|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Buz's refutation of all radiometric dating methods | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2419 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Here you go, Buz, you're very own topic on radiocarbon dating.
Please explain how each method is "bogus", according you you. To get you started, here are a few examples of the kinds of dating methods used for igneous rocks, although I'm sure you are familiar with them already: Potassium-ArgonArgon-Argon Rubidium-Strontium Samarium-Neodymium Lutetium-Hafnium Rhenium-Osmium Uranium-Lead Why not pick one at a time and explain how each are so seriously flawed that they should be considered completely unreliable. Looking forward to the lessons. I don't really know much about radiometric dating; only the basics, so I'm ready to learn. Teach away, Buz.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Schraf, I run a full time business besides a lot of other activities and would appreciate that you not try to dictate as to how much time I
devote to these threads. If I want to do a thread and feel I have time to add to the ones I'm currently involved in, I'll I'd like to make that decision myself. However, I know this's buggin you so before I hit the sack I'll post this from the acknowledged link for you to ponder and anyone to comment on. It is a very interesting subject and I'd like to be able to give it more time. I'll try and do the best I can but may be slow responding much of the time. Ok bud?
quote: Search | United Church of God
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7826 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
Problem is, buz, you shouldn't expect K-Ar ages from Mount Saint Helens, or Surtsey or other recent eruptions to be accurate. That was understood for many many years before the Mount Saint Helens samples were taken. Using K-Ar on such samples was like trying to measure the size of a shrew using a surveyors' chain.
In other words, the samples were not scientifically dated at all, because the choice of method was not appropriate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4685 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
The article you point to only deals with carbon 14 and potassium-argon. These are known to be unreliable in certain cases due to environmental factors.
quote: This is true. There are a number of cases I know of where isotope data has proved to be misleading, most notably in the dating of the Mull pluton in Scotland. This used rubidium-strontium isotopes (which are also known to be faulty in certain circumstances). Geologists know to be wary of isotope data, especially when it does not fit with the field evidence. But there are other techniques - such as the neodynium one - that have proved to be far more reliable and as such I doubt you will find any cases on the Internet where it has proved to be incorrect. Take a look at the other topic on carbon14 reliability - my post details some of the factors that can distort isotope data. The Rock Hound ------------------"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 256 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
You seem to be forgetting that the company that Austin used to date the Mt. Saint Helens rock, Geochron Laboratories, specifically states that one should not use K-Ar dating on recent lava flows as it will not give accurate results (though they don't do K-Ar dating anymore).
And yet Austin, knowing full well that the process he was using was invalid, did it anyway and claimed that the erroneous date was somehow damning evidence against radiometric dating. Think about it: If you use a meterstick to measure a grain of sand, you're going to get a value of one meter which we all know is wrong. Does that mean metersticks are worthless and the entire process of mensuration is inherently flawed? Of course not. It simply means that you shouldn't use a meterstick to measure a grain of sand. For that, you need small gauge calipers. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tomwillrep Inactive Member |
why is it that if a scientific theory is wrong its always a "mistake" or thrown right out the door and new ways brought in?
anyway, have other tests been undertaken on the lava and have they been made public?! thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: This would be a problem if it actually happened that way. In the case under discussion, the people doing the testing KNEW that the dating method would not work. You can't misapply technology and then complain that it doesn't work. Like the guy said when I bought my cell phone, "It is guaranteed against breakage, but if you drop it into the lake we aren't going to replace it." The history of science is full of bad and abandonned theories, so your criticism is wrong on this point too. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tomwillrep Inactive Member |
if your argument is correct please shwo me a source made BEFORE the tests were taken stating that they knew the dating method would not work- if they stated that afterwards then i would be very suspicious.
thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22929 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
IrishRockhound writes: This is true. There are a number of cases I know of where isotope data has proved to be misleading, most notably in the dating of the Mull pluton in Scotland. This used rubidium-strontium isotopes (which are also known to be faulty in certain circumstances). As an isochron method, Rb/Sr should either converge to an answer or not. I've never heard of Rb/Sr converging to a wrong answer before. Is this what happened at Mull, and if so can you explain this? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22929 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
buzsaw writes: Schraf, I run a full time business besides a lot of other activities and would appreciate that you not try to dictate as to how much time I devote to these threads. There's nothing in the forum guidelines about how timely responses must be. Please take as much time as you need. Besides, I don't think Schraf is asking you to respond more quickly or spend more time, but merely to support your assertions. Naturally this will take you more time, and so it might be wise to avoid making assertions that you know you'll have insufficient time to support. As others in this thread have already informed you, it is well known that K/Ar dating can only be reliably used for material older than about a half million years. This is because of two things:
You've been provided enough examples, but here's another. How would you measure a teaspoon of water using a 10,000 gallon swimming pool? To make it equivalent to dating Mount St. Helens with K/Ar dating, you have to do this during a rainstorm. Good luck! --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1955 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Actually, it doesn't happen that way. If a method will not work for some known reason, usually one does not utilize that method. Sometimes, however, we will analyze a questionable sample because that's all we've got. Often, we simply know that, based on the rock type, radiometric methods might be difficult. This was the case with the KB Tuff. As I understand it, they knew that dating this material was going to be very difficult and spent some time trying to find the proper method to date it. Several early analyses, though published, simply conflicted with the fossil evidence and were eventually discarded in favor of better methods. Now, the KB Tuff is shown by YECs as a prime example of how radiometric dating is undependable, even though the procedure was very carefully conducted and the explanations make perfect sense. Another way that incorrect methods might be intentionally used is when YECs use them in an attempt to refute radiometric methods. For instance, Steve Austin is known to have sampled and analyzed recent lava flows by the K-Ar method. Clearly this is a misapplication of radiometic analysis used to deceive laymen, but it sure gets a lot of mileage in creationist circles. He KNEW that the results would be bogus long before they became available.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
quote: It would seem to me that when you're talkin hundreds of millions to billions of years, you're then still measuring the shrew with a surveyor's chain, for a month or 4500 years are both nothing stood up to these hyper huge figures. I guess that's why you're claiming it's only good for half a mil years. Then comes the problem of how do you know anything alegedly half a million years old has been read accurately. Nobody was there to verify. [This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-22-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
quote: Kinda like the doctors who bury their mistakes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1716 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It would seem to me that when you're talkin hundreds of millions to billions of years, you're then still measuring the shrew with a surveyor's chain, for a month or 4500 years are both nothing stood up to these hyper huge figures. Huh? If you have an object that you have good, independant reason to assume is significantly shorter than a surveyor's chain, then you don't use the chain. But if you use the chain on something that you don't know how long it is, and you get a length of mutliple chains, isn't that enough to assume that the object is multiple chains long? Nothing shorter than a chain would give you multiple chains when you measured it; nothing younger than one half-life of carbon-14 (for instance) would give you a measurement of mutiple half-lives when you radiocarbon dated it.
Then comes the problem of how do you know anything alegedly half a million years old has been read accurately. Nobody was there to verify. In a sufficient number of cases, there's independant, non-radiometric data that converges on the same date. Since there's no proposed mechanism that would distort so many different kinds of dating (relying on so many different physical principles) in exactly the same way, it's reasonable to assume they converge on a realistic date.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
quote: Apples and oranges. With the chain you can observe the length of what you're measuring and observe the chain to make the judgement. Not so with carbon 14 half life. You can't observe the ratio of your carbon chain to the thing you are measuring before you begin as you can with the chain and object. [This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-22-2003]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024