Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9049 total)
58 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, nwr (3 members, 55 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume: Total: 887,592 Year: 5,238/14,102 Month: 159/677 Week: 18/26 Day: 0/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The dating game
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 69 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 8 of 94 (392647)
04-01-2007 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Reserve
04-01-2007 4:19 PM


But isn't that the misconception, that these methods return dates? These methods return a ratio or a atom count. Then they are put into formulas using some assumptions ...

No, let me stop you there.

They are put into formulas which are based on hard evidence, i.e. measurements of the decay rate.

You are suffering from a common creationist disease: when you don't know where evidence comes from, you call it an "assumption".

Scientists know the decay rate of various substances because they have measured them. Scientists aren't allowed to just "assume" things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Reserve, posted 04-01-2007 4:19 PM Reserve has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 2:40 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 69 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 11 of 94 (392653)
04-01-2007 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Reserve
03-31-2007 2:11 PM


I have read else where but this link will suffice. It says that Potasium-argon does not work for recent dates. I wonder, why not?

But you didn't "wonder" so much that you looked it up.

Again, this is typical creationism. Your case is built on things which you personally don't know.

The answer is simple. When rock is molten, as it is when igneous rocks are formed, then the argon, being a gas, boils out of it. But not quite all of it, and the precise quantity will depend on the particular volcano, how hot it was, the original composition of the rocks, and so forth.

This can be verified by measuring the argon content of fresh volcanic rock.

So the question is, why can we know the half life of this method in such a short period of time, and not able to use it on anything under the age of 100kya? If we can know the accuracy of the half life within 200 years, we should be able to use it on anything that is 200 years or older.

Because knowing the half-life is not sufficient: we would also have to know the exact amount of residual argon which did not boil out of the rock.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Reserve, posted 03-31-2007 2:11 PM Reserve has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 69 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 13 of 94 (392662)
04-01-2007 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Reserve
04-01-2007 4:53 PM


On pages 171-174 they discuss why all but one potassium/argon date for the Rusinga Island bioites was discarded. Yet they use biotite in an uncritical manor in other areas where the dates they obtained matched their expectations. On Page 174, we can also note: "Unfortunately many of the samples that passed field inspection for suitability and were laboriously collected, later proved unsuitable for dating. . . . Thus, of some 65 samples collected by M. Skinner, only 10 could be used."

Well there is clearly something wrong with this nonsense, 'cos they start off by saying that they "all but one" of the dates were "discarded", and then they say that 10 were used.

They're not even talking about the same samples, are they?

If the creationists can't consistently tell the difference between 1 and 10, is it possible that they've misunderstood the rest of the paper?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Reserve, posted 04-01-2007 4:53 PM Reserve has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 69 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 31 of 94 (392838)
04-02-2007 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by RAZD
04-01-2007 10:42 PM


Re: Calculated rates - Cavediver? Son Goku?
I couldn't find anything on calculating half-lives (too many responses about using them in decay calculations). We'll need one of the physics gurus ...

The decay is exponential: the proportion of the original substance left at time t is given by k^t, where k is a constant between 0 and 1 depending on the isotope.

So the half-life is given by log k 0.5.

---

Does anyone know how to do superscripts and subscripts properly?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 04-01-2007 10:42 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Chiroptera, posted 04-02-2007 3:22 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 34 by JonF, posted 04-02-2007 3:35 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 04-02-2007 7:20 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 69 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 40 of 94 (392878)
04-02-2007 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Reserve
04-02-2007 6:09 PM


Re: No mystery
No, I believe they knew exactly what they were doing. The point is, their belief in millions of years says that submarine basalts are not suitable because they are not the norm. BUT in a creationists perspective where Noah's flood comes into play, THIS submarine basalts ARE the norm. And therefore these rocks are what give more accurate dates.

Well, you say that, but Bible Science News, November 1994, says:

"Studies have been made of submarine basalt rocks of known recent age near Hawaii. These came from the Kilauea volcano. The results ranged up to 22,000,000 years."

And these are the rocks which you say "give accurate dates"?

Is there any chance you guys could get your story straight?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Reserve, posted 04-02-2007 6:09 PM Reserve has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 69 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 56 of 94 (394106)
04-09-2007 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by MartinV
04-09-2007 4:02 PM


Re: Constants and change
Materialists should consider constants and physical laws as something secondary what is function of matter and caused by matter.

Next, you can teach your grandmother to suck eggs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by MartinV, posted 04-09-2007 4:02 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by MartinV, posted 04-10-2007 1:00 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 69 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 62 of 94 (394517)
04-11-2007 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by MartinV
04-11-2007 3:45 PM


Re: Constants and change
I don't see a reason why darwinists stick on unchanged values of constants. Change of constants as well as change of physical laws should be something real as change of animals.

Why? The constants of physics don't reproduce with variation.

And yet darwinists - probably much more than physicists - are vey afraid of changes of constants. They are as rigid as fundamentalist. I see no reason - exept reevaluation of radioactive dating of course.

I'm afraid someone has been lying to you.

No-one is "vey afraid of changes of constants".

The reason scientists think that constants are constants is that when they measure them, they're constant. Let me know if there's any part of that you don't understand.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by MartinV, posted 04-11-2007 3:45 PM MartinV has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 69 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 63 of 94 (394518)
04-11-2007 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by MartinV
04-10-2007 1:00 AM


Re: Constants and change
You are a hard-core darwinist who don't know where Central Asia is as far as I remember.

Then your memory is as faulty as your arguments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by MartinV, posted 04-10-2007 1:00 AM MartinV 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 © 2021