Buz's refutation of all radiometric dating methods

Buzsaw, let's deal with your delusion that the earth's rocks may be millions or billions of years old but life is young. I assume that you envisage life being only thousands or tens of thousands of years old (young).As you possibly know there are a multitude of dinosaur fossils found throughout the Mesozoic Era deposits, up to the K/T (Cretaceous/Tertiary) boundary. In message #18, Mark24 provides material from an article by Dalrymple explaining how the age of the K/T boundary has been determined at about 65 million years ago. The methodology used radiometric dating of volcanic ash beds and tektites found at or near the K/T boundary level.From this information, it is obvious that dinosaurs lived, and some died, were buried and fossilised, before the K/T boundary events. The K/T boundary has been dated at 65 million years ago. One can safely conclude that dinosaurs lived more than 65 million years ago. This is completely contrary to your belief that life is young.You can't have it both ways Buz. You can't say that radiometric dating might be accurate when used to date very old rocks and meteorites and ascertain that the earth is 4.5 billioin years old, but then claim that radiometric dating can't be right if it determines that the layers immediately above the latest dinosaur fossils are 65 million years old.Which part of your worldview will you abandon first? That radiometric dating works at all? That life is young? That dinosaur fossils are the remains of previously living organisms? Did the dinosaurs get buried in the flood and then covered by the volcanic ash beds and tektites which had previously been lying under the earth's surface for millions of years? Or do you have another special plead to extract you from your situation?

Buzsaw, you really need to address message #25. I think it will help you to crystalise your thinking on the geological processes and the use of radiometric dating in a real life example.It might also allow others to fully appreciate the depth of your understanding on the subject.

Buzsaw, address message #25.

quote:

---

According to Harris, the age seems to be undetermined and controversial.

---

Harris says no such thing, the two adjectives do not even appear in his piece. He says that the absolute age of the K/T boundary has been refined over the last 50 years due to improvements in the radiometric dating techniques and refinement of the fossil-based boundary. He shows no indication of disagreeing with the current dating of the K/T boundary at 65 million years ago. Any indeterminateness or controversy is in your own mind.

quote:

---

He also seems to minimize the significance of the impact of the heavenly object and the tektites which Mark considered to be determinate in interpreting the boundary.

---

Harris is simply giving the history of how the K/T boundary was initially defined. It is the boundary at which certain index fossils from lower levels and characteristic of Cretaceous period disappear and where other index fossils from higher layers of the Tertiary period first appear. This is the way in which all boundaries in the geological column were initially defined.As this (K/T boundary)layer in the geological column also co-incides with the presence of volcanic ash beds, iridium, tektites and stressed quartz, it allows the K/T boundary layer to be radiometrically dated and also strongly suggests a meteorite impact at that time.I think there has also been a suspicion that there may be iridium deposits associated with earlier mass extinctions.It seems that you are trying to use quote mining in lieu of an understanding of geology and physics, and not very successfully.

So far Buzsaw has not engaged in genuine debate. He has quote mined and misrepresented those quotes. I see no further purpose in continuing the discussion.

IrishRockhound, well said. Buzsaw's credibility is negligable, as demonstrated in this thread. He has provided no evidence, except the occassional misrepresentation of a quote, to support his view but continually casts aspertions on others. He has been challenged to put up or shut up and concede his errors. I suspect he will become too busy to continue the thread.

From Buzsaw

quote:

---

The problem comes with the dates of the fossils found in those sedimentary rocks.

---

Message #25 provides a specific example which you need to address. The K/T boundary is a feature in the geological column, it has been identified in many locations. Below this layer are many layers of dinosaur fossils (among others) which accumulated for millions of years before. At or just above the K/T boundary in at least some locations are volcanic ash beds, shocked quartz and tektites. These have been dated radiometrically at about 65 million years old.Are you now going to explain how 6,000 year old dinosaur fossils could be found beneath 65 million year old volcanic rock? No dating of sedimentary rock is involved. Time to put up or shut up.BTW, what evidence would believe you to believe that life has existed on earth for only 6.000 years other than a literal belief in the bible?

quote:

---

Take as much time as you need,...

---

Such tolerance has not worked on the Frozen Tropical Animals tread where Buz could only provide irrelevent quotes and then ran away from further discussion. And Buz has repeatedly failed to address issues directly relevent to his distorted view of geology - the coincidence of various lines of evidence for the dating of the K/T boundary being the most obvious.

Buzsaw, if you are not prepared to back up your assertions (eg. frozen tropical animals in Arctic ice are evidence for Noah's flood, or all radiometric datings are wrong) then don't make the assertion in the first place. Why is it incumbent on us to know whether you have any support for the statements which you make or if you have to run away and actually find something to support them when they are called into question?Is it insolent to accurately report your past behaviour?

Agreed. Let's see Buzsaw at least try to address one issue which is fundamental to his bald assertions.Why do radiometric dates consistently give the same dates that correlate not only with other radiometric techniques (involving different half lives), but where possible, non-radiometric ones too?

^ bump ^