Buz's refutation of all radiometric dating methods

Huh? If you have an object that you have good, independant reason to assume is significantly shorter than a surveyor's chain, then you don't use the chain.But if you use the chain on something that you don't know how long it is, and you get a length of mutliple chains, isn't that enough to assume that the object is multiple chains long? Nothing shorter than a chain would give you multiple chains when you measured it; nothing younger than one half-life of carbon-14 (for instance) would give you a measurement of mutiple half-lives when you radiocarbon dated it. In a sufficient number of cases, there's independant, non-radiometric data that converges on the same date. Since there's no proposed mechanism that would distort so many different kinds of dating (relying on so many different physical principles) in exactly the same way, it's reasonable to assume they converge on a realistic date.

Yeah, it's a failure of analogy. Let me ask you this - what method would you accept for the measurement of time? Do you accept that, within a tolerance, clocks measure time?Radiometric dating is like a clock because the rates of radioactive decay are constant over time and accessable to current measurement. In the same way that a clock ticks the same over time, and a still-running clock is avaliable for us to determine how it matches other measurements of time - other clocks.Now, if I have a clock, and I know it works now, and I know it's worked in the past because it's given independantly verifiable times for past events, I can figure out when something happened if I know how many clock ticks have occured between the event in question and now.I assume your objection will be in regards to the constancy of decay rates over time, and honestly I'd like someone else to, uh, remind me why we assume this. Of course we have independant verification of the radiodates from other, nonradiometric dating techniques. Do we have other confirmation?

Then, what about fossils and such found within those rocks? How could a fossil be younger than the stone matrix within which it was found?

No, of course not - and your act of burying would leave telltale signs of digging.But we're not talking about dirt. We're talking about stones. You can't dig into stones and have them just seal up with no trace. And radiometric clocks only start counting from the time the stone became stone. So the age of the lime material has no bearing on the tested age of the limestone it forms. The clock is reset.So, when we find fossils totally imbedded in stone (aka, in matrix), isn't it reasonable to assume the fossil can't be younger than the stone? If not, how do you propose that a fossil was inserted into rock hard, uh, rock? Remember the radiometric dating dates the time since the hardening of the stone, not the age of the matter itself.

I will say that this is absolutely true (especially in terms of geology), and I rely on the considerably more knowledgeable posters to step in and correct me, or to say "leave this one for the grown-ups" when necessary.If I have any saving graces I hope they are enthusiasm and patience. And hopefully some humility. Sorry if I've totally c*cked up the discussion. Pretend I was talking about dating lava or something.

I think most of us are already familiar with what could go wrong. Remember, though, the point is - what could go wrong with several independant methods of dating in such a way as they would all converge to the same erroneous date?By analogy, what are the odds of several, unrelated weighing methods - spring scale, balance, peizoelectric scale - reporting the weight/mass of an object as 1 kg if that wasn't it's true weight/mass? What factor could make all those different mechanisms report the same erroneous weight?[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-06-2003]

Hello? Hello? Buz? Earth to Buz?Any response to this attempt to steer the topic back to it's original question; I.e. how so many independant dating methods could be in error and yet give the same dates?

But what would cause them to "not jive" in the same way? Look, if you step on three scales and get three wildly different weights each time, you throw out that data. Scientists do this. Wildly divergent results are taken as indicators of inaccurate measuring, and those dates aren't trusted.But if three scales give similar - or identical - readings, it's pretty safe to assume you're getting an accurate weight, even if it's way more than what you expected. Especially if we're talking about scales that have totally different mecahnisms. If you want to dispute that weight (with your doctor, say) then it's not enough to point out how each scale, individually, could be wrong. You have to explain how they're all wrong to the same degree.Similarly, pointing out how one method or another could be wrong is insufficient. You have to explain how a single factor could make several different methods - each relying on different physical principles - wrong to the same degree, in the same way.Look, when we're talking about several different methods, the same cause doesn't affect them the same way. By analogy, if you measure your weight with a bathroom scale on the moon, it's less than if you measure on the Earth. That's a factor that causes inaccuracy in spring bathroom scales. On the other hand, it has no effect on a balance, like the scales used at a doctor's office (with the slinding wieghts and stuff). A balance measures the same on the moon as it does on Earth.We're looking for a universal factor that would merit the rejection of all dating methods. So far you haven't given us one - just factors specific to individual methods. That's not enough. Well, nobody yet (i.e. you) has cited any information on that stuff. I know I've never heard of this guy or his tools.If you'd like comment on coal tools, provide some links. How can we comment on hearsay? How do we know this stuff isn't just made-up?

Wait, wasn't he the Paluxy Footprints guy?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, too.

Now that you've reminded me of him, I remember that he's been discredited at every turn. His so-called "footprint" is at least 20-25 inches long and has no discernable heel, toe, or instep, nor any marks consistent with a shod foot. Not to mention there's only one "footprint" on the stone. Feet usually come in pairs, as I recall.Look, this guy is so flakey even the Answers In Genesis people won't touch him. You're going to have to do better if he's your one authority in favor of your position.But I'll give his tools a chance. The thing is, you'll have to provide the links. I mean, it wouldn't be fair for me to do it - I'm liable to wind up at sites refuting his evidence. I leave it to you to find a site that's neutral or supportive towards his coal tools.But here's one potential explanation - they're forgeries. Coal dust can be pressed and hardened around objects. So he took some tools and some 50,000-year-old coal dust and pressed it around some tools. Ta-dah! The coal looks hard and dates very old.What kind of tools are they? Tools in common use by coal miners, perhaps?

Here's what I get:

• Creation Evidence Museum of Texas Webpage of his own organization.
• No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/whatbau.html (four times at different sites) A page debunking his work and credentials.
• No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.bibleandscience.com/carl%20baugh.htm A page summarizing his claims but providing no discussion of his "data".
• Account Suspended This page calls him a "charlatan".
• No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.creationism.org/cem The page for his so-called "Creationist museum".
• No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.keelynet.com/biology/baugh.htm A page lauding unsupported claims for his "Pre-flood chamber", ending in a totally ficticious "confirmation" from NASA.
• Carl Baugh His own personal webpage.
  

So we have five pages' worth debunking his claims and credentials, and the rest is his own personal propaganda.Now can you see why I was hoping to enlist the aid of somebody who purported to know all about his work? If he has some scientific work, let's see it. So far I find no reason to give his so-called "tools" any credence whatsoever.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-09-2003]

None of us are interested in stories. We're interested in data. So far I haven't seen any. Anecdotes do not make a science.

You may not realize how hard it is to smelt iron. And as it turns out bronze is good enough for most things. That's why the bronze age lasted so long.Purifying iron to any degree takes heat well beyond that able to be generated by your average smith. That's why the blast furnace was such a big deal.I do understand, however, that the occasional iron meteorite was forged into the occasional sword or helm. They pop up in Greek mythology, from time to time.But short of meteors iron or any useful purity simply wouldn't have been avaliable to humans. It's not a matter of being stupid - it's just a matter of not having the technology to smelt it.

That's a great example. Similarly, that's how we know when a man has been shot, rather than assuming he was born with a bullet in his chest and had a heart attack.

And the rather simple rebuttal is that if there were such a skewing factor, it's highly unlikely that it would skew the results of a number of totally different dating mechanisms (each based on different materials, methods, and assumptions) in such a way that they would all converge on the same apparent date. Therefore the convergence of different dating mechanisms is evidence that the dating methods are accurate, and represent real age.