|
Author
|
Topic: Validity of Radiometric Dating
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 57 of 207 (730434)
06-28-2014 3:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
06-27-2014 2:07 PM
|
|
Faith Makes Stuff Up Again
Sometimes. Amazing though how many Wikipedia and other general articles just rattle off a bunch of mystifying conclusions about this or that, say the KT boundary for an example without even touching on the particular phenomena involved. It's all millions of years this and assumed events that. There is NO room for uncertainty in those common presentations. No that's not the idea. They talk in terms of events as if they were facts, this happened, that happened, so many years ago. There was a meteor that killed off all the dinosaurs. Stated as fact. That is far from the point I'm trying to make. I don't care about the detailed arguments, what I care about is how the public is being brainwashed by a presentation of questionable material as fact. There is no way to rationalize this. Presentations of TRUE science don't do this to the public. Well, I looked at WP's actual article on the KT boundary. * It has references to a score of peer-reviewed papers and half-a-dozen academic books. * It describes the reasoning behind the conclusions, for example:
The evidence for the Alvarez impact theory is supported by chondritic meteorites and asteroids which have an iridium concentration of ~455 parts per billion, much higher than ~0.3 parts per billion typical of the Earth's crust. Chromium isotopic anomalies found in Cretaceous—Paleogene boundary sediments are similar to those of an asteroid or a comet composed of carbonaceous chondrites. * So far from leaving "NO room for uncertainty" the article presents multiple hypotheses, and while it apparently favors Alvarez, it cautiously describes his idea as a hypothesis rather than a theory. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 42 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 2:07 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 59 of 207 (730436)
06-28-2014 3:46 AM
|
Reply to: Message 58 by Faith
06-28-2014 3:45 AM
|
|
Re: why wiki may be a poor source
I'm sure I can find scores of examples of what I'm talking about and it's no less objectionable with the footnotes. And yet the one example you gave turned out to be made up.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 58 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 3:45 AM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 60 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 3:53 AM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 61 of 207 (730440)
06-28-2014 3:59 AM
|
Reply to: Message 60 by Faith
06-28-2014 3:53 AM
|
|
Re: why wiki may be a poor source
But their treatment of the KT boundary is simply, flatly, not at all as you have described it. Your example is not an example. It is something you made up.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 60 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 3:53 AM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 62 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 4:08 AM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 63 of 207 (730444)
06-28-2014 4:11 AM
|
Reply to: Message 62 by Faith
06-28-2014 4:08 AM
|
|
Re: why wiki may be a poor source
Yes, maybe later you'll prove that the article I've just read and quoted doesn't say what it says. Or maybe not.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 62 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 4:08 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 104 of 207 (733528)
07-17-2014 9:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 101 by mram10
07-17-2014 8:44 PM
|
|
EvC forum???? Hmmm... I was expecting real scientists that are comfortable hearing there might be new information we can learn from. For those that are not interested in testing and studying different findings, then feel free to ignore my posts. You are wasting both of our times. Back on topic. Old earth, young earth, don't care. I enjoy hearing about new findings in the radiometric dating world. To discount the RATE findings just shows the ignorance of those that don't read their findings. Try reading their findings from THEM, as opposed to reading those that simply contradict them. Sure, let's see what they have to say:
A large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [14, pp. 335-337]. We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that "old" radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth at today’s rates of nuclear decay occurred. ETA: reference: Humphreys, D.R.; S.A. Austin; J.R. Baumgardner and A.A. Snelling, 2003, "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay",Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey (ed.), Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA. Similarly the RATE report itself admits to "more than 500 million years worth (at today’s rates) of nuclear and radioisotope decay". (Larry Vardiman, Andrew A. Snelling, and Eugene F. Chaffin, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, vol. 2 p. 284, Institute for Creation Research, 2005.) It is YECs who need to discount and ignore these findings. I'm very comfortable with them. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 101 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 8:44 PM | | mram10 has seen this message but not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 108 of 207 (733535)
07-17-2014 10:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 107 by mram10
07-17-2014 10:21 PM
|
|
The point is there was interesting data that came from their work. Perhaps you could communicate your enthusiasm by explaining to RAZD just what it was you found so interesting and why. But maybe RAZD feels more blas then you do about seeing radiometric data proving that YECs are wrong. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 107 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 10:21 PM | | mram10 has seen this message but not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 110 of 207 (733537)
07-17-2014 11:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 107 by mram10
07-17-2014 10:21 PM
|
|
Young earth, old earth, is not the point. The point is there was interesting data that came from their work. Many here are spring loaded to anything that might go against what they learned in school. Get used to it. Science books in school said numerous things that have been proven false since. If you get so offended about studies that might change things as we know them, you are NOT a scientist. You are simply a fundamentalist. For those interested in continuing this topic, please post. As fort the rest, feel free to continue your bashing elsewhere. It simply takes away form your credibility when you do it This is a strange response to a post where RAZD explicitly asked to see evidence showing that he, and science books, and what he learned in school, was wrong.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 107 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 10:21 PM | | mram10 has seen this message but not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 121 of 207 (733639)
07-19-2014 1:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 120 by mram10
07-19-2014 1:22 PM
|
|
Instead of saying, "they are wrong" can someone with UNDERSTAND and EXPERIENCE in this fields explain how their research was flawed Someone with understanding and experience explained it here. I particularly liked the bit where they read the graph backwards.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 120 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 1:22 PM | | mram10 has seen this message but not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Interested
Among sedimentary rocks, I believe I remember that beachrock can form quite rapidly in the right conditions. Another example would be Fly Geyser, here in the Silver State. The rock, I presume, is travertine, and we know that the geyser has only existed since 1964.
Yes, it really looks like that. Then there's Sunday Stone, formed from dust produced by coalmining.
Obviously the lithification can't predate the opening of the mine.
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 193 of 207 (760374)
06-20-2015 9:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 191 by 46&2
06-20-2015 1:13 PM
|
|
Re: Interested
If they are going to fake the results, one wonders why they even bother spending money on the tests... They don't. They spend the money on Satanic orgies and then say they've done the tests.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 191 by 46&2, posted 06-20-2015 1:13 PM | | 46&2 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Interested
I am NOT arguing that rock can form in short time periods. I never said you were. In fact, you've hardly posted on this thread. Unless you're mindspawn's sock-puppet.
Mineral deposits and lime build up are not "rocks." Very often, when the "source" of the build up goes away, the mineral becomes weak and breaks up or dissolves.
Yes, all rocks are made of minerals, but not all minerals make "good" rock material. Even rocks that are not "good" rocks are rocks. And travertine is actually an excellent rock, people make floor tiles out of it. More travertine terraces, Pamukkale, Turkey ... these presumably took rather longer.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 186 by mikechell, posted 06-19-2015 5:17 PM | | mikechell has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
