Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8994 total)
42 online now:
anglagard, Base12, DrJones*, dwise1, nwr (5 members, 37 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,363 Year: 11,111/23,288 Month: 363/1,763 Week: 2/328 Day: 2/49 Hour: 2/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Validity of Radiometric Dating
mram10
Member (Idle past 2085 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 65 of 200 (733334)
07-16-2014 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Faith
06-28-2014 4:08 AM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
Faith,
I share some of your concern. I have many questions that have not been logically explained by secular science. There are not many TRUE scientists that seek truth. As you have seen here, true science is discouraged if you disagree. The massive fossil beds can both be explained by a massive meteorite strike 60m years ago, or by a global flood at some point. I digress, but I too have questions about the validation of radiometric dating methods that are too old to verify by observation. But, what do I know? I only have a few posts, which shows I am new to this whole "science" thing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 4:08 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by JonF, posted 07-16-2014 11:58 AM mram10 has responded
 Message 67 by Coyote, posted 07-16-2014 12:23 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 07-16-2014 1:06 PM mram10 has responded
 Message 69 by Taq, posted 07-16-2014 9:29 PM mram10 has responded

  
mram10
Member (Idle past 2085 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 72 of 200 (733398)
07-17-2014 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by JonF
07-16-2014 11:58 AM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
JonF,
Thank you for the respectful post. I have not read that book, but have spent a lot of time studying RMD. I wish I had my own lab for my own testing As for K-Ar, I have a tough time with any dating methods that range starts at 1mil years for accuracy. I trust observation and do not care for assumptions that I cannot verify. I am very interested in the RATE team that is working these issues now. Either way, thank you and I will try to check out that book when time allows.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by JonF, posted 07-16-2014 11:58 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by NoNukes, posted 07-17-2014 12:42 AM mram10 has responded
 Message 80 by JonF, posted 07-17-2014 7:49 AM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

  
mram10
Member (Idle past 2085 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 73 of 200 (733399)
07-17-2014 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by ringo
07-16-2014 1:06 PM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
Zombie,
As for my experience, I have not met many true scientists. Fact Every time I have questioned macro ev, I get the "you must be a ...." treatment. I mentioned piltdown, nebraska, etc being found to be flawed, to make sure they were no longer part of the debate and I get met with the above

Again, there are very few TRUE scientists in MY EXPERIENCE. Ask someone if they believe in the possibility of unicorns or aliens and see what you get met with


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 07-16-2014 1:06 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by ringo, posted 07-17-2014 11:53 AM mram10 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 96 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2014 4:36 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 98 by Taq, posted 07-17-2014 5:35 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

  
mram10
Member (Idle past 2085 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 74 of 200 (733403)
07-17-2014 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Taq
07-16-2014 9:29 PM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
Taq,
Thank you for your respectful post. Good info, just a couple questions I have about each.
1. I have been reading about helium dating of rocks from 0-12000 ft in new mexico done by the RATE team. The article mentioned the uranium alpha particles becoming helium levels were different than originally thought, thus making the age based on helium dating, younger. It was the first I had heard of this, so I am seeking more info.
2. I also have questions about the assumptions you listed (rate been a constant, etc). Again, I read a study by the same RATE team, that I need to link, stating ideas to the contrary. I need to read more, but it did raise a red flag.
Again, thank you for the info and the way it was presented. I will keep learning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Taq, posted 07-16-2014 9:29 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Coyote, posted 07-17-2014 12:51 AM mram10 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 81 by JonF, posted 07-17-2014 8:10 AM mram10 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 97 by Taq, posted 07-17-2014 5:26 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

  
mram10
Member (Idle past 2085 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 77 of 200 (733418)
07-17-2014 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by NoNukes
07-17-2014 12:42 AM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
Nonukes,
Not recent. Within last 10 years. Are you aware of any?

I had read that the Nation Center for Science Education(need to find link to verify) was going to create a team to verify the RATE team's research.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by NoNukes, posted 07-17-2014 12:42 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by NoNukes, posted 07-17-2014 6:01 AM mram10 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 79 by Pressie, posted 07-17-2014 7:04 AM mram10 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 82 by JonF, posted 07-17-2014 8:16 AM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

  
mram10
Member (Idle past 2085 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 101 of 200 (733516)
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.

Edited by mram10, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Coyote, posted 07-17-2014 9:43 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 103 by NoNukes, posted 07-17-2014 9:53 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 104 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-17-2014 9:57 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 105 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2014 10:04 PM mram10 has responded
 Message 115 by JonF, posted 07-18-2014 8:17 AM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

  
mram10
Member (Idle past 2085 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 107 of 200 (733533)
07-17-2014 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by RAZD
07-17-2014 10:04 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

Edited by mram10, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2014 10:04 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-17-2014 10:34 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 109 by Coyote, posted 07-17-2014 10:40 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 110 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-17-2014 11:09 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 07-18-2014 7:23 AM mram10 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 112 by NoNukes, posted 07-18-2014 8:00 AM mram10 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 116 by JonF, posted 07-18-2014 8:31 AM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

  
mram10
Member (Idle past 2085 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 120 of 200 (733635)
07-19-2014 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by JonF
07-18-2014 3:12 PM


Sorry folks, been a little busy with work. As for what interested me about their findings I will post them one at a time. To be clear, I am not arguing anything, simply wanting an answer as to why/why not their findings were valid.

1. The helium levels from the granite were higher than expected due to the diffusion rates. They said the helium should be gone if the zircons were that old.

Instead of saying, "they are wrong" can someone with UNDERSTAND and EXPERIENCE in this fields explain how their research was flawed

Edited by mram10, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by JonF, posted 07-18-2014 3:12 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2014 1:32 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 122 by NoNukes, posted 07-19-2014 2:00 PM mram10 has responded
 Message 123 by RAZD, posted 07-19-2014 2:14 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 124 by NoNukes, posted 07-19-2014 2:15 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 126 by JonF, posted 07-20-2014 9:00 AM mram10 has responded

  
mram10
Member (Idle past 2085 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


(1)
Message 125 of 200 (733650)
07-19-2014 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by NoNukes
07-19-2014 2:00 PM


NoNukes,
Thank you! I really appreciate the professionalism you replied with. I will look into those articles more and get back to you. You did a great job of explaining it. Again, thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by NoNukes, posted 07-19-2014 2:00 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
mram10
Member (Idle past 2085 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 130 of 200 (733692)
07-20-2014 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by JonF
07-20-2014 9:00 AM


This is a discussion board, not a tutorial-on-demand site. Your questions have been answered by people with understanding and experience and you haven't bothered to read them, and you've been given links to those explanations. Why should e\we reinvent the wheel? I have read all the available creationist and mainstream literature on the subject and you've not lifted a finger to read the easily available mainstream explanations.

The explanations are long and many, and involve pictures and graphs and (some) equations. It is a significant effort to condense those explanations and maintain accuracy. Why should we make that effort for someone too lazy to click and read a link?

Very helpful, thanks See NoNukes reply for a helpful post.

Edited by mram10, : No reason given.

Edited by mram10, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by JonF, posted 07-20-2014 9:00 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020