Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist Arguments with Dating Methods.
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 1 of 30 (69955)
11-29-2003 9:12 PM


This spins off from discussions in "Is the Fossil Record Indicative of Evolution?"
Sonic disagrees with dating and posted this site:
Page not found – Evolution-Facts
I will bring over the arguments presented there one at a time so we may discuss them but by way of introduction:
1) Sonic do you actually think we haven't heard all those before? They have already been torn to pieces on web sites and here. I suggest you do some reading.
2) The real big question for those who wrote your site and, now, for you is:
If these different methods have various ways in which they can be wrong, how is it that there is so much agreement between methods? How is it that they date know historical dates accutately? How is it that the independently determined order of the geological strata agree with the order determined when they are dated?
You may start on that will I post the first of the arguments from your site. Thanks.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-29-2003 10:49 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 4 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 11:51 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 2 of 30 (69959)
11-29-2003 9:21 PM


First Creationist Argument Against Radiometric Dating
The first part of the site suggests that there are 7 assumptions that must be true for it to work.
1) Each system has to be a closed system; that is, nothing can contaminate any of the parents or the daughter products while they are going through their decay processor the dating will be thrown off. Ideally, in order to do this, each specimen tested needs to have been sealed in a jar with thick lead walls for all its previous existence, supposedly millions of years!
But in actual field conditions, there is no such thing as a closed system. One piece of rock cannot for millions of years be sealed off from other rocks, as well as from water, chemicals, and changing radiations from outer space.
To start with not all dating methods require that things be sealed away. refer to this article: Isochron Dating
Secondly, some dating is done on things which are "sealed". That is, crystals. I'm not away of an explanation for how these can leak. If they do how can they leak in a way that produces a large number of consistant results?
Astonishingly, the two pages on dating of your site neglects to mention isochron dating. I suggest that it is dishonest to do that.

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 2:33 AM NosyNed has replied

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 3 of 30 (69986)
11-29-2003 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
11-29-2003 9:12 PM


I know this is a bit off topic, but I think it should be said... Sonic's problem seems to be with radiomatric dating techniques alone. The geological column however indicated millions of years long before any absolute dates were obtained.
Feel free to argue about the radiomentric methods but bear in mind that its essentially a moot point.
Ok I'm going to wander off now and not make any more unsupported assertations...
The Rock Hound

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 11-29-2003 9:12 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Sonic
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 30 (69998)
11-29-2003 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
11-29-2003 9:12 PM


Ok
NosyNed writes:
1) Sonic do you actually think we haven't heard all those before? They have already been torn to pieces on web sites and here. I suggest you do some reading.
Shrug.
NosyNed writes:
2) The real big question for those who wrote your site and, now, for you is:
If these different methods have various ways in which they can be wrong, how is it that there is so much agreement between methods? How is it that they date know historical dates accutately? How is it that the independently determined order of the geological strata agree with the order determined when they are dated?
1.)Assumptions are not always wrong.
2.)Assumptions are not always wrong.
3.)You might want to look at how many times they try to date the strata before they come to a conclusion. My understanding is, the first time usally is not the last time, they redate each strata/fossil untill they fit the theory.
------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic
[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 11-29-2003 9:12 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 11-30-2003 1:08 AM Sonic has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 5 of 30 (70003)
11-30-2003 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Sonic
11-29-2003 11:51 PM


Sonic, of course they date multiple times! They like to use different methods for a check too. The more the better.
And some results are anomolous. But they are not a large fraction of them and they are mostly explainable.
If you wanted to check what time is was and it was important to get it right you might check your wristwatch, computer clock, the oven clock and 3 wall clocks. ( you really want to get this right
Let's say the answers were: 5:23, 5:20, 5:32, 8:23, 6:01 and 5:21.
You have a look at the 8:23 clock, it is stopped, you discard that altogether. The others are all running. You probably figure is is just before 5:30 with a high degree of confidence. You just take the 6:01 time as wrong. Is there anything unreasonable about that?
The dates, by the way, come out in agreement with each other a lot. So what we learn from that is the assumptions are, as you say, not always wrong. In fact, it is clear from the results that they are usually (but not always) right!
You say: assumptions are not always wrong
Exactly! Precisely Sonic, all they have to do is be right a few times and the young earth idea is blown out of the water. And that is what we have.
If you think they pick the dates to "fit the theory" you are accusing them of lying! Is that it? Is that all you and your creation scientists have left?
If so, then it is easily resolved. All the creation scientists have to do is to do a few 10's of really, really careful, really really, good datings and they will have overturned modern geology! Wow! Cool eh?
Funny thing, the only datings I'm aware of by creation scientists is using a method that is explicity not for young ages (under 100,000's of years) to date brand new lava. In other words deliberate dishonesty. Where are the carefully published results of reproducible young dates?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 11:51 PM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 2:42 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 6 of 30 (70010)
11-30-2003 2:06 AM


This is the second of the "assumptions" that the site mentions. I'm off to bed and will leave it for someone else so they can have fun.
What I can tell you Sonic, is that these people must be deliberately doing this. The information they need to get this right is readily avialable. This is dishonest! Even if the topics are complex physics ( which a lot of it is not) they have a duty to talk to the experts to check before the put this material on the web. They don't do this because they are not interested in educating anyone. They are deliberately attempting to confuse and mislead.
2) Each system must initially have contained none of its daughter products. A piece of uranium 238 must originally have had no lead or other daughter products in it. If it did, this would give a false date reading.
But this assumption can in no way be confirmed. It is impossible to know what was initially in a given piece of radioactive mineral. Was it all of this particular radioactive substance or were some other indeterminate or final daughter products mixed in? We do not know; we cannot know. Men can guess; they can apply their assumptions, come up with some dates, announce the consistent ones, and hide the rest, which is exactly what evolutionary scientists do!

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by sidelined, posted 11-30-2003 2:35 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 10 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 3:00 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Sonic
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 30 (70016)
11-30-2003 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by NosyNed
11-29-2003 9:21 PM


Re: First Creationist Argument Against Radiometric Dating
Ok,
NosyNed writes:
To start with not all dating methods require that things be sealed away. refer to this article: Isochron Dating
1.) I understand that some methods dont require items to be sealed away.
NosyNed writes:
Secondly, some dating is done on things which are "sealed". That is, crystals. I'm not away of an explanation for how these can leak. If they do how can they leak in a way that produces a large number of consistant results?
2.)seems that you are implying that because items are sealed away the reading is accurate. I understand that dating methods can be accurate but who is to say when they are?
NosyNed writes:
Astonishingly, the two pages on dating of your site neglects to mention isochron dating. I suggest that it is dishonest to do that.
3.)You might want to read the article, it seems to be that they are talking about methods which are used frequently. Iso is not used frequently.
------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 11-29-2003 9:21 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Coragyps, posted 11-30-2003 10:51 AM Sonic has replied
 Message 18 by NosyNed, posted 11-30-2003 10:54 AM Sonic has not replied
 Message 20 by JonF, posted 11-30-2003 6:02 PM Sonic has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 8 of 30 (70017)
11-30-2003 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by NosyNed
11-30-2003 2:06 AM


Nostned
I wonder if I have this clear. Do creationists realize that if daughter products are present then the age of the rock is even greater than the inferred age? If they are pointing out in order to bolster the case of a young earth it certainly hurts their cause.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 11-30-2003 2:06 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 3:02 AM sidelined has replied

  
Sonic
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 30 (70018)
11-30-2003 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by NosyNed
11-30-2003 1:08 AM


Ok,
Your entire post seems to be pointing that dating methods are without a doubt accurate, of course you also point to the fact that they may make a few mistakes, and sure they redate a bunch of times to help make them accurate, you used a timeclock as an example, and how someone might have a bunch of different clocks set differently. That is all fine and well BUT how do they know, how do they verify that they got it right? and are you saying that they have a bunch of different dates which are all different and they chose a time? If that is how they make it accurate, then I really wont trust them, that is, if they just pick the most average time from the list of dates they recieved from the methods. It seems to me that not only do they have to worry about errors but now they have to pick the date from a list of dates so they have a average date among all of them, that is horrible.
------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 11-30-2003 1:08 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by nator, posted 11-30-2003 8:31 PM Sonic has replied

  
Sonic
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 30 (70019)
11-30-2003 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by NosyNed
11-30-2003 2:06 AM


A daughter product is a byproduct of radioactive chemicles. If a daughter product was on the rock which was being dated they eather would not know that it was their OR the rock is ruined as far as dating goes BECAUSE some or most(which cant really be said as to how much)of the isotope is missing.
------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 11-30-2003 2:06 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Sonic
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 30 (70020)
11-30-2003 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by sidelined
11-30-2003 2:35 AM


Actually if a daughter product was on the rock it would ruin the rock from ever being dated correctly.
------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic
[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-30-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by sidelined, posted 11-30-2003 2:35 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by sidelined, posted 11-30-2003 3:11 AM Sonic has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 12 of 30 (70023)
11-30-2003 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Sonic
11-30-2003 3:02 AM


Sonic
And the reason it would prevent it from being dated correctly is because the dughter product is a result of radioactive decay that has already occured,hence the date would be greater than the date we could thereby establish. So if we have a date set a 150,000,000 years and there is daughter products already present at 150,000,000 years ago then the rock is actually older by the amount of daughter product.If you are trying to establish that the rock is merely thousands of years old I believe this will not help your case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 3:02 AM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 4:01 AM sidelined has replied

  
Sonic
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 30 (70030)
11-30-2003 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by sidelined
11-30-2003 3:11 AM


Ok,
And the reason it would prevent it from being dated correctly is because the dughter product is a result of radioactive decay that has already occured,hence the date would be greater than the date we could thereby establish. So if we have a date set a 150,000,000 years and there is daughter products already present at 150,000,000 years ago then the rock is actually older by the amount of daughter product.If you are trying to establish that the rock is merely thousands of years old I believe this will not help your case.
No that is incorrect, a radioactive chemicle on a rock would decay any isotope, which means there would be only some or none left for the method. (i.e. some or the entire amount of buildup would be missing. You need all of the buildup in order to get a accurate reading)
------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic
[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-30-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by sidelined, posted 11-30-2003 3:11 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by sidelined, posted 11-30-2003 4:18 AM Sonic has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 14 of 30 (70031)
11-30-2003 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Sonic
11-30-2003 4:01 AM


Sonic
I have to go to bed now however I will leave a web site for you to ponder over until I am back.Assuming you are still awake to read this.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...clear/clkroc.html#c6

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 4:01 AM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 4:42 AM sidelined has replied

  
Sonic
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 30 (70033)
11-30-2003 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by sidelined
11-30-2003 4:18 AM


The earth could be 4.5 billions years old. That does not effect the dating methods when we use them on strata/fossils since the condition is different.
------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by sidelined, posted 11-30-2003 4:18 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 11-30-2003 10:08 AM Sonic has not replied
 Message 19 by sidelined, posted 11-30-2003 10:55 AM Sonic has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024