Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Assumptions involved in scientific dating
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 137 of 222 (827413)
01-23-2018 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 5:03 PM


Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:
Um I made a claim provided the data. Done.
Forum Guidline #5
"Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references. "
Still waiting for the supporting discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 5:03 PM DOCJ has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 138 of 222 (827414)
01-23-2018 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 5:05 PM


Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:
Prove your claim and fyi the EU is not a group of religious zealots, they are evolutionists.
Just go to the very thread you linked to before on 14C dating. Every page is replete with links to creationist websites.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 5:05 PM DOCJ has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 139 of 222 (827415)
01-23-2018 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 3:54 PM


Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:
The Science community is ANYONE practicing Science.
Those scientists report their scientific work in peer reviewed journals, not on the Thunderbolts forum, youtube, or creationist websites.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 3:54 PM DOCJ has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 140 of 222 (827416)
01-23-2018 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 3:39 PM


Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:
It's not difficult to understand or post that dating methods are being disputed in the science community. It is equally a simple matter to reference. Links have been provided.
You haven't provided a single reference to a peer reviewed paper, nor discussed a single reference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 3:39 PM DOCJ has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(2)
Message 150 of 222 (827437)
01-24-2018 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by jar
01-24-2018 8:57 AM


Re: his really stupid "Questions"
Jar writes:
It might be worthwhile also pointing out that the amount of 14C produced has absolutely no significance when looking at 14C decay. The decay rates remain the same regardless of how much is produced.
Not only that, but any changes in 14C production would show up in the calibration data (which I am sure you are more than aware, but I will discuss for clarity's sake):
The line represents the assumption that 14C production remained stead over the last 50k years. The squiggly blue line represents the actual 14C atmospheric concentrations at those periods in history as determined by actual samples of known age. While there are slight deviations due to changes in things like the Earth's magnetic field, it doesn't deviate that far. There is no sudden change in Earth's atmospheric 14C content like the EU loons want to claim. If there was a sudden change then it would show up in this graph.
If they want to claim that electrical charges change the decay rate of 14C, then they are probably barking mad. I am aware of zero papers demonstrating that 14C decay can be affected by electrical currents, and I would hazard a guess that if it was possible the amount of electrical energy needed would probably destroy the organic sample. There is also the problem of how electrical currents could change 14C content in ice layers, lake varves, speleothems, and tree rings across the globe in a coordinated manner so that all of these sources of data would agree with one another.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by jar, posted 01-24-2018 8:57 AM jar has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 154 of 222 (827450)
01-25-2018 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Pressie
01-25-2018 5:50 AM


Re: his really stupid "Questions"
Pressie writes:
Or, for example the group known as Amphibolites are metamorphic and would contain a lot of different minerals recrystallising or not (therefore setting the clock back to zero at different depths and temperatures) at different times. It would thus be expected to find a wide variety of dates when trying to date Amphibolites. Just ask any geochronologist!
Joe Meert has a great page on this very thing. By plotting the age of these crystals and their closure temperatures you can create a cooling curve, a record of the cooling history of that rock:
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Pressie, posted 01-25-2018 5:50 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by DOCJ, posted 01-27-2018 11:11 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 199 of 222 (827683)
01-29-2018 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by DOCJ
01-27-2018 11:11 PM


Re: his really stupid "Questions"
DOCJ writes:
How do geologists calculate the amount of the parent/and daughter chemicals in the Rock at creation?
On an isochron plot, the daughter element present when the rock forms is the y-intercept of the line drawn through the data points:
Isochron Dating
I wouldn't be able to presume a rock over billions of years had didn't have contamination or didn't change over all that time... Or that 0 daughter was present at creation.
We know from basic chemistry that zircons exclude Pb and include U. You would have to change the basic laws of the universe in order for zircons to include any significant amount of Pb when they form.
In my experience, if your theory requires the fundamental laws of the universe to change in order to do away with inconvenient measurements then you have a bad theory.
You should also note that three different isotope decay chains (K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr) give consistent dates for the same geologic layer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by DOCJ, posted 01-27-2018 11:11 PM DOCJ has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 200 of 222 (827684)
01-29-2018 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by DOCJ
01-29-2018 8:06 AM


Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:
I don't believe you can have certainty [absolute knowledge] to any belief whether it be because of a body of knowledge, a spec of evidence or a revelation. We are all just trying to figure things out.
There are decades of research pointing to the reliability of radiometric dating and the constancy of decay rates.
You claim that electrical currents can change decay rates, yet you can't cite a single peer reviewed paper that demonstrates this claim.
It seems that you aren't trying to figure anything out. Rather, you are trying to find any kind of excuse you can in order to ignore the science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by DOCJ, posted 01-29-2018 8:06 AM DOCJ has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 202 of 222 (827688)
01-29-2018 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by DOCJ
01-27-2018 10:58 PM


Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:
The EU, Answers in Genesis, Reasons to Believe, and other organizations have scientist working for them. Where they publish may be important to some but not to everyone. And what they publish is the gravity of importance NOT where they publish (yes peers need to be able to review it obviously).
If you want to claim that there is disagreement within the scientific community then it does matter where their work is published. It is a long standing saying in the scientific community that if it isn't published then it doesn't exist. By published, we mean original science published in a peer reviewed journal. Crackpots posting nonsense on websites is not science, nor does it constitute a disagreement within the scientific community.
The fact that you think Arp is somehow relevant says a lot. Arp is simply wrong, and has been wrong for a long time. For example, are these people about to be crushed by a giant boot?
NO. This is called forced perspective where the boot is actually in the foreground and the people are in the distant background. The same principle applies to Arp's claims about interactions between quasars and galaxies. One is the foreground and the other is in the distant background. They aren't side by side.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by DOCJ, posted 01-27-2018 10:58 PM DOCJ has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 220 of 222 (827763)
01-31-2018 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by DOCJ
01-31-2018 12:08 PM


Re: his really stupid "Questions"
DOCJ writes:
Geologist actually DO attempt to date the creation date of the Rock.
No, they don't. They measure the time since the closure of the rock at which point the rock will no longer lose daughter product.
I am currently looking into many evolutionist/creationist issues regarding age, dinosaur tissue discoveries, c14 in dinosaur tissue, the desparity issue in evolution with respect to the diversity of life in the fossil record, pre cambrian and cambrian explosions of life (and related assumptions which if you want to call them conclusions THAN they are based on a current theory which they do change.
By the sounds of it, you are looking at creationist websites. This goes against your previous claim that you are looking for the truth.
I also think that it is a terrible practice to say, that just because a person has faith in God that that does mean his or her Scientific explanation is lacking such as finding c14 in dinosaur tissue.
You should find 14C in dinosaur bones even if they are millions of years old. It is nearly impossible to prevent low level contamination of any sample. There can even be in situ 14C production within the fossil itself due to background radiation. The carbonization process used to prepare the samples also introduces low levels of 14C. The instruments that measure 14C content will have noise and carryover which results in spurious detection low levels of 14C.
I also disagree that everything, most of the time that if the Science is done by a creationist that they are lying or just ignorant..
If creationists are telling you that low levels of 14C in dinosaur bones somehow calls 14C dating into question, then they are lying to you.
Added in edit:
It is also worth noting that the dinosaur fossils didn't contain any collagen or bone, much less organic material.
quote:
Hugh Miller generously provided me with a copy of the elemental analysis of one of their dinosaur fossils. Daniel Fisher of the University of Michigan’s Museum of Paleontology examined these results and concludes that there is nothing whatsoever extraordinary about them. The predominant suite of elements present and their relative percentages (including the 3.4% carbon!) are about what one would expect to find in hydroxyapatite and calcite, two of the commonest minerals present in ordinary dinosaur fossils. There is absolutely nothing unusual about these fossils and no reason to think the carbon contained in them is organic carbon derived from the original dinosaur bone.
Robert Kalin senior research specialist at the University of Arizona’s radiocarbon dating laboratory, performed a standard independent analysis of the specimens submitted by Hugh Miller and concluded that the samples identified as bones did not contain any collagen. They were, in fact, not bone.
Forbidden - Stack Exchange
The fossil was also contaminated with modern carbon from shellac. Needless to say, this is just another example of creationists lying.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by DOCJ, posted 01-31-2018 12:08 PM DOCJ has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Coyote, posted 01-31-2018 10:46 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 222 by Pressie, posted 02-01-2018 7:52 AM Taq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024