Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions

The KBS Tuff dating fiasco (1976 "Nature" magazine) used Isochron methods, the very methods that are claimed to ensure errors cannot occurr because of anomalous loss or gain of argon.The Fitch team and the Berkeley team produced a descrepancy of a half million to one million years. Of course many years later in 1981 the Australian National University bailed out both teams by producing a split the difference dating.The real thriller of interest is in the rejected dates of 0.5 million years and 17.5 million years "in favor of 2.6 million" originally.By what scientific criteria was the rejected - rejected and the accepted - accepted ?

Crashfrog:I appreciate your response but what determines the reliability of the constancy from which the accepted date was accepted but not the rejected dates ?If the same dating method was used (and it was) then there must of been (hopefully) a scientific basis to accept and reject the different dates ?The Isochron method is allegedly billed as the method by which anomalous argon errors cannot occurr. Yet mistakes were made and a choice was made to accept a date and reject others.What scientific criteria was employed to determine which date to accept ?I contend the accept date was determined to be the one closest to desired expectations and/or previous ballpark dating already known.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 09-25-2004 05:49 PM

This reply sticking to your guns/initial reply confirms what I already suspected, that there is no reliable benchmark, that it is determined by previously decided needs.IOW, evos are just confirming dates by previous dates already determined non-scientifically.

Jar:With all due respect I am not engaged here to "learn" per se.I have no interest in debating with a website.I am here to substantiate the unreliability of said dating methods of which I have established a beach head to that end.

How did they know it was too old ?Isn't the reason why they are dating is because they don't know ?How did they know the date settled on was "quality" as you put it ?

IOW, they are dating via previous evolutionary scale expectations. There is no integrity in this.How were the "formations elsewhere" dates determined ?This is pure bullshit.We have Isochron method - a method specifically touted to be free of anomalous errors. The discarded dates are arbitrarily and capriciously tossed until the method coughs up a date which "happens" to coincide with what they need to match other dates "independantly and objectively" arrived at. And the sampling dates were determined by what ?Let me guess.A scenario which doesn't harm 4.6 billion age of earth ? IOW, you understand exactly what I am driving at and to thwart such an attack you have fired off a preemptive strike of saying my objections are ignorance. IOW, you have no defense/scientific basis of determination of the sampling dates or any dates EXCEPT the requirements of evolutionary scenario/needing billions of years. Then why the hell do they/we need Isochron method ?Is it to impress the general public at large to be some sort of black box ruse which gives the appearance that our dates are scientifically determined ? IOW, they chose a date which was compatible with what evolution previously said."If we could go back and salvage every discarded date from the waste basket and create a graph the diagram would refect the mechanism by which evolution occurrs - CHANCE." Since when does the "sense" of a scientist have to come into play when the claim is that experiments and research and results are determined by objective scientific basis ?Tell me what scientific law or principle allows for the results to be determined by the subjective decisions of said scientists ?I thought we were talking about science and not religion ?This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 09-27-2004 09:39 PM

We are hammered with the claim that science "produces facts based only upon scientific determinations"....."that experiments determine facts" unlike you religionists who depend upon the subjective views of the preacher and his interpretations of the Bible.The latter is absolutely true, that we theists follow a God ordained person who shows us how to follow Christ, that this method is the way God shepards His church: Pastor and sheep.Now I confirm from EvC member Edge that science is really run the same way: EIGHT HILARIOUS TIMES THE ABOVE THOUGHT IS REPEATED IN THIS POST !IOW, you have no defense or scientific explanation for my objections.To deflect away from this fact you must change the subject and claim that I am ignorant because I ask uncomfortable questions which rhetorically expose the fact that this dating nonsense is as such because the dates chosen are always dates which support previous dates.LOL !LOL !LOL !This post of yours confirms that "whatever makes sense" is the "objective scientific criteria" by which the accept dates are accepted and the reject dates are rejected.I am greatly pleased to see you have to attack me as your defense of this indefensible subjective criteria of date determinations.You are right - I don't understand - but now I do.Accept dates are dates which reflect what evolution has already spoken up for !Now that is objective !What dates what evolution has already spoken up for ?Answer: some evos guess somewhere in the past is your "objective and scientifically determined" benchmark. LOL !Would you like me to post the known dates of said objects that all your infallible dating methods misdated by enormous lengths of time ?The only thing certain is that evo dating has no objectively determined benchmarks - only the estimates of its biased priests and bishops. From these sacred cows are the accept dates accepted - what deception to hide behind terms like "Isochron dating method" etc.etc.My next post will be evidencing the swiss cheese of evolutionary dating nonsense.

What satisfactorily silences the criticism that evos are dating everything in accordance with a 4.6 billion age of earth ?What external benchmark criteria established the initial dates from which the convergence is based upon ?Back to your height and weight analogy:I can test a scales accuracy by an object of which its weight is already known.If age of material is known and dating methods fail to date accordingly then by what basis is confidence in these methods maintained ?

You assert contrary to the actual truth or you wouldn't of said what you said in the blue box. This present exchange has all you evos relying on the exact same system of theism - the authority of authorities. The only difference is that we admit it and you deceive while hiding behind radiometric dating methods (pseudo-scientific objectivity) which can only produce accepted dates which never contradict evolutionary sacred cows.Like I said way back when this present exchange began, the real thriller of interest is in all the discarded dates. If they could be retrieved and plotted on a graph it would substantiate the evolutionary sacred cow of chance. IOW, you have no independantly determined date of said event. The starting point is the estimate of a evolutionist.Charles Lyell's "Principles in Geology" [1824-1833] estimated the Cretaceous ended 80 million years ago.Nobody would dare to contradict this internal ....oops objective external dating benchmark. Yes - the bottom line.But science CLAIMS facts based upon scientific basis.IOW, your rational person comment means anyone who is not an insane believer in God/supernatural. This is the age-old insult given to creationists - that we are irrational/crazy.But our Bible in Romans, written 2000 years ago, says God removes the capacity to comprehend Him in response to those who choose to continually reject Him as the Creator.IOW, He curses you with the removal of God-sense and you become "vain in your imaginations....professing to be wise .....worshipping the creature and not the Creator" (Romans 1).IOW, you believe every irrational doctrine that replaces God as the Creator.Your assertion of being "rational" demonstrates the truth of Romans. As I said before that word "image" is best translated "icon"/= fossils, birds, quadrupeds, animals = your gods Darwinists.The utter Divine irony of these verses is inescapable.You prove the truthfulness of these verses perfectly.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-02-2004 11:05 PM

I explained things too so many times.As we know from other topics evidence is irrelevant.If evidence is irrelevant than how much more are explanations irrelevant ?But, I appreciate your response.I read it.WT

No shit Cory !They discard every date which is not consistent with immense age Earth.This is the core of my criticism which you and others keep confirming. LOL ! LOL !You evos are hammering yourselves - I just provide the generic bait.

The Biblical quotes will not go away either and they explain WHY you think this is evidence.The Romans verses explain that when God gets fed up with Him being denied a seat at the creation table the persons responsible are incapacitated of their God-sense as a irrevocable punishment. Effects of this punishment include the interpretation of evidence to mean a Creator was not involved. Effects of the punishment include empowerment to embrace anything that contradicts the Bible. You have zero evidence for macro evolution or any species evolving from another species. The insistence that you do proves the punishment of Romans 1.The present issue is the KBS Tuff dating fiasco. We have two teams of top notch evolutionists (Fitch and Berkeley) who used the Isochron dating method and that is the entirety of what can be agreed on.Nevermind that the Isochron is touted as the method which ENSURES anomalous loss or gain of argon cannot occurr, but in fact errors were made and the said dating method is not full-proof.When the Berkeley team produced dates which grossly conflicted with Fitch he promptly defended his work by saying the Berkeley samples tested were affected by argon loss. How would he know since another team did the dating ?Once again, two teams of top notch evos and the touted error free Isochron method = FIASCO !When Ian McDougall of the Australian National University produced a Solomonic solution date of 1.88 million years (1981) both the Fitch and Berkeley teams were off the hook. This date only split the difference of the discordant dates produced by our two top notch teams leaving the descrepancy only half as much for both sides.In fact, McDougall also revealed the "scatter" that Fitch chastised Berkeley for was even greater in his reported results.McDougall (on Fitch scatter): 0.52 to 2.64 million years for one set of samples and ages of 8.43 to 17.5 million years on another set before settling on their 2.6 million date.The Berkeley descrepancy was "only" a half million to 1 million years.Now as redundantly argued in previous posts the accept dates are admittedly based upon what is already dated and known as can be easily deduced as to how Fitch settled on his 2.6 million years.What objective scientific method dated "what is already known" ?Is it not a fact that the Cretaceous was dated in the late 19th century and that dating remains an untouchable sacred cow today ?I guess Lyell got lucky that modern scientific dating methods have confirmed his guess to be correct. LOL ! LOL !CONCLUSIONEvolutionary dating is circular determinations based upon a needed immense age for the Earth, while hiding behind claims that the dates are scientifically arrived at via the various dating methods. How we fight to the death for something we already have spoken up for.How old is the Earth ?Nobody knows.

Why did you continue to make unsupported opinions in Bible topics even after they were proven to be false ?Because the Admins coddle your tactics.You have evaded the uncomfortable conclusions of my post.Why ?You can try and change the events of KBS Tuff after the fact but that only reinforces the ugly facts that evos determine their dates via circular convergence, also known as fraud/pseudo science of the religion of scientism.

Your above comment is an unsupported opinion uttered to trick an Admin into intervening in your behalf.My evidence remains here and all the other topics which you have flooded with the exact same tactic.Whenever secularists perceive that theists have substantiated and evidenced their claims they will instantly act like the evidence doesn't exist = behavior of the defeated/dishonest.

For the most part you have only argued by website. I am not interested in debating a link, YOU must make the argument in you own words. After this is done it is perfectly legitimate to include the link/source cite etc.etc.The content of my posts is accurate. Your challenge seeks to paint a favorable spin into a well known fiasco. Your defense simply employs damage control. What you really desire is to attack the man/source to be misinforming.The issue is the indefensible Isochron dating method, the disparity of dates produced by 3 top notch teams, and the suspense filled decision as to why the accept dates turned out to be dates which were harmonious with everything already known and spoken up for.I see why you are desparately trying to shoot the messenger and deflect away from these issues.Jar, I thought you were a Bible believing Protestant ?, if I am right, then the Bible is perceived better. This shoud be a win/win for you - no ?