Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions

I once had a good bookmark on this, but I can't now find it.In short, the KBS Tuff was a difficult one to get a proper date on. Only because of the importance of its stratagraphic position relative to the hominid fossil was it even tried.The tuff was water laid, with lots of contamination from older rock. Thus, when they first dated it, they got a too old date.By carefully physically separating the contamination from the actual tuff material, they were they able to get to get a quality date.MooseAdded by edit: I should have done a search before posting the above. There is another topic (Potassium Argon Dating doesnt work at all) of which the KBS Tuff was a central theme, right from message 1. The above was from my frequently shakey memory. See the cited topic for (maybe) more and better information. Maybe even that "missing link" might be in there.OK, further search has found the link:
Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale
Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?
What I think is one the single best introduction to geology pages I have ever found.This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-25-2004 08:54 PM

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 ?

Did you read the links relating to this I provided? It explains how they determined which dates were likely to be realistic. From and interview with Dr. Ian McDougall.One of the nice things about science is the key issue of reproduciblity. Issues like age or other controversial questions are subjected to peer review and testing by other researchers. In this case multiple samples from multiple sites were used to cross check with the result that the tufs were dated with a high degree of confidence.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

How did they know it was too old ?

---

First, because the dates did not match those in the same formation elsewhere. Second, the fact that it didn't agree with the expected age of the fossil. In other words, there were inconsistencies noted, much as you might find in any kind of measurement.I would guess that this really became a test of the sampling techniques for K/Ar and Ar/Ar dating in this formation. Perhaps you can see why sampling is such a critical factor in age dating, often overlooked in the field. Or perhaps you don't understand...

quote:

---

Isn't the reason why they are dating is because they don't know ?

---

Not really, they had an idea of the age within pretty well-constrained limits. That is why the inconsistency arose.

quote:

---

How did they know the date settled on was "quality" as you put it ?

---

I would say that it was because the dates became consistent and all of the data (including the fossil data and comparable radiometric ages of the formation) became internally consistent and there was a very good explanation for the early inconsistencies. In other words it all made sense.

Just a technical quibble, but this is only true after you correct for red shift. I suppose if one were desperate enough it might be possible to develop a model under which the red-shift is not explained by movement but by a change in the fundemental physical constants.

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

quote:

---

IOW, they are dating via previous evolutionary scale expectations. There is no integrity in this.

---

I didn't think you'd get this. No, they were dating against other dates. When there are inconsistencies they must be explained. When the dates didn't agree with the fossil evidence they had reason to believe the that first dates were wrong. Do you understand that some measurements might be wrong, and that there is a reason that they are wrong... and that as scientists we try to determine why they are wrong? Do you expect every measurement you make to be perfectly accurate?

quote:

---

How were the "formations elsewhere" dates determined ?

---

Ah, I knew you wouldn't get this either. First, I wrote 'formation' not 'formations'. SEcond, they do it by mapping.

quote:

---

This is pure bullshit.

---

Well, something here is bullshit.

quote:

---

We have Isochron method - a method specifically touted to be free of anomalous errors.

---

Who said that. All measurements have sources of errors. In fact, I'll bet your watch is off a bit. Better get rid of it!

quote:

---

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.

---

I knew you wouldn't get this, either. The whole point is that nothing is done capriciously, as the quote from Jar shows.

quote:

---

And the sampling dates were determined by what ?

---

I knew you wouldn't understand this. I really did waste my time on you. Your question makes no sense.

quote:

---

Let me guess.

---

Like I have a choice?

quote:

---

A scenario which doesn't harm 4.6 billion age of earth ?

---

It has nothing to do with the age of the earth... But you probably wouldn't understand this, either.

quote:

---

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.

---

No. Make that 'willful ignorance.'

quote:

---

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.

---

I knew you wouldn't understand this. You have been give evidence and perfectly logical reasons, but you are determined to be pathologically deluded. I am sorry, but you cannot be helped.

quote:

---

Then why the hell do they/we need Isochron method ?

---

Probably just bullshit, right? Really, do you measure the thickness of a sheet of paper by using paralax? There are different measures for different ages and compositions of materials. This is pretty elementary stuff, Willow.

quote:

---

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 ?

---

The truth is out there for any one to find. Evidently you don't care about that. I suppose some people prefer to remain ignorant and happily unaware.

quote:

---

IOW, they chose a date which was compatible with what evolution previously said.

---

No. They chose a date that makes sense and is consistent. THis has been pointed out to you before. However, I knew that you probably wouldn't understand.

quote:

---

"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."

---

Again, you do not understand the role of chance in evolutionar theory.

quote:

---

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 ?

---

Once again, your question does not make any sense. Would you rather that a theory not make sense? Never mind, I think I know the answer to that one.

quote:

---

Tell me what scientific law or principle allows for the results to be determined by the subjective decisions of said scientists ?

---

Do you have an alternative? What is your method of drawing conclusions? Perhaps you are God?

quote:

---

I thought we were talking about science and not religion ?

---

Correction. I was talking about science. You were talking about superstition and ignorance of science.Truly,I understand your frustration. And your anger. You have no background in science and it must be very difficult for you to fathom what is going on here. However, if your attitude improves, perhaps you will listen and learn by reading these pages.This message has been edited by edge, 09-27-2004 11:49 PMThis message has been edited by edge, 09-27-2004 11:51 PM

No, it's worse than that. Because his watch is off a little bit, WT has to conclude that there's no such thing as time.

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.

Is it really good to be proud that your debating opponent doesn't think you've understood him? I mean, regardless of whether you feel you have or not - is this something to be thrilled over?

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Did you read the links relating to this I provided? It explains how they determined which dates were likely to be realistic. From and interview with Dr. Ian McDougall.One of the nice things about science is the key issue of reproduciblity. Issues like age or other controversial questions are subjected to peer review and testing by other researchers. In this case multiple samples from multiple sites were used to cross check with the result that the tufs were dated with a high degree of confidence.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

EIGHT HILARIOUS TIMES THE ABOVE THOUGHT IS REPEATED IN THIS POST !

---

Repetition is a proven teaching method. In this case, I'm not so sure. Maybe nine or ten times might have been appropriate but I grow bored with your rants. You come on with no background whatsoever and proceed criticize work done over many generations as bullshit and lacking integrity.

quote:

---

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 see that you would rather it NOT make sense. Very well. But no, that is not what I wrote. Sometimes things don't make sense and are still correct, but not in this case.

quote:

---

I am greatly pleased to see you have to attack me as your defense of this indefensible subjective criteria of date determinations.

---

What goes around comes around.

quote:

---

You are right - I don't understand - but now I do.

---

Pardon me, but I seriously doubt that.

quote:

---

Accept dates are dates which reflect what evolution has already spoken up for !

---

That is what you have been told. You are being willfully deceived. I cannot help you.

quote:

---

Now that is objective !

---

LOL! Do you see the irony in your statement? You are probably going to quote references from people who sign agreements that they will abide by the tenets of creationism regardless of their results!

quote:

---

What dates what evolution has already spoken up for ?

---

Dating by various methods which are consistent and repeatable. I could go on but I think it would be a waste of time.

quote:

---

Answer: some evos guess somewhere in the past is your "objective and scientifically determined" benchmark. LOL !

---

Again, it is evident you do not understand the basis for geological dating. You have rejected the entire geological establishment for the words of some charlatans with internet websites. Do you ever wonder why these people don't come here and debate if their evidence is so convincing?

quote:

---

Would you like me to post the known dates of said objects that all your infallible dating methods misdated by enormous lengths of time ?

---

Feel free. They have all been refuted before.

quote:

---

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.

---

Very good. You have thrown out decades of scientific work on the subject based on fringe religious beliefs. Pathetic.

quote:

---

My next post will be evidencing the swiss cheese of evolutionary dating nonsense

---

Please try. It hasn't worked yet. Just remember that most of these dates from professional creationists are ginned up by people misusing the techniques in order to disprove them. Talk about integrity!

Since evolution is not a dating mechanism, exactly what dates do you think we can derive from it?As has been explained, dating measurements are validated the same way every other kind of measurement is validated - by convergence with other measurements. You accept this without question, or even a second thought, when you're measuring your height and weight, but somehow, this is insufficient for geology.The intellecutal double standard is obvious, and a clear indication of your refusal to approach scientific questions on a truly rational basis.

double post deleted.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-30-2004 12:01 AM

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 ?