An honest question for creos regarding dates and dating

Fred - you do know that very simple science tells that the flood in the bible is impossible. Actually common sense tells us it was impossible as told in the bible.I will not get into here but if you pop across to any of the threads about the great flood, you will see why.

Double post.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-11-2004 11:24 AM

But what you are doing is not science.Science is as follows.observation--->hypothesis--->test--->theory--->test--->conclusion.When AIG says that science starts with an assumption of great age, they are lying and they know it. That is simply not true.Actually, science started with the assumption that the earth was relatively young. However, the evidence, like those that I pointed out to you, kept cropping up. Long before there were tree ring studies, long before the varves were studed, long before radiometric dating, the evidence was so overwhelming that science found the idea of a young earth simply could not be supported.Since then, those other techniques have been developed. And the tree ring studies, the varves, ice cores, coral cores, radiometric dating, genetics and every other form of measurement has not only confirmed the old earth point of view, each one has independantly correlated the others. All measurements, from every source, independantly confirm the old earth.The flood is another good example. Floods leave very definite fingerprints. If you have ever lived in a coastal area and been through a hurricane and storm surge, you would be able to recognize the aftermath. If you have ever lived through a major inland flood event, you would be able to recognize the signature, the aftermath. One such characteristic is that everything is jumbled. There is no order, only chaos. Based on the debris field, you can actually recreate the event.But as mankind explored more and more of the world, what was found was that there is no uniform, world-wide debris field. Oh, there have been lots of floods. There are very difinte signs of major floods world-wide, but not of one single event.This is why none of the major Christian religions today consider either the Genesis Creation story or the Flood to be more than simply myth.One feature of science is that as information comes to light that disproves a theory, the theory is either changed, expanded or replaced. This is what has happened with both the young earth concept and the story of the flood.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

For example, if you assume there wasn’t a Flood (from the Bible) and the earth is billions of years old, then if you find evidence that points to Biblical creation in some way, you will throw out the data as faulty, contaminated, etc.

---

Which is absolutely false. Dates are thrown out because they are outliers. For instance, if I had 97 dates that pointed to between 65 and 67 million years and I had 3 dates that pointed to 10 million years, which do you think are the correct dates and which are due to human error? Given that humans make mistakes, the three 10 million year old dates can be thrown out. This is common in every science. Trust me, I know. I have personally thrown out outliers in experiments I do, as does the rest of science.

quote:

---

If you assume God created the earth, sent a great flood, etc, then your interpretation will be affected in the opposite way.

---

Which means you are allowed to ignore dating techniques outright, regardless of their accuracy?From your link (chatper1.asp): So lets go back to the ice core data. Scientists label an annual layer not as a pencil thin layer but as a layer showing a switch in oxygen isotopes which is indicative of a winter/summer cycle from PRESENT DAY OBSERVATIONS. Creationists use a global flood which has NO EVIDENCE within the science. Now which side is using assumptions outside of science? The side that uses observations or the one that uses mythology that has no evidence in the geological or biological sciences?

quote:

---

I’m not talking about something unethical. We all have a bias of some form.

---

Yes, you have a bias towards mythology and I have a bias towards measurable observations.

quote:

---

If you think the earth is billions of years old, you will assume ice has been crushed down so much that each year is represented by a pencil thin layer. Each year would have been relativity the same as the year before it.

---

No, the oxygen isotope ratios in each layer tell us what makes an annual layer. It is a cycle of high evaporation and then low evaporation caused by a cycle in air temperature. These pencil thin layers have this property, the same property as those 2,000 layers that AiG has no problem with. AiG wants to argue that the Flood somehow changes the normal cycle to mimic annual cycles. However, for this to be true we would need 1,000 cycles of temperatures mimicing summer and winter with the consequent amount of annual precipitation. That would mean that temperatures would have to fluctuate between 50 degrees and -50 degrees 3 times per day with 3 times the amount of annual precipitation PER DAY!!. Of course, no one living at the time recorded this type of temperature change, nor is it recorded anywhere else in nature. Of course, we would expect this kind of reasoning by people who prefer mythology over reality.

quote:

---

Creationists initially use the Bible to date the earth. We start with a bias of 6000 years instead of a bias of billions of years.

---

How about you start with zero bias and works towards a conclusion by using objective data, the exact same methodology that science used 200 years ago. Why should we start with a book of mythology when dating the earth? Why shouldn't we start with the evidence in the earth?

quote:

---

As far as I know, there isn’t one dating method that shows conclusively how old something is.

---

Correct, it is the corroboration of several dating techniques that all point to one age. And that age is 4.5 billion years.

quote:

---

It seems circular to me, using assumptions to back up assumptions.

---

What are those assumptions? The decay rate has been checked against supernovae and natural reactors. So that isn't an assumption. Initial concentrations of daughter products in radiometric dating can be checked using isocratic dating techniques, so daughter products aren't an assumption. Mobility of parent and daughter products can be checked with concordia/discordia dating techniques, so these aren't an assumption. What are the assumptions?

quote:

---

Well it didn’t happen during the flood year. The ground was relatively flat before the flood. The waters rose for 40 days until they covered the whole planet. At some point near the end of the year, mountains rose, oceans sank, then there was an ice age. At that time, the climate around the whole planet was vastly different than what we have today.

---

Do you have any evidence that backs up this story Any at all? If not, why do you assume it happened?

Loudmouth:The original thread started like this: I understand that several people here disagree with AIG, I was simply trying to answer the original question since I think AIG is a good representation of creationist thinking. I should clear up one point though since it is important to this thread.I made this claim about current dating methods:

quote:

---

As far as I know, there isn’t one dating method that shows conclusively how old something is. All dating methods must be interpreted, using assumptions about what happened in the past. It has to be corroborated with data that was gotten through measurements that needed assumptions made. It seems circular to me, using assumptions to back up assumptions.

---

You responded: I don’t think anyone is disputing decay rates or any of that. It’s measurable and repeatable. I’m sure there’s nothing wrong with the dating techniques in the general sense. It’s the data that is put into them that I say is the assumption. Carbon 14 and other dating methods depend on an accurate quantity of the material being measured. How do you determine what the original quantity was? No one was there to record this for us, so we must make assumptions based on what the conditions probably were. Those assumptions are based on results of other tests that used assumptions about conditions present at the time in question.I'm out of time now. I'll post a little later on flood data.

quote:

---

Carbon 14 and other dating methods depend on an accurate quantity of the material being measured.

---

Yes, and this is done with counters that measure the energy given off during radioactive decay and through the use of mass spectrometry. It is a simple matter to quantitate the different isotopes in a sample.

quote:

---

How do you determine what the original quantity was? No one was there to record this for us, so we must make assumptions based on what the conditions probably were.

---

The leaves in lake beds DID record the amount of C14 in the atmosphere. The tree rings DID record the amount of C14 present. They record them by incorporating carbon dioxide into the cellulose that makes up new plant tissue, just as they do today. Also, C14 has not been constant throughout history, but changes have been recorded by the preservation of organisms alive at that time. By using these dead organisms it allows us to give an accurate date for other dead things. Again, it is about corroboration from different sources and how they match up.Also, when using isochron dating techniques with potassium/argon dating, you can actually measure the amount of argon that was present when the rock solidified. This is done measuring different size samples of the same rock. It is never assumed that the original argon content was zero.The conditions that we assume are earth like conditions that we experience today. To change the decay rates within rocks they would have to be in the middle of a sun, or some other place with pressures exceeding what is found on earth. Either that, or God intentionally fooled with the ratios of potassium and argon in order to fool us into thinking that the earth was old. Then he would also have to fool us again by doing the same with numerous other radioisotopes that also point to the same age. He would then also have to create fake lake varves, fake ice cores, etc. Science assumes that God didn't do this, or any other supernatural diety.For a rundown on isochron dating: Isochron Dating

I was hoping that there would be more YEC participation.

---

The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current. For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

Come on fundies, please come and show me the full might of the creationist side.If you want, I have some cookies

---

The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current. For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

Death Mal: I was hoping another YEC would pipe up here, I feel like I’ve been left to the wolves.Back to where I left off: I did a search for flood information, and mostly what I found were re-explanations of currently accepted ‘facts’. There is much information, but I can’t possibly put it all in here. Here are two examples:Tillite
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1188.aspChalk
http://www.answersingenesis.org/...es/tj/docs/v8n1_chalk.aspMuch to my surprise, I didn’t find a list of all the evidence of a global flood 4500 years ago. I get most of my information from AIG, and most of their articles are about specific ‘scientific’ findings, and their interpretation of it, so I can’t point to a list from AIG.I started searching outside AIG, and I did find at least two web sites that have a whole reinterpretation of the whole geological column, and even an article for evidences of the flood. I didn’t read these sites before doing this research, but they seem to echo many things I’ve read on AIG. Since this thread is devoted to how YEC explain the ‘evidence’ of an old earth, I didn’t feel the need to go to extreme methods to compare the science to other YEC sources. Here is a link to the flood articleFlood geology
http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/flood.htmlThey have many more articles about evidences for young earth just by clicking on their links at the top of the article.Here is the other site. I can’t put a link to every article, but it gives more insight into how the creationist interprets the old earth data and sees a young earth.
Northwest Creation NetworkSo back to interpreting the data and the assumptions:Loudmouth says: The way I understand dating methods that use the decay rates of unstable elements, you need to know the original amount of the unstable element, and the original amount of any daughter elements. If C14 is decaying into nitrogen, how can you possibly know how much C12, C14 or nitrogen was there originally. I know you can compare the results with objects of known age and calibrate your results, but what if you don’t have anything to use for calibration? That is even more true with the other dating methods. It goes back to having to make assumptions on the original quantities of the elements being measured.I’m kind of repeating myself here from an earlier post. This link gives a good description of what I’m talking about:http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/rad_dating-p2.htmlThis is from the website above:

quote:

---

In other words, all methods of radioactive dating rely on some a priori assumptions which may not necessarily be true. These are:

​

The rate of radioactive decay and half-lives has remained constant over time. This assumption has the backing of numerous scientific studies and is relatively sound, however, conditions may have been different in the past and could have influenced the rate of decay or formation of radioactive elements.

​

The assumption that the clock was set to zero when the study material was formed. This requires that only the parent isotope be initially present or that the amount of daughter isotope present at the beginning is known so that it can be subtracted.

​

The assumption that we are dealing with a closed system. No loss of either parent or daughter elements has occurred since the study material formed.

---

I don’t know anything about variable decay rates from the first point above, but the second point above is what I was making. I think the third point can be tested to a certain degree, but I don’t think you can ever completely rule it out.I hate to use this worn out phrase, but you weren’t there. Since none of us can claim to actually have observed the material in question in a controlled environment during it’s entire existence, we can never be 100% sure of the initial data, or to any contamination of the samples being used. To claim otherwise seems ludicrous to me. Since no one can claim this knowledge, that means we have to make assumptions, and those assumptions could be different, depending on whether or not you are a YEC.From what I’ve been reading, these points sum up most of the YEC interpretations of the data.

Fred - before you go down a deadend - quite a few of the sites will talk about the decay being faster in the past (and that's why dating is wrong).There is a very simple reason this is not right - we are here and not burnt to a crisp!

Fredsbank:For the websites that you listed, could you summarize their arguments here. No offense, but we prefer to debate people instead of websites.

quote:

---

The way I understand dating methods that use the decay rates of unstable elements, you need to know the original amount of the unstable element, and the original amount of any daughter elements. If C14 is decaying into nitrogen, how can you possibly know how much C12, C14 or nitrogen was there originally. I know you can compare the results with objects of known age and calibrate your results, but what if you don’t have anything to use for calibration? That is even more true with the other dating methods. It goes back to having to make assumptions on the original quantities of the elements being measured.

---

First of all, nitrogen is the source for C14, and C14 decays to C12. In the upper atmosphere high energy photons bombard diatomic nitrogen (N2) and create an unstable cyanide (CN). Oxygen and ozone in the atmosphere then react with the cyanide producing carbon dioxide containing one one atome of C14. This C14 is then absorbed by plants and through photosynthesis the C14 becomes glucose and cellulose. Plants do not select against C14, so the ratio of C12 and C14 at the time of cellulose/glucose formation reflects the ratio in the air.Now that we have this behind us . . . C14 concentrations do vary, and in fact have varied wildly since humans have begun using fossil fuels rich in old carbon (C12). C14 varies with the amount of high energy photons bombarding the upper atmosphere. So, we would expect some fluctuation in the amount of C14 over time. Because of this, previous methodologies could only be accurate out to 10,000 years or so. Since this time scientists have found other ways of measuring historic levels of C14 in the form of captured pollen in ice, tree rings, and lake varves. Because we know that these places produce verifiable annual events we are able to cross check them against each other for levels of C12/C14. What we would expect is a nearly linear line, where the older specimens are lower in C14 ratios than younger specimens in the column of annual events. This is exactly what we see, with small fluctuations up and down for differing levels of C14. Below is the actual graph, with the varve age on the x-axis and the radiocarbon age on the Y-axis. The line going through diagonally would represent a steady state C14 value. As you can see, C14 has not been at a steady state, but very close to steady state. This data now allows scientists to calibrate the ages of samples for radiocarbon dating out to 45,000 years.Also, other isotopes were also measured and compared to ice core samples. From http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htm : Speleothems are coral. So not only do the lake varves match the ice core data, but they also match uranium dating done in corals. Again, more corroboration.

quote:

---

In other words, all methods of radioactive dating rely on some a priori assumptions which may not necessarily be true. These are:

​

The rate of radioactive decay and half-lives has remained constant over time. This assumption has the backing of numerous scientific studies and is relatively sound, however, conditions may have been different in the past and could have influenced the rate of decay or formation of radioactive elements.

---

So they admit that they don't vary, but somehow they imply that they do? I am confused. First they claim "The rate of radioactive decay and half-lives has remained constant over time. This assumption has the backing of numerous scientific studies and is relatively sound," which seems to indicate that it isn't an a priori assumption. That is, the assumption has been tested and found to be true. Therefore, it isn't an assumption. Then they claim "however, conditions may have been different in the past and could have influenced the rate of decay or formation of radioactive elements." Now this is confusing. They are arguing for an unyet discovered condition that would violate many laws in physics over a tested and verifiable decay rate. In other words, creationists are using the a priofi assumption that conditions were different in the past which has never been tested and never verified.

quote:

---

The assumption that the clock was set to zero when the study material was formed. This requires that only the parent isotope be initially present or that the amount of daughter isotope present at the beginning is known so that it can be subtracted.

---

This is an absolute lie that keeps moving around in creationist camps. If you use the isochron method of dating then an initial amount of non-radiogenic daughter element can not fool the dating methodology. Sorry, but this one is simply not true. Go here for the truth that creationists don't want you to see.

quote:

---

The assumption that we are dealing with a closed system. No loss of either parent or daughter elements has occurred since the study material formed.

---

There is no doubt that this can occur on occasion. However, by using isochron dating and concordia/discordia dating this problem will become very obvious. Again, you will never hear creationists mentioning these methodologies because they do exactly what they claim is impossible, reveal mixing and non-closure of radiogenic elements. No offense, but you really need to read something outside of creationist circles. Start with the isochron methodology that I referenced above.

Loudmouth:Point taken about debating web sites. I’ll do more summarizing. My fear was I would mischaracterize the YEC argument, and I don’t want to do that to YEC, or to your side.I can see your point about reading outside creationist circles, and no offence taken. I have looked at talkorigins, and will continue to do so. I’ve also looked at other web sites too, although not as much as talk origins. Speaking of them, I looked for something that was on both their website and AIG to get a comparison. Here is a brief analysis on what I see:AIG is talking about lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand as old as 1949. When they were dated, the results were in the millions of years: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

quote:

---

Again, using hindsight, it is argued that ‘excess’ argon from the magma (molten rock) was retained in the rock when it solidified. The secular scientific literature lists many examples of excess argon causing dates of millions of years in rocks of known historical age. This excess appears to have come from the upper mantle, below the earth’s crust. This is consistent with a young worldthe argon has had too little time to escape. If excess argon can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should we trust the method for rocks of unknown age?

---

Talkorigins counters a similar claim. Not the same claim, but it’s similar enough to be acceptable in my example: CD013: K-Ar dating of modern rocks.

quote:

---

Argon may be incorporated with potassium at time of formation. This is a real problem, but it is easily overcome either by careful selection of the material being dated or by using 40Ar/39Ar dating instead of K/Ar dating.

---

I see direct contradiction between the two camps, not only between the quotes, but the whole article. Most of the arguments in the talkorigins article have to do with one of these points:
The results were mischaracterized
The results weren’t completely reported (leading to additional mischaracterization)
The results were bad because of improper testing (bad sample, wrong test used, etc)
The testing wasn’t calibrated properly (or at all)It’s pretty much the same arguments used by the creationists.Someone is wrong. From where I stand, it’s a he said, she said argument. But I see the creationist side bringing up enough questions, with supporting evidence, to convince me that everything isn’t as clear cut as you make it sound.In this example above, how can you know that you have carefully selected the material being dated. In this case, they selected the wrong material when dating the lava flow in New Zealand. Is it hard to select the right sample? Were they careless? Talkorigins further explains that the lava was too young to be tested with K/Ar testing. So? YEC claim the earth is about 6000 years old. If that’s true, that completely invalidates K/Ar testing doesn’t it? Doesn’t K/Ar testing start becoming reliable at one million years? I could go through various secular web sites and raise more questions, not just the ones I brought up here.Your timescale is based on the assumption that the earth is billions of years old with overwhelming pieces of evidence that support it. Back to a post by Jar on 8/11 he says: Jar isn’t specific what the ‘evidence’ is, but it’s not tree rings or varves. I assume it means things like the physical attributes of the earth (like the Grand Canyon), or anything that doesn’t require sophisticated equipment to measure at the atomic level. There are alternate explanations for most of this evidence that fits within the Biblical framework. If you take this evidence interpreted correctly (which means it fits within the biblical framework), it shows a 6000 year old earth, global flood, and resultant ice age. This evidence, along with properly applied radiometric dating methods, tree rings, varves, etc will support what I’m saying.If you take any one piece of the creationist argument and apply it to the secular interpretation, it won’t stand up. Only by looking at it in the context of the Bible does it work. This works the same as the secular interpretation which requires looking at the whole picture to get an accurate picture. You can’t apply bits of your evidence to the creationist interpretation and expect it to stand up either.I can’t explain your example of the varves in Japan. The article is very complex, at least for me. I found some vague attempts to refute it, but nothing specific. The data, as presented doesn’t fit within the Biblical timeframe.It does leave questions though. For example, it doesn’t look like additional core samples were taken, according to your article. Just the one from the center of the lake. I wonder what you would find if you took others, or did additional digging around. AIG has an example of an ancient lakebed: http://www.answersingenesis.org/...ion/v19/i3/greenriver.aspThe Green River Formation in Wyoming, USA has more than a million vertically superimposed varve pairs in some parts of the Green River Formation. The total number appears to represent millions of years. There are two problems. First is the presence of fossils. Catfish fossils, some well preserved, have been found within the layers. And some extinct bird, a Presbyornis, also left an abundant number of fossils within the layers. How could there be fossils if they took years to be buried by the sediment? Wouldn’t they decompose.The next problem is the presence of two layers of volcanic ash. In one location, they are separated by 1160 layers. In another place, 1568 layers. This would be inconsistent with annual layers, since the separation should remain the same.

quote:

---

So how were the great thicknesses of finely laminated shale in the Green River Formation laid down? Creationist geologists need to investigate the issue more closely, but there seems to be great potential for developing a catastrophic model for the origin of these sediments. There is a large body of experimental and observational data that shows that varve-like sediments can build up very rapidly under catastrophic conditions. For instance, in 1960 Hurricane Donna struck the coast of southern Florida and deposited a blanket of thinly-laminated lime-mud six inches thick. Another example comes from a Swiss lake, in which up to five pairs of layers were found to build up in a single year, deposited by rapid underflows of turbid water.

---

While this isn’t ‘proof’ of any sort in the example of the Japanese lake, it does raise some questions and makes me wonder what would be found with additional research. And it does show that varves might not need a whole year to be laid down and brings into question much of the varve evidence.Finally, I wanted to address the variable decay rates that you and Charles commented on. I only included it in my quote for completeness. I don’t know much about it, and there doesn’t seem to be a lot of research on it, at least none I could find. It doesn’t appear anyone is claiming this could solely be responsible for the appearance of old earth, but under the right conditions, like high heat, pressure, and chemical composition, decay rates can be affected, thus contributing to the dates that conflict with the Biblical time scale. I’m not saying that decay rates could arbitrarily change, which leaves us little chance of us burning up as Charles joked about in his post. More study is needed on this before it can be a viable argument, so I don’t think further discussion is warranted at this time, since none of us really feel like it contributes much, if any, to the argument.

quote:

---

AIG is talking about lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand as old as 1949. When they were dated, the results were in the millions of years:

---

From the AiG website ( First of all, K/Ar dating can be innacurate for young samples. This has to do with the background readings of the instrumentation. It is kind of like trying to hear a radio signal over a lot of static, with the static being the background noise. Therefore, you need a strong Ar signal in order for it to be measured above the "static". In young samples the amount of Ar is very low (which argues against "excess argon") so there isn't much of a signal to measure. This is why you get large ages for relatively young samples. For example, in the now infamous Mt St Helens project by the RATE group, they sent their samples to a lab that admitted that their limit of detection was samples 3 million years and older, yet the RATE group sent their "new" samples to this lab anyway and acted shocked when their results varied between 0 and 3 million years old.This is why other dating techniques have to be used for dating newer rocks, or more sensitivie instrumentaiton. Covering up this fact, or acting ignorant when other people mention it (on the part of AiG) is very dishonest.

quote:

---

how can you know that you have carefully selected the material being dated. In this case, they selected the wrong material when dating the lava flow in New Zealand. Is it hard to select the right sample? Were they careless?

---

In the case of the New Zealand samples (and Austin's Mt St Helens samples) they selected the right samples but used the wrong methodology. For example, if I used the smallest increments on a yard stick to measure the width of a human hair then every human hair would be 1/16th of an inch. Of course, we know that human hair is not this wide, but this is the same logic that AiG and others are using. Guess what happens when you apply the correct methodology to the correct samples? You get the correct ages. This article summarizes some very important studies that looked for consistancy in K/Ar and Ar/Ar dating methodologies. For instance, the meteor that killed off the dinosaurs about 65 million years ago created shocked quartz. This is a type of small, spherical rock that is created when quartz is suddenly melted, such as in the case of a large meteor impact. This melting releases all of the argon present, and resets the radiometric rock. Now, the shocked quartz (also called tektites) fell in the same strata as the iridium rich meteor debris all of the Gulf of Mexico. Now, if K/Ar dating or Ar/Ar dating was so atrocious, then the tektites found in the iridium layer in one area should not match up to the age of the tektites in the same layer in another area. So, they randomly picked different sites and sent them in to several labs. The lab was never told where these samples were taken from, so they had no prejudice in the test. From the site above " The results from all of the laboratories were remarkably consistent with the measured ages ranging only from 64.4 to 65.1 Ma (Table 2). Similar tektites were also found in Mexico, and the Berkeley lab found that they were the same age as the Haiti tektites."It is accurate for samples of appreciable age. Dating new samples with a methodology incapable of dating such young material is dishonest and poor science. If creationists want to refute the accuracy of radiometric dating then they should test these tektites, as well as many other formations that radiometric dating has accurately measured, such as the historically recorded lava flows that Dalrymple accurately measured with Ar/Ar dating in his 1969 paper (which is referenced at talkorigins).

quote:

---

It does leave questions though. For example, it doesn’t look like additional core samples were taken, according to your article. Just the one from the center of the lake. I wonder what you would find if you took others, or did additional digging around. AIG has an example of an ancient lakebed: http://www.answersingenesis.org/...ion/v19/i3/greenriver.asp

---

I remember reading something about the Greenriver lake beds. If I remember correctly, the varves in the Green river are quite different than those in the Japanese Lake (I can never remember how to spell it). That is, they are not comparable. It is like comparing the rind on an apple to that on an orange. What creationists should do is test the Japanese lake and see if they find any discrepencies, as you pointed out as well. I have to run for the moment, but I will dig up the info on false annual lake varves. Talk to you later.

It’s seems to me you know a lot about radiometric dating, where as in comparison, I know almost nothing . I hope I’m not wasting your time, or you think I’m some expert in these matters. I see the quality of your responses, and I feel like I’m taking significant amounts of your time, so I don’t want you to feel like you are wasting it.I looked up Rate’s lab report for Mt. St. Helens. Here is what I found:They give a detailed description of the sample collection and preparation
They sent the samples to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts
The results were detailed measurements of the elements in question.
RATE explained the formula, how the numbers were applied, and the years that were represented.It’s very detailed and doesn’t appear to be lacking data in any way.I looked up the lab, they claim on their website: I looked at their whole website. I found their ‘services’ page. I couldn’t find anything about AR or K measurements. Although they mention it on other pages, I assume it must be a basic service, so they didn’t even mention it on their services page. Plus, the RATE report, as well as your comments above, say they supplied measurements of these elements, so they must be able to do them.If they are a world leader in all their services, I would think you could send almost anything there, regardless of it’s suspected age. Their web site didn’t mention they couldn’t measure samples less than 3 Ma. I thought of calling them, but I was afraid they would think I was a quack, or wouldn’t want to talk to me since I’m not a scientist, or even a potential customer. Besides, maybe they were only mediocre when RATE used them, but they are "world class" now? It actually doesn’t matter since it’s really the conclusions that we are debating.I see your point that it was dishonest to use a dating method that is known to cause incorrect dates of such a young age. The point I believe they were making, and the one they did make, was that since the earth is only 6000 years old, all the samples that use dating methods that only measure 1 ma or older are wrong.I understand you have corroborating evidence from other dating methods. I’m still looking into that. I can’t explain it, and it’s disappointing that AIG or other sites don’t mention it very much. Unfortunately, that does lend some credence to your argument, but it’s possible I just haven’t found that information yet.In addition, I did find an article with strong detailed criticism of creationist arguments about dating infallibility. I thought you’d be proud of me for reading something out of the creationist circles. It’s a pretty detailed and the arguments sound good. The only problem is he is accusing Woodmorappe of the same things the creationist accuse them of, sending us back to he said, she said. I’d like to find a creationist rebuttal that really addresses the issues Henke raises.I understand the Green River lake beds are very different from the one in Japan. My point is when the initial data was presented about the Green River lake bed, it appeared to confirm the earth was millions of years old due to the number of varves. However, additional analysis showed inconsistances that brought the initial conclusion into question. Additional analysis in Japan could cause the same thing to happen. Of course, I haven’t seen AIG or any creationist group that was investigating it. But there is a lot to investigate, and there are not as many scientists in creationist circles, as in the secular world.

this does not insulting but...it's really nice to see someone who is actually willing to look at the evidence from both sides rather than pay lipservice to the idea ("let me get back to you, "i'll examine it later").I'm sometimes too quick to judge some of the creationist arguments (unless they ron wyatt frauds ! They have give me plenty of giggles) - if you spot something good - let me know!This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-19-2004 04:29 PM