Buz's refutation of all radiometric dating methods

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-Argon
Argon-Argon
Rubidium-Strontium
Samarium-Neodymium
Lutetium-Hafnium
Rhenium-Osmium
Uranium-LeadWhy 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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Please be assured that I would never presume to demand that someone neglect their business or other responsibilities to play here on the board.All you had to say was something about not having the free time to get into a new thread at the moment.However, you HAVE decided to dive on in, so let's go.

quote:

---

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?

---

Take as much time as you need, of course.In addition, I think since you indicate that your time is quite limited, I will drop, for now, my request that you explain, in detail, how each radiometric dating method is incorrect.I think that I am more interested in learning how it is that you can explain, if ALL of the dating methods are bogus, how they can be bogus in such an unlikely way as to date the single rock sample dated with several of them at the same age?Here are some results for a meteorite collected in Saint Severin, France which was tested with three different dating methods, and they all show similar ages for the samples. There are more examples at this link:The Age of the Earth4 samples Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.33
10 samples Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.15
whole rock Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.04
whole rock Ar-Ar 4.38 +/- 0.04
whole rock Ar-Ar 4.42 +/- 0.04Notice 2 important things:1) Three different attempts at dating using a single method (Ar-Ar) led to the same result, indicating that a single method gives consistent results2) Moreover, these results are consistent with two ADDITIONAL, independent methods (Sm-Nd, and Rb-Sr), indicating that three different dating methods give consistent results.When you look at these patterns across many different samples and techniques (see the link), you see there MUST be some explanation for the consistency of results. The simplest answer: the methods are valid....unless you have another explanation, of course.

quote:

---

Again, I'm not claiming rocks and other inorganic matter are young.

---

No, you are claiming that the dating methods are bogus.Please explain how they are bogus in such a way as to return similar dates for a single meteorite when several different methods are used.If you cannot do so, then I suggest that you retract your claim.

quote:

---

bullpucistical

---

I still don't think buz knows what he's talking about at all, but I thought that this word invention was pretty funny.

quote:

---

Why do we have to continually microanalyze everything I say?

---

Because we are talking in scientific terms.That's how it's done. Arguments are picked apart for logical fallacies or facual error, evidence is closely scrutinized, conclusions are challenged, contradictory evidence is presented, etc.Remember, several of the people you have been debating with are professional scientists.Also note that the "evos" do it to each other all the time. I've been corrected several times when my information is wrong. The difference between you and a lot of us, Buz, is that I would never dream of making a claim, as you have done on numerous occasions, without being reasonably sure I knew what I was talking about and was able to provide strong evidence for what I was claiming. If I'm not too sure about my facts, I say so and ask for help from others. I have learned an enormous amount of science while researching creationist questions. If I wasn't informed, I kept my mouth shut because I knew I had no business having an opinion.------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

Buz, here is my initial example of how three different radiometric dating methods return similar ages for a single meteorite.Please address this evidence, as it directly contradicts your claim that all dating methods are bogus. Thanks, and let me know if you would like more examples.

quote:

---

I think that I am more interested in learning how it is that you can explain, if ALL of the dating methods are bogus, how they can be bogus in such an unlikely way as to date the single rock sample dated with several of them at the same age?

​

Here are some results for a meteorite collected in Saint Severin, France which was tested with three different dating methods, and they all show similar ages for the samples. There are more examples at this link:

​

The Age of the Earth

​

4 samples Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.33
10 samples Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.15
whole rock Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.04
whole rock Ar-Ar 4.38 +/- 0.04
whole rock Ar-Ar 4.42 +/- 0.04

​

Notice 2 important things:

​

1) Three different attempts at dating using a single method (Ar-Ar) led to the same result, indicating that a single method gives consistent results

​

2) Moreover, these results are consistent with two ADDITIONAL, independent methods (Sm-Nd, and Rb-Sr), indicating that three different dating methods give consistent results.

​

When you look at these patterns across many different samples and techniques (see the link), you see there MUST be some explanation for the consistency of results. The simplest answer: the methods are valid.

​

...unless you have another explanation, of course.

---

------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

quote:

---

Ar-ar dating is contaminsted from the earth's mantle so as to render it unreliable.

---

Buz, you still aren't answering the question I have asked.Remember, I told you that I wasn't going to ask you to explain to me how each of the dozen or so different dating methods were each flawed to such an extent as to render them completely unreliable.Let us assume that all of the dating methods are bogus, as you have claimed. Each and every one is completely unreliable.The three methods I listed in my example returned similar ages for the meteorite from France.How is it that these different methods are each flawed in such a way as to return similar dates for a single rock sample?Unless you deal with this logical issue with regards to your claim, then you are just ignoring evidence.------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-29-2003]

quote:

---

Consistent with the other methods? I suppose that depends on whether its a hit n miss problem and it made a hit here. I don't know.

---

EXACTLY!You don't know.If you click on the link I provided along with the specific dates for the French metorite, you will get a whole bunch of different examples.

quote:

---

To me, this problem is indicative of my statement to Rocky, that there's just too much time involved in these dating games for unknowns to exist, such as this problem until it was discovered.

---

What? Do you think you could provide something more than your vague Argument from Incredulity?I mean, you made a solid claim; "The dating methods are bogus."Explain how they are bogus. Please be very specific. Alternatively, retract the claim.

quote:

---

The same problem with carbon dating can be true with these other methods. How much carbon and nitrogen, etc was in the atmosphere in previous ages? Who knows about the other elements used in dating also. How much or how little of these elements existed and how did they relate to factors involved in the dating processes?

---

Since you seem to want to present yourself as the expert on dating methods, Buz, why don't you explain how each of your questions relates to the dating methods. IOW, please explain the problems.

quote:

---

No body was around millions or billions of years back to sample and test the data. What other factors contaminated what elements at which age period? How can they assume factors present today to be close enough to being consistent at any given age of the past to know for sure.

---

Hey, you are finally becoming a question-asker instead of pretending that you have all the answers.'Bout frigging time. A good place to start finding the answers are these two websites:Radiometric dating from a Christian perspective:Radiometric DatingThis is just good information:The Age of the Earth

You know Buz, I've said it to you before, but it always rather astonishes me how common it is that Creationists don't know anything of the history of their own movement.I mean, a Creationist not learning much or anything about science I rather understand, but to be a Creationist and not learn anything about Creationist history seems, well, really anti-learning.It really makes you look like you simply want to believe what you want to believe, the facts be damned.

quote:

---

Pardon. I'm not a know-it-all so I asked. Thanks to those who apprised me with the list.

---

For someone who claims to not be a know-it-all, you certainly do make a lot of claims as if you do, in fact, know it all.

quote:

---

I'll not get into the list, but I could find little about how much of a creationist several on this list were.

---

"How much" of a Creationist? What does that mean?

quote:

---

One was said to be an agnostic and another not believeing in the Biblical flood. At best only one, Buckland seemed to be very closely involved with the church. One was said to have believed God created an old earth.

---

As I have told you long ago in another thread, the people who did Geology a century ago, before it was professionalized and formalized, were mainly wealthy gentlemen (no women allowed)who were educated at the best institutions around, which were religious colleges and universities. That's because there were no secular universities. Many of them were ordained ministers.

quote:

---

Btw, of the two added to the list, Buffon believed the earth came about by a celestial collision and Miller should be added to one more closely tied to the church.

---

So what, Buz? Are you saying that you are the arbiter of what one must believe to be a "true" Creationist?

Buz, you are the one who asked about the Creationists who, 100 years ago rejected the notion of a Noachian flood on account of there not being any evidence for it.A list was provided to you, and you then post some comments which seem to call into question how "legitimate" their Creationist "credentials" were, if you will.It is not "mean" of me to ask for clarification of why it is you are doing this. If these people, who were religiously-trained and Creationist, started out believing in a worldwide flood, but in the course of their investigations realized that it was impossible due to lack of evidence, does this mean that they aren't "Creationist enough" for you?Some people might think that they were being intellectually honest and good scientists.------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

quote:

---

Geez, Buz, why don't you cite some articles from the Weekly World News in support of your position? I'm sure the Bat-Faced Boy supports your view of recent sudden creation,

---

I wonder if the "Baby Born With David Niven Moustache" supports Buz, too?ROTFLMAO!!!

quote:

---

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!

---

I actually asked buz to explain how all the different dating methods could be in error in such a way as to return consistent dates, within the first few messages, but to no avail whatsoever.He can't. That's why he hasn't. He even admitted to not knowing what he is talking about, basically, but of course this doesn't stop him from feeling utterly certain that he is correct....arrogance and ignorance are best friends.

quote:

---

For me, rejecting some, I say, some of the dating theory is the prudent thing to do. The fact is that I can't have it both ways. I must reject one or the other. I believe in the end, I will be vindicated and the higher road shall prevail.

---

But Buz, how do you explain the fact that all of the various radiometric dating methods (which measure different elements' decay rates) would each be wrong in such individual, different and precise ways as to make them return similar dates for the same sample of igneous rock?And, if this is happeneing, how is it that these incorrect congruent dates are returned with remarkable consistency over years and years of dating thousands and thousands of samples?I think it is truly a pity that your religion requires you to choose blind adherence to a particular interpretation of a few chapters in the Christian Bible over the rather unambiguous data collected from nature, right in front of you.Does God really want you to ignore reality? Does God really put more importance upon slavish adherence to a story than your ability to use your own eyes and intellect?------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-11-2003]