Buz's refutation of all radiometric dating methods

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

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:

1. Most of the the original argon resident in rock escapes when the rock is heated, as is the case with magma from a volcano. But it does not completely escape. Even after the magma has cooled there will still be some original argon present.
   ​
   Steven Austin measured the age of the Mount St. Helens eruption at .35 million years. This means that about .35 million years of original argon remained in the cooled magma. This argon is probably locked into the Mount St. Helens rock forever - only another episode of heating could free it. But K/Ar dating isn't usually used to date such young material. Millions of years to hundreds of millions of years is more the typical range. If you use K/Ar dating for material from the age of the dinosaurs, in other words older than 65 million years, and if the material had original argon in the amount of .35 million years, which is much more than commonly seen as measured by Dalrymple, then for something 100 million years old the error is about .35%, not enough to worry about. Naturally the error increases the younger the material.
   ​
   Not only does Dalrymple's research indicate that the amount of original argon remaining is small (he never measured more than 1.6 million years, see http://www.epcc.edu/faculty/jesseh/imp-307.htm), but cross-confirmation using other dating techniques on the same material (where possible) such as Rb/Sr, U/Pb, Ar/Ar, and Sm/Nd confirms that it is usually small.
   ​
2. The argon to which potassium decays takes a while to accumulate to any measurable degree, roughly a half million years. That's why K/Ar dating usually isn't used for anything younger than this, though if you're willing to pay the lab the extra money and provide large enough samples you can probably get down to 50,000 years. But measuring such young ages is probably a pointless exercise in most cases, since the presence of original argon might easily overwhelm it.

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

Hi Buzz!This is a reply to your Message 25 in the too fast closure of threads thread. Discussion of the issues you raised weren't appropriate for that thread, so I answer here. The Noachic flood and lifespans of hundreds of years certainly qualify as supernatural, but the context is Creation Science, and science requires evidence. Your flood related scenarios have two problems:

• There's no evidence. They're based solely upon your interpretation of Genesis.
  ​
• As far as including the positions of Creation Science in secular venues, while the supernatural could not be part of science class, the evidence that supernatural events had taken place could be presented as scientific mysteries.

The bottom line is that accepting the supernatural is no excuse for not having evidence.--Percy

I'd include George Buffon on the list. Way back in the 1700's he questioned the Biblically derived age of the earth, pointing out that the then available evidence required an earth at least 70,000 years old!--Percy

You might want to check out The London Hammer: An Alleged Out-of-Place Artifact by Glen J. Kuban. The article refers to another article by Creationist David Lines which used to be at Baugh's museum website, but is no longer there. However, the article can be found at The London Artifact: An Iron Hammer In Stone. In it you'll see that the handle was radiocarbon dated to between 0 and 700 years old.In a large universe there will always be unexplainable phenomena and evidence, but the hammer isn't that mysterious. It is well known that solid rock can be deposited by water - just look at the stalactites and stalagmites in caves. You also have to consider that Baugh will not permit outside analysis, and doesn't seem interested in doing much analysis himself. Despite your skepticism, hammer styles are widely variable (check out any Home Depot), and the style of the hammer would reveal much about its origin. It's already been tentatively identified as an American style hammer from the 19th century. Analysis of the iron would also reveal much about its origin, as the techniques of smelting and working iron have changed much over time.But the biggest problem for Baugh's claim that the hammer is pre-flood is that the iron age did not begin until around 2000 or 3000 years ago, which is considerably after the flood. And iron technology did not reach the New World until after Columbus. Archeology reveals no New World iron technology in the form of ancient Indian furnaces. In fact, archeology reveals no metal-working capability among the Indians whatsoever.Even if you prefer to believe that Baugh's hammer is scientifically inexplicable, you still have to weigh the evidence in the balance. On one side you have literally thousands of congruent radiometric measurements, while on the other you have one mysterious hammer whose owner seems determined that it stay as mysterious as possible.--Percy

What is it in the Biblical record that leads you to believe that there were iron workers pre-flood? Do you have any cross-confirming evidence that would tend to lend credibility to your Biblical interpretation? The hammer was found in the Americas. What leads you to believe the technology of cultures in other regions is relevant? The dating was reported by David Lines, a Creationist. Given the reliability of radiocarbon dating, on what basis do you challenge the dating? Yes, most ancient iron has rusted away. It is not that common archeologically to find ancient iron. Archeological evidence of iron technology comes from mines, from furnaces and from ancient records. The mere existence of bronze implements and weapons, given their immense inferiority to iron, places your position in question, since what civilization would use bronze when iron was available? What civilization could long defend itself against neighbors with iron (they couldn't, of course, which is why iron technology so rapidly replaced bronze)? What is it about the evidence that leads you to question its credibility? Oh, I don't know, Buzz, there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence of our brilliance around here. You do realize, I hope, how spurious this argument is? It's of the same type of fallacy as, "If they can put a man on the moon, why can't they invent toast that falls butter-side-up?" The archeological and historical evidence says iron technology did not develop until much after your date for the flood. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says: What reasons do you have for doubting this?It might help to note at this point that your usual approach is to simply reject evidence presented. But the strength of your position is not measured by the determination with which you defend it, but by your ability to convince others. Without anything but anecdotal evidence this cannot occur. Your beliefs run counter to well established and internally consistent knowledge across a wide variety of fields, including, apparently, history. In essence, you've presented yourself the challenge of disproving much of what we already know.--Percy

This presents an even more serious problem for you. The bronze age didn't begin until around 3300 BC, so Tubal-cain not only couldn't have been working iron, he couldn't have been working bronze, either.I also asked you about cross-confirming evidence. The record of history and archeology says that 3900 BC predates the use of bronze and iron. What evidence do you have to the contrary?Let's keep in mind where we started. You believe Genesis relates an actual event in the flood, and for that reason you sought out evidence, which is a very good thing, just what science requires. But Carl Baugh's hammer is part of the evidence you came across, and now you've hitched your wagon to Carl's and all the baggage he brings. If you ride with Carl then you add history to the list of fields whose findings you reject, and you become as silly as Carl.There are other interpretations that don't force you to accept Carl's wild ride. Your Biblical timeline could be just a little bit off, enabling you to place Tubal-cain in the early bronze age, and he could have worked iron from meteorites, not from mines and furnaces. Or create your own accommodation. But there is no imperative in the available evidence that requires you to reject the findings history and archeology which for the most part are the friend of Biblical studies. Perhaps you subscribe to Biblical Archeology Review, in which case you understand firsthand what I'm saying. The Encyclopaedia Britannica is only a summary of knowledge, and it is your friend, not your enemy.Mankind's study of his world and universe reveals that God's creation makes sense, but the path you're following turns it more and more into a bewildering array of contradictions with none of the beauty or majesty of God's handiwork, and you do this solely to maintain your particular interpretation of Genesis. You must keep in mind that God speaks to us not only through the Bible but also through the wind and stars, that the beautiful universe around us, unadulterated by man, is more truly God's word than any book.In the larger scope of things, you have to start trying to find some internal consistency in your position. You can't really feel all that comfortable with a position that holds that geology is wrong, physics is wrong, cosmology is wrong, astronomy is wrong, and so forth, when evidence of their validity is all around us in the oil we find, the nuclear reactors we build, the men we put the moon, and the spacecraft we send out of the solar system to the stars. I'm sure you don't really believe that science and history are competent only when not dealing with issues in some way related to your Biblical interpretation. And it should be a serious concern to you that with every detail we explore here you broaden the array of evidence that you outright reject.You've had to absorb a flood of information in a short time, and it makes perfect sense that it should take some time before you sort it all out within your own mind. But there's no way to hasten this process, and I do believe that you're rushing into debate prematurely. Data is to be embraced, including Carl's hammer, so that it may be assessed and evaluated and if found reliable incorporated into the body of evidence. We would like to see you embrace the data presented here, rather than knee-jerk reject it, so that you may consider and assess it and incorporate it into your viewpoint if you find it competent. The Tower of Babel was post-flood, so it isn't relevant to a pre-flood hammer. As I stated earlier, not only is there no evidence of ironwork in your flood era, there is no evidence of ironwork anywhere in the pre-Columbus Americas. David Lines had the wooden handle dated, not the iron. There is no way to directly date iron that I'm aware of. And he dated it to less than 700 years, not 2000 years, in other words, consistent with 19th century American origin. This response, the second time you have replied in this vein, has two answers. The first concerns why you are raising this question without investigating the complexity of the process you're claiming we were brilliant enough to figure out millennia before we did.The second answer is to simply tell you what you evidently didn't bother to figure out for yourself. First men had to figure out that this crumbly orange rock actually contains a very hard metal. The only way to do that is to create the incredible heat necessary to melt the iron out of the ore. The only way to create the heat is to use bellows to blast air in sufficient volumes into the furnace. Since this isn't necessary for bronze, why would anyone put in all the effort to develop this technology? How man first figured out that iron ore contained iron remains a mystery.The fact of the matter is that iron mines and furnaces are very durable man-made structures, the ashe from the furnaces is extremely easy to date using radiocarbon methods, and we don't find them until well after 2000 BC. Where is the imperative that if evolution is true your religious experiences are false? I think you've set up a false dichotomy here.--Percy

This claim that your religion is not blind would have more credibility were it not for your frequent arbitrary dismissal of evidence without any understanding or assessment. I guess faith can not only move mountains, it can ignore mountains, too. You have the same faith, but with far less justification. Science establishes confidence through replicability - only when many scientists repeat the same experiment and obtain the same results is the outcome accepted. You're accepting the word of Carl Baugh and Ron Wyatt whose assertions have only tiny islands of support and which are opposed by many within the Creationist movement. You're also accepting "what mere man says" in the Bible as if it were instead written by the Lord God himself. Were the men who wrote the Bible inspired by God? Perhaps, but isn't it mere men who told you so?You can't escape the fact that all information you have comes from only one source: mere man.I'd like to see you finally address the question about how different radiometric methods could produce congruent results if radiometric dating were fallacious.--Percy

Hmmm. Maybe this explains why there seems to be such a disconnect about evidence in the discussions with you. Are you saying that you're not trying to convince anyone, but are only explaining why you *personally* do not accept the evidence presented to you, and that you're not encouraging anyone else to reject the evidence on the same basis that you are? I don't think you can make any claims about prophecy until you complete the discussion you've left hanging in Message 34 in the Analysis of Amos 9:11-15 as Prophecy thread. Or are you simply abandoning this topic the same way you abandoned Frozen Tropical Animals and Buz's seashell claim.[Added a 2nd abandoned thread and changed to URLs. --Percy] I'm sure that even a couple million years ago that Australopithicus afarensis was aware of this, but you still have two problems:

1. Your argument is one from personal incredulity and so carries no weight.
   ​
2. You're ignoring the details. Once again:
   ​
   First men had to figure out that this crumbly orange rock actually contains a very hard metal. The only way to do that is to create the incredible heat necessary to melt the iron out of the ore. The only way to create the heat is to use bellows (which require making airtight flexible containers using levers) to blast air in sufficient volumes into the furnace. Since this isn't necessary for bronze, why would anyone put in all the effort to develop this technology? Why especially they would try this on the orange crumbly rock? How man first figured out that iron ore contained iron remains a mystery.
   ​
   Why don't you address these points in your next reply, Buzz, assuming your goal isn't to simply wear me out by making me repeatedly cut-n-paste the same info into all my replies

Moving on: You're replying piecemeal now. As I pointed out already, your date for Tubal-cain predates both the iron age *and* the bronze age. You can argue that Tubal-cain worked iron from meteorites or any other naturally occurring iron, but not that he mined and smelted iron. And you can't argue that he worked bronze at all, since it doesn't occur naturally, unless you modify your 3900 BC date to some 600 years later.You're also ignoring the other evidence I presented to you, which is that the mines and foundries for metals are very durable and easily dated. We don't find them until well after your date for the flood. Why do you think that is, Buzz? What happened to the mines and foundries of earlier civilizations? Are they hiding somewhere?You ignored the most important point from my Message 195, the extended point that you should be trying to stake out a position that isn't in conflict with so much history and science, and that hitching your wagon to Carl's train isn't what you set out to do. It's just something you found in passing to help make a different point. You set out trying to support your views on the flood, and the next thing you know you're trying to defend crazy Carl's hammer. You should give at least as much weight to scientific evidence as you do for the loons of this world. Ever heard of Art Bell (http://www.coasttocoastam.com, now hosted by George Noory after Bell retired)? Well, Carl Baugh is a religious Art Bell - there isn't any idea so crazy he won't give it space in his museum or at his website.So, come on, Buzz, speak to me. Why are you so insistent on turning God's universe into a circus of contradictions just so you can maintain your belief in the words of mere men contained in the Bible?--Percy[This message has been edited by Percipient, 07-11-2003]

Hi, Buzz!Well, you one-upped yourself! Your post managed to ignore not only every single point from my Message 200, but everyone else's points, too. All you did was repeat your initial premises. Congratulations, Buzz, a new record!Seriously, Buzz, if you don't address the points in the replies to you then this isn't a debate. If you're out of ammo then just say so, or just don't answer like you did in Analysis of Amos 9:11-15 as Prophecy, Frozen Tropical Animals and Buz's seashell claim, or just go away, or anything, but don't keep posting these inane answers just so you can post something. You're just wasting your time and ours. We already know what your position is - the purpose of the debate is to determine if your position is defensible. You entered the debate unarmed with the predictable result, and now you're doing a great imitation of a mindless zombie numbingly repeating a mantra of faith.As I advised you in my previous message, you've had to absorb a lot of information in a short time, and it would take anyone a while to assimilate and make sense of it. I think you're rushing into the debate too soon. Go off for a while and study and reflect a bit. Many evolutionists are very religious and read the Bible (I read a couple chapters of Hebrews just last night), and it wouldn't hurt you to read a science book or two. If you're right you won't be able to prove it with arguments of ignorance. Just because your cause is just doesn't mean the war can be won unarmed.If I may play a duel role in this post and speak from my administrator position, you may be wondering why the administrators are letting other members (like me) dump personal abuse on you. The reason is that you always break the rules first. You break rule 2 of the Forum Guidelines in almost every post. You've been warned by board administration about this, and I now just interpret the abuse people occasionally dole out to you as an expression of quite justified frustration. I'd post warnings about the behavior, but people would reply that you're already not following the guidelines and ask why I'm not doing anything about it. Well, the answer is that I already tried and you didn't modify your behavior. So now you're on your own. Maybe Adminnemooseus has some ideas. He's very reluctant to suspend you, and I won't take any action against anyone I'm actively debating, but my experience is that while an idiotic debate is taking place many people sit on the sideline and watch, and then when it ends activity suddenly picks up. If I weren't in active debate with you I'd suspend you in an instant. You need the break anyway, and I think I'd be doing you a favor.On the flip side of the coin, your deserve praise for the admirably cordial way you've conducted yourself in a debate where you stand alone against a sea of somewhat grumpy adversaries.By the way, you might think about why it is that you stand alone on one side while all the evolutionists stand together on the other. The reason is that Creationism isn't one theory, but many, OEC versus YEC merely being the highest level division of many. Creationism is fragmented into many different viewpoints because those viewpoints, having no factual basis, are chosen on the basis of personal preference. It's the same reason there are many religions but only one science, at least until you get to the scientific frontiers where new knowledge develops. You seem to have chosen one of the most conservative and difficult to defend Creationist positions, one that doesn't often persist in debate, and even to the point of rejecting many of AIG's very reasonable cautions about indefensible positions. You should have given greater consideration to AIG's well thought out advice, developed by long experience before you ever started visiting these boards, instead of discarding them to embarck on a Quixote-esque quest for glorious self-immolation.--Percy