|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Buz's refutation of all radiometric dating methods | |||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 2023 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 2023 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Then you need to show us how the fossil animal burrowed into the rock or sediment without leaving a trace of evidence for bioturbation. I am crushed that you have no faith in geologists being able to determine this in the field. I also would like for you to show us any fish, for instance, that burrows into the ground to die there. Just where do you get this stuff?
quote: Actually, they would be about the same age anyway. Burrowing animals don't usually dig thousands of feet into the sediments across major bedding discontinuities and into unusual chemical environments. There is absolutely no need to do so.
quote: I have no idea what you are talking about. Usually, we don't date the actual sedimentary material. Often we date the diagenetic minerals that can form after deposition, but it would be meaningless to date the sediment itself since it is often derived from older rocks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 2023 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: The K/T boundary is, by definition a time when life forms present on earth changed dramatically. Why do you think we call them Paleozoic and Mesozoic, etc.? Radiometric dating simply gives us an absolute date for this boundary. Harris' statement is not surprising or mysterious at all. It is a simple statement of fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 2023 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Read Schraf's post carefully and then explain to us why there are ANY concordant dates at all. If your source were correct, it should be virtually impossible to have any concordance at all much less concordance between the different radiometric methods. Is this just one huge coincidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 2023 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: So, is it true that you live in a world of simple coincidences? Do cause and effect have any meaning to you? Are all phenomena in the universe hit-or-miss? Are you saying that everything is subject to the whim of an omnipotent being who plays tricks?
quote: Personal incredulity is not evidence, Buz.
quote: So, you are saying that scientists using radiometric dating over the last century didn't think of these problems until YECs came along to enlighten them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 2023 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Actually, there is no real controversy here. Anything resembling controversy is dreamt up by creationists, desperate to destroy their enemy. There is absolutely no reason to give credibility to Baugh's stories. He cannot validate a single one of his specimens.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 2023 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Archeologists, look out! Buz is going to revolutionize your field. I'll try this when I try to trade in my car next year. Hey! A car is a car is a car!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 2023 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: What you are saying is that we should base a theory on what we DON'T know rather than the available evidence. Well, I guess that works for you, but most scientists think that theories should explain the existing data.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025