but 80% of the potassium argon washed off the rock before their eyes. So, that they would have been WAY OFF if they thought they could K-ar date a rock that is missing 80% of the evidence!
Trust me, all the evidence that supports evolution and an old-earth are inconclusive.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by John, posted 04-14-2003 10:54 AM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 3 by Karl, posted 04-14-2003 10:55 AM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 04-14-2003 11:06 AM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 5 by Mike Holland, posted 04-17-2003 2:37 AM booboocruise has replied
 Message 21 by manwhonu2little, posted 05-10-2003 1:33 PM booboocruise has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 133 (36967)
04-14-2003 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by booboocruise
04-14-2003 5:48 AM


quote:
The KBS tuff (a lava flow) was K-ar dated as being around 212 million years old.
Yes, yes... it was a tricky sample. They knew that from the start. Eventually they flew in an expert, got a good sample, and a good date. It took 30 seconds to look this up and clear it up. You can better than this. hmmm.... prolly not, actually, given what you've posted so far.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by booboocruise, posted 04-14-2003 5:48 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 133 (36968)
04-14-2003 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by booboocruise
04-14-2003 5:48 AM


I wouldn't trust you as far as I could spit a mass spectrometer.
Sources, please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by booboocruise, posted 04-14-2003 5:48 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 4 of 133 (36971)
04-14-2003 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by booboocruise
04-14-2003 5:48 AM


Reference please
There has been a bit of hanky panky in this area. Perhaps you could refer to the specific case?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by booboocruise, posted 04-14-2003 5:48 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
Mike Holland
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 179
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 5 of 133 (37193)
04-17-2003 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by booboocruise
04-14-2003 5:48 AM


Come on, Booboo, stop posting unreferenced crap. Please read some up-to-date science, and quote your references when posting.
In fact, nearly all of your arguments have already been answered in these forums.
I am going to ignore all your future posts if you carry on in this vein.
Mike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by booboocruise, posted 04-14-2003 5:48 AM booboocruise has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 12:00 PM Mike Holland has not replied

  
booboocruise
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 133 (37557)
04-22-2003 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mike Holland
04-17-2003 2:37 AM


Right
If you want more on the KBS tuff, lava flows, and K-ar dating, check out the sources below. First off, no amount of radiometric dating can be trusted completely (they are relying on too many variables). Some of the 'assumed factors' may be: has the K-ar been contaminated or has it been washed off; was there always the same amount of K-ar that would not fluctuate in the rock layers; has the 1/2-life of the radioactive isotopes been the same throughout all time and conditions (like fluctuations in the radiation from the sun, mineral deposits due to rain and erosion...)
Here is some areas to read up on both sides of the argument:
Evolution-Facts | Fakta & Evolusi Ilmiah
Dinosaur Adventure Land (this one is where I first heard about the KBS tuff).
http://www.projectcreation.org
Ferrell, Vance. "The Evolution Cruncher."
Morris, Dr. John. "Young Earth."
Young, Dr. Brian. "Doubts about Creation? Not after This!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mike Holland, posted 04-17-2003 2:37 AM Mike Holland has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 04-22-2003 12:08 PM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 8 by Philip, posted 04-23-2003 1:37 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 7 of 133 (37558)
04-22-2003 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by booboocruise
04-22-2003 12:00 PM


Re: Right
quote:
has the 1/2-life of the radioactive isotopes been the same throughout all time and conditions (like fluctuations in the radiation from the sun, mineral deposits due to rain and erosion...)
Here is some areas to read up on both sides of the argument:
Are your sites suggesting that fluctuations in the radiation from the sun etc influences the decay rate? It doesn't. Rain and erosion (they don't).
"both sides.."
These are not "both sides".
All the various arguments put forward have been refuted over and over. I suggest you do a little research.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 12:00 PM booboocruise has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by manwhonu2little, posted 05-10-2003 1:57 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 8 of 133 (37640)
04-23-2003 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by booboocruise
04-22-2003 12:00 PM


Re: The Sacred Cow
Dogmatic speculations in the form of radiometric dating I've always been able to handwave as untenable.
Sampling error, epoch isotopic concentrations, and blatent guessing are just a few tarnishing factors that make such time-pieces untrustworthy.
Moreover, they presuppose constancy in the speed of light over eons of time, and, not to mention, that higher elements on earth were somehow formed after the initial creation (AKA Big-Bang).
Anyone out there want to dogmatically speculate that higher elements and their isotopes were really somehow captured by our solar system, e.g., after a miraculously nearby super-nova produced them?
Or did our sun itself somehow produce the higher elements us radiometric daters confide in.
I for one find it very much easier to believe earth's higher inorganic elements and their radiometric isotopes (if you will) were formed at or very nearly at the beginning of the creation.
Now if all were formed in the beginning and stretched accross the universe at nearly the speed of c, then a whole bag of boggling relativistic scenarios could constrict atomically calibrated time within orbital clocks.
In other words, the number of earth's evenings and mornings would be far fewer compared to radiometric derivations of the same.
Albeit, the YEC's presupposition that God created mature chemistries would seem valid only assumming the Creator wished to make them appear cursed like us (e.g., to decay and die).
Then other metaphysics, like redemptive phenomena, restorative events, and God-of-the-gaps realities, must be entertained, not just due to our perverse lack of a scientific grasp of light and time, but due to our gross need to better qualify time as a metaphysical entity.
Just because we materialists accurately apply time in math and science doesn't make it a mere scientific phenomenon. Time is an elusive entity, like light, and demands an awesome appreciation beyond the material laws it associates with.
Conceptual time, for example, defies scientific constraints. Our scientific use of time is dwarfed by our racing with time in life's real painful events.
Thus, radiometric dating doesn't work for me either; other clocks, like geological and orbital clocks, must take precedence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 12:00 PM booboocruise has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2003 3:50 AM Philip has replied
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 04-23-2003 5:16 AM Philip has replied
 Message 11 by lpetrich, posted 04-24-2003 6:35 PM Philip has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 9 of 133 (37645)
04-23-2003 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Philip
04-23-2003 1:37 AM


Re: The Sacred Cow
So basically you call the facts "dogmatic speculations" and find it easier to believe wild speculations invented to protect your dogma.
But at least tell the truth, and admit that there are checks on the speed of light, we know that it has not varied significantly for over 100,0000 years (see this discussion of supernova 1987A http://www.geocities.com/...s/7755/ancientproof/SN1987A.html) and there is no evidence that it has varied significantly since the very early stages of the universe billions of years before Earth existed.
At least admit that the various possible errors are accounted for in radiometric dating and there are very many consistent dates that cannot reasonably be explained away.
Can you be honest enough to admit that your handwaving was not based on knowledge of the facts and that it is your handwaving that is the "dogmatic speculation" ?
[This message has been edited by PaulK, 04-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Philip, posted 04-23-2003 1:37 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Philip, posted 04-30-2003 1:23 AM PaulK has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 10 of 133 (37654)
04-23-2003 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Philip
04-23-2003 1:37 AM


Re: The Sacred Cow
I for one find it very much easier to believe earth's higher inorganic elements and their radiometric isotopes (if you will) were formed at or very nearly at the beginning of the creation.
But it's immaterial to dating when the elements were formed - only when they first froze out in rocks is of any consequence in dating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Philip, posted 04-23-2003 1:37 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Philip, posted 04-30-2003 1:32 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 133 (37926)
04-24-2003 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Philip
04-23-2003 1:37 AM


Re: The Sacred Cow
Philip accuses mainstream geologists of making such presuppositions as the elements forming after the Big Bang and the speed of light being constant.
However, the origin of the elements is an entirely separate question, and Philip ought to show how radioactive-decay rates depend on the speed of light. Yes, that means all radioactive-decay rates, including alpha decay, spontaneous fission, beta decay, and electron capture.
Alpha-like and beta-like decays happen by very different mechanisms, and their rates depend on several fundamental constants, so it would take a rather big miracle for all of them to vary in exact proportion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Philip, posted 04-23-2003 1:37 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Philip, posted 04-30-2003 1:57 AM lpetrich has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 12 of 133 (38389)
04-30-2003 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by PaulK
04-23-2003 3:50 AM


Re: The Sacred Cow
Admittedly, I'm guilty of dogmatic speculation as a YEC/OEC. I'm willing to concede the speed of light may have its factual boundaries given the present laws of the space-time continuum as we know it.
That the constancy of c has been, essentially, its present speed, I won't quival with. Most creationists don't rely on Barry Setterfield's hypotheses because matter and/or life-forms seem not even to be able to exist when c varies past a certain limit.
Nevertheless, experimental data is lacking thus I don't rule out Setterfield's hypothesis that c may have approached a more infinite speed at the beginning.
Your dogma and my dogma (e.g., biased dogmatic speculations) concerning this (c) discussion is so far from proveable via experimental science ... that we are both forced to call our speculations mere hypotheses, wouldn't you agree?
You state the space-time continuum was the same 10,000 orbital years ago vs. present? Perhaps. But to say this excellent universe (is it not excellent?) could not have once been in a less excellent formlessness and void in the beginning, wherein light and time as we measure it may have been different?
What if the creation/big bang was galactocentric vs. wildly explosive or else some other unexpected phenomena? These and other real phenomena may or may not have implications of changes in c, no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2003 3:50 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 04-30-2003 3:34 AM Philip has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 13 of 133 (38391)
04-30-2003 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Coragyps
04-23-2003 5:16 AM


Re: The Sacred Cow
"But it's immaterial to dating when the elements were formed - only when they first froze out in rocks is of any consequence in dating."
The higher elements and/or their isotopes seem (to me) to have to be there first, Coragyps. For IF they were produced nearly instantaneously in the beginning ... and THEN strown out across the universe at (a gamma factor?) of nearly c (e.g., by ID), their clocks would indeed be ahead of orbital clocks. (S. relativity)
Of course, I speculate, only.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 04-23-2003 5:16 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 04-30-2003 1:39 AM Philip has not replied
 Message 17 by John, posted 04-30-2003 9:46 AM Philip has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 14 of 133 (38392)
04-30-2003 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Philip
04-30-2003 1:32 AM


Re: The Sacred Cow
quote:
Of course, I speculate, only.
Yes, you speculate only. And it is meaningless and a useless waste of time. If you are really a YEC (with say a 10,000 year limit for the universe) then you are simply wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Philip, posted 04-30-2003 1:32 AM Philip has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 15 of 133 (38395)
04-30-2003 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by lpetrich
04-24-2003 6:35 PM


Re: The Sacred Cow
"Alpha-like and beta-like decays happen by very different mechanisms, and their rates depend on several fundamental constants, so it would take a rather big miracle for all of them to vary in exact proportion."
...Or many (fallacious) god-of-the-gaps miracles as you might seem to be getting at.
Ipetrich, your last sentence alone seems worth responding to. Your first 2 sentences seem easily refuted elsewhere, primarily by relativistic arguments, gamma effects, etc. on time
"Exact proportion" as you call it I've heard more accuratedly termed "highly correlative", which I accept based on the data.
Still the fact that there are highly correlative timing methods in your atomic arena does not make them mechanistically correlate enough with orbital time or Newtonian time perceptions.
Of course, I may be wrong.
The ID (and my dogmatic acceptance of it) may have been concerned with most men perceiving time in more Newtonian vs. Einsteinian science.
The 2 sciences are difficult to reconcile for simpleton-physicians like myself. Both are real for many geologists, sometimes one at the expense of the other (methinks). Both sciences must be accounted for.
Now, theistic vs atheistic dogmaticism colors up and butters up many scientific hypotheses with metaphysical and/or materialistic bias. I am theistically dogmatic and will undoubtedly color up my hypotheses as well, with faith-biases of metaphysical sorts.
So, I am undoubtely wrong in many of my scientific speculations.
[This message has been edited by Philip, 04-30-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by lpetrich, posted 04-24-2003 6:35 PM lpetrich has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024