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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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.