Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8965 total)
68 online now:
DrJones*, frako, jar (3 members, 65 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,152 Year: 4,900/23,288 Month: 21/1,784 Week: 119/353 Day: 21/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Validity of Radiometric Dating
Faith
Member
Posts: 35110
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 31 of 200 (730357)
06-27-2014 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by ringo
06-27-2014 1:17 PM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
Let's not get into this discussion here, but it's already been shown that Walther's law layers sediments and there would be sequences of waves and tides as well that would affect deposition. But this has been said a million times already.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 06-27-2014 1:17 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by JonF, posted 06-27-2014 1:30 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 34 by ringo, posted 06-27-2014 1:31 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5957
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 32 of 200 (730358)
06-27-2014 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
06-27-2014 1:27 PM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
But this has been said a million times already.

And refute a million and one times.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 1:27 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 35110
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 33 of 200 (730359)
06-27-2014 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
06-27-2014 1:25 PM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
Note that scientists give their results with a stated uncertainty.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 06-27-2014 1:25 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by JonF, posted 06-27-2014 1:35 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 39 by JonF, posted 06-27-2014 1:42 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 06-27-2014 1:43 PM Faith has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18019
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 34 of 200 (730360)
06-27-2014 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
06-27-2014 1:27 PM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
Faith writes:

But this has been said a million times already.


Yes, and you've been shown where you are wrong every time. If a flood can produce the layers we see, creationists should be able to do an experiment to replicate the layers. Why don't they?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 1:27 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 35110
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 35 of 200 (730361)
06-27-2014 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by JonF
06-27-2014 1:25 PM


Re: Faith's many errors
I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know. It was really just a bunch of vague questions I had in mind, it did not come from any creationist site.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by JonF, posted 06-27-2014 1:25 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by JonF, posted 06-27-2014 1:37 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5957
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 36 of 200 (730362)
06-27-2014 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
06-27-2014 1:30 PM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
There is NO room for uncertainty in those common presentations.

There is uncertainty, they just don't present it for simplicity. No date is published without error ranges produced by standard and well understood means. But the error range of any valid date (and invalid dates get published on purpose sometimes, to point out possible pitfalls) is small compared to the date. In radiometric dating, an uncertainy range of ±5% is a very big one, and uncertainty ranges under 1% are common in U-Pb dating.

There is no uncertainty whatsoever outside the loony bin (absent major changes in fundamental physics that would have destroyed all life) that the ages scientists have founn are sufficiently valid to destroy YEC.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 1:30 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5957
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 37 of 200 (730363)
06-27-2014 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Faith
06-27-2014 1:31 PM


Re: Faith's many errors
I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know.

So you admit you don't care about truth.

It was really just a bunch of vague questions I had in mind

Which have now been answered, and if you want more detail I'll gladly provide it. Do you acknowledge that your questions have been answered?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 1:31 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16053
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 38 of 200 (730364)
06-27-2014 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
06-27-2014 1:12 PM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
quote:

No way does a stack of disparate sediments represent time periods, that's nuts, nothing sensible about it.

Obviously they represent a period of time where some environmental changes caused different material to be deposited. We've SEEN that changes in sea level explain a lot. I can't see that compressing the time available into a single year is at all sensible,

quote:

You can rationalize it all in terms of the Old Earth but it's a strain on common sense

Maybe if you exercised your common sense more you wouldn't find using it such a strain.

quote:

and billions of fossils is just too perfectly the result of the worldwide Flood.

Except for the numerous problems with that explanation, For example the order in the fossil record which the Flood can't explain at all.

And what's wrong with the old Earth explanation ? You can't say that the number of fossils is a problem given hundreds of millions of years.

quote:

Not to mention the other problems I've pointed out in the GC examples.

None of any weight compared to the evidence against YEC.

It's pretty obvious that the rationalisations are on your side. Even you admit that your interpretation of the Bible is more important to you than the science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 1:12 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5957
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 39 of 200 (730365)
06-27-2014 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
06-27-2014 1:30 PM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
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.

Oh, and, that illustrates why using non-technical sources for technical issues is fraught with peril. Technical sources go into the supporting data and analyses in great detail. Some non-technical sources are good but you need some expertise to be able to figure out which ones. The already mentioned Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective (writen by an evangelical Christian and published by an evangelical Christian organization) is good. Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The Age of Earth and its Cosmic Surroundings is easy to follow and very good. The Age of the Earth is great but gets pretty technical at points.

{ABE} Bet a million dollars you haven't even looked at a Wikipedia article on radiometric dating. E.g. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating and teh many articles it references.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 1:30 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20628
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 40 of 200 (730366)
06-27-2014 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
06-27-2014 1:30 PM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
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.

Yes, isn't it amazing that when you say the Greenland formation is at least 3 billion years old, that somehow misses out providing the information that "all of the ranges overlap and agree between 3.62 and 3.65 billion years" ... within their 95% range of accuracy ... that is one of the things that happens when you generalize from specific information.

The worst measurement accuracy reported is +/-6% ... so that is really egregious error ...

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 1:30 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by JonF, posted 06-27-2014 1:47 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 2:07 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5957
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 41 of 200 (730367)
06-27-2014 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by RAZD
06-27-2014 1:43 PM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
An even better reference is Radiometric Ages of Some Early Archean and Related Rocks of the North Atlantic Craton, which gives more results and is in statigraphic order, demonstrating how well the "deeper is older" rule works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 06-27-2014 1:43 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 35110
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 42 of 200 (730368)
06-27-2014 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by RAZD
06-27-2014 1:43 PM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 06-27-2014 1:43 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by JonF, posted 06-27-2014 2:59 PM Faith has responded
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 3:42 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5957
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 43 of 200 (730372)
06-27-2014 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
06-27-2014 2:07 PM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
Well, those are facts, close enough for laymen. Someone made an editorial decision about what is and is not important, and they probably made the right one. They're not going to reproduce the entire paper; you can go look at it if you want.

Including the relatively minuscule uncertainties isn't going to change the fact that it happened 66-ish million years ago. Even if the uncertainties are unusually large, say 5%, it doesn't matter if it was 62.7 million years ago or 69.3 million years ago or any time in between. YEC is disproven by any of those.

You won't understand, but another fact is that there are hundreds of thousands of radiometric dates. If some of them are wrong YEC is disproven. If many of them are wrong YEC is disproven. If 99.99% of them are wrong YEC is disproven. YEC is only possible if all of them, every single one, is wrong. And the only way that can be is a fundamental systemic factor, such as the Rate ggroup's Accelerated Nuclear Decay (AND). Alas, that one fails for the same reasons the vapor canopy fails; it's not possible without fundamental changes to the laws of physics, or flat-out miracles.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 2:07 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 3:22 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 35110
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 44 of 200 (730373)
06-27-2014 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by JonF
06-27-2014 2:59 PM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
Sorry, this is getting confused. I'm not talking about that paper which is well enough organized and explained, I was talking about a Wikipedia article, I forget why now, about the K-T boundary as a typical example of how such phenomena are presented to laypeople. Definitely typical and definitely irritating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by JonF, posted 06-27-2014 2:59 PM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-27-2014 3:43 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 46 by jar, posted 06-27-2014 3:54 PM Faith has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 200 (730376)
06-27-2014 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Faith
06-27-2014 3:22 PM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
Why don't you go back to talking about scripture...

Message 264


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 3:22 PM Faith 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