Buz's refutation of all radiometric dating methods

Buz,The point is that there are rocks that date up to 3.5 bn years that have living things in them. Are you suggesting that the world existed as mud for 3.5 bn years & only lithified in the last 6,000 years?If not, then my point stands. Fossils that you claim are younger than the sedimentary rock that contain them are actually the same age, bioturbation aside.Consider a Lystrosaurus that science reckons lived circa 250 mya. How can it be that a large reptile became fossilised in rock that lithified 250 mya? You say yourself it most likely takes millennia for lithification to take place. How do you reconcile that view with 250 myo SOLID rock containing 6,000 yo animals? You are now in the classic position of needing to have it both ways. You need millions/billions of years for lithification to take place in order for animals that are <6,000 years old to become fossilised in them, & at the same time in order for the flood to have happened, you need lithification to take less than 4,500 years.Anyway, my argument is with your contention that fossils are younger than the sediment that contains them. So please explain how you accept an old earth, but only young fossils. You basically are claiming, whether you realise it or not, that the earth consisted entirely of unlithified muds for 3.5 billion years, which conveniently became rock only in the last 6,000 years. Either that, or you need to explain how large animals became fossilised deep in fully lithified rock. Your explanation must also be consistent with the patterns seen in the fossil record. For example, why no trilobites exist in rocks younger than 251 my. Why traits found in clades become less pronounced, or more basal, in older rocks, etc.Mark[edited for spelling errors etc]------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-03-2003]

Buz,Care to comment on post 127?Thanks,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Buz, So why do different methods produce congruent results (mess 18)?You have utterly failed to provide evidence that casts doubt on radiometric dating as a whole, to the point where we can expect most results to be spurious, & have utterly failed to refute examples provided that show the amazing corroboration of methods in use.Case closed, surely? Radiometric dating is a valid method with which to date rocks, to within an accuracy of <2%.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Buz,Irrelevant. They believed in God, & that He created everything. Ergo, they were creationists. The conclusion is inescapable.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Buz, This has been made clear to you on more than one occasion. The sediment that fossils are in isn't dated. It is therefore irrelevant as to the age of the composite particles. It is a red herring, a logical flaw in your argument, so please don't go there again.It is the age of igneous rock (among others) that is dated, & you still have to explain why all methods seem to agree when based on different assumptions, decay values, & different potential errors.See post 18, I'll lay odds of radiometric dating getting the K-T boundary correct to within 700,000 years as over 70,000,000 : 1 based on the tektite examples alone. This is pretty impressive stuff, Buz, & I'm not sure why you are equivocating in the face of such strong evidence.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Buz, Bringing Carl Bough into the argument is changing the subject. But that aside, you as good as admit that he is a fraud. Why do you believe anything he says? Why do you not believe anything the real scientists tell you about his claims?Anyhow...... Radiometric dates "jive" a lot more often than not. That they do so against such staggereing odds makes the rational conclusion inescapable. Radiometric is accurate & broadly indicative of reality.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-09-2003]

Buz, You gotta be shittin me? You hypocrite. You have singularly failed to explain why different methods obtain the same dates against V-A-S-T odds of it occurring by chance. You have changed the subject, equivocated, & quoted no data whatsoever to contradict me, & you have the brass balls to call someone else deceptive? I have been pushing you for an explanation since post 18, that's 166 posts ago!Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Buz,Getting back on topic, can you please explain why radiometric dating is too unreliable for use, yet most dates correlate?Mark

Buz, Logical flaw: Argument from ignorance. You are invoking unknowns as a counterargument. It is of the form, "it hasn't been proven half lives were always constant, therefore they weren't".The FACT remains, that if there were mysterious unkowns in radiometric dating, then why the incredible concordance? You have always danced around directly addressing this issue.Your argument is flawed on two points, it is an argument from ignorance, & it fails to deal with the issue in hand, & hence you invoke a slothful induction. Remember, you have presented no data as to why radiometric dating is highly concordant & yet in somehow includes a problem. Logical flaw. Fallacy of composition. Because the bible is true in part, it is true in full. Every biblical prophecy that is non-trivial hasn't been fulfilled. I challenge you to open a new thread. Been there, done it. You refused to answer any of my previous messages on the subject. You have refused to address any of the counter evidence of why this cannot be true. slothful induction, again. Invoking those unknowns again? Not very convincing. Anyway, I'm on a logical roll, soooo. Fallacy of exclusion. In some cases radiometric dating achieves similar results to non-radiometric dating techniques. Where's your "unknown" problem now? Not to mention the untestability of your unknown...... Mmmmm, that's six logical flaws on four points. It's OK making a claim without being knowledgeable about such things, but refusing to address the weight of evidence on the strength of a book no-one-knows-who-wrote-or-whether-they-knew-what-they-were-talking-about (itself a logical fallacy: Appeal to anonymous authority) is inexcusable.I think a fair assessment of your argument would be, "Radiometric dating, & that fossils are as old as the rocks in which they reside must be wrong because it conflicts with my interpretation of my religion. I have no data that directly & reliably contradicts the current geological position, but it must be wrong". Right?You have never directly dealt with the radiometric dating concordance issue, nor the conclusion, that is consistent with all observations, that fossils are buried in unlithified sediments of the same age. I directly deal with this aspect of your dataless argument here, here, here, & here.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-12-2003][This message has been edited by mark24, 07-12-2003]

All,This has turned into one of those "Salty" threads. Buz has made a claim, refuses to address any counterpoints/data, & the discussion has now settled on as to why Buz can ignore any facts that contradict him, why he doesn't need to address particular threads, & why he feels able to ignore posters making valid, relevant arguments.Lacking anything else of any real substance to say, we have now regressed to the "bible quote" stage of the proceedings, as if that is providing actual evidence.......That said, I feel the evo's would mostly agree on a single question to be answered, I say this so Buz can answer this salient point, rather than feel he has to respond to a half dozen of us saying essentially the same thing. Why do radiometric dates consistently give the same dates that correlate not only with other radiometric techniques (involving different half lives), but where possible, non-radiometric ones too? Would everyone agree?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-14-2003]

Buz,Your options are limited.1/ Accept you have no reliable falsifying data against your position, accept your opponents position is well supported, therefore abandon your position in favour of mainstream sciences position.2/ Maintain your position in the face of incredible evidence that radiometric dating is mostly *right*. Of course, to logically do this you need to provide reliable supporting evidence of your claims that make sciences evidence look silly.3/ Ignore the issue & pretend you addressed the salient points, yet your opponents didn't. It was a bad dream & it never happened. This way you can come out with the same objections, already pre-refuted at a later date. Pretend you won the previous debate, & maintain your erronious position.It's no.3 isn't it? Typical creationist denial.A lot of people have put a lot of time in responding to you & you are just being F*%@ING rude in ignoring them.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-16-2003]

Moose,Doh! Error corrected. Thanks!Mark

bump....

Rei,What is that scary avatar?Mark