Buz's refutation of all radiometric dating methods

Buz, maybe you should tell us what you think it says.It is saying two things:1) The definition of the K/T boundary is based on the abrupt change in fossils from one side to the other. It was not based on the iridium layer etc. as that wasn't noticed till long after the boundary was established.2) The dating for it is based on radiometric dating but that isn't what defines the boundary it just sets absolute dates for it.

All this talk about digging etc seems to be rather beside the point anyway.One issue that is being discussed is the K/T boundary dates. Some aspects of this boundary are not "flood" effects. The layers above are laid down over top of the fossils we want to date both by the impact event and by lava flows. They are layered over top so must be younger than what is below. They lava has it's clock reset at that point and dates to a bit older than Buz wants it to be.

Again, you have to understand that the boundary was clear and well defined before any idea of the impact was raised. The K/T boundary is now very strongly associated with the iridium layer but Harris is pointing out that this is not the formal definition of the boundary.The age is not controversial. It may well have been given a few different values in the past as it was more carefully worked out. In the last several decades it hasn't to my knowledge been taken as lower than 60 Myr ago. The 64.8 MYr BP date now is darn close to that isn't it?He is talking about formal definitions here.The interpreting of the boundary that Mark is talking about is a different issue from defining it or from dating it.It was the iridium that pointed out something very special about what happened and lead to the search for the impact that the shocked quartz and iridium strongly suggested must have happened. This is what is meant by interpretation.There isn't the disagreement that you seem to be reading.Would you care to disect the sentences of the Harris quote in more detail to show how you read it?

I don't know that it's stated in any guidelines anywhere but I, and I'm pretty sure others, have posted in other places that we don't care about supernaturual views. You keep those in church and out of schools and we'll be glad to ignore them.Myself, I'm not going to ignore the so-called "scientific" creationists whose goal is to interfere with the teaching of science. That's what underlies the arguments here.If you want to play the magic game then ok, go ahead but it's not science. If you want to talk about evidence and the measurement of ages then the supernatural (by definition out side of nature and unmeasureable) is outside the discussion boundaries.As for the C-14 arguments == I think there is a thread for them. But this one is about radiometric dating in general so I suppose it's on topic. Before you bring that one up perhaps you should finish dealing with a lot of other unfinished business first.Also the statements you posted about C-14 dating problems are all understood and answered. I suggest you can read the material yourself without much trouble.Of course, they muddle in billions of years in a discussion of c-14 dating which is silly. They also ignore the fact that c-14 dating has been calibrated pretty well and checked over a range of dates.So while all the points posted are interesting they have been demonstrated to be wrong and or irrelevant.

Buz, there are a number of ways things are dated.I think you've been given very clear and simple examples but if not you can easily find them on the web.Basically scenario that occurs often is when some specific datable event occurs, time passes and another one occurs.A dateable event is often a blanketing volcanic eruption that produces a specific layer of ash that can be accurately dated.When one of these dates to say 70 Myr BP and then another is dated to say 60 Myr BP then the fossils between are somewhere between 60 and 70 Myr old.To convince anyone of this dating the researchers must be careful that the dated layers are undisturbed around the fossils and all sort of other care taken. It is when this isn't clear that there are arguments over the dates. Any arguments you can come up with are brought up by researchers in the area before a date is taken as being likely to be correct.It isn't a matter of the sediments that are all mixed up being dated. It is clear pronounced layers that are clearly individual events and dated to be at clearly separate dates (e.g., millions of years apart with dating errors of less than a million years).The problem you are having is that you're going on your own ideas of what is being done and they are not right. Read some of the material that has been referenced to you alreayd.

I think, but IRH or another may correct me, that specific rocks are known to solidify and chemically react at known rates.I think this makes it possible to judge how long things might take to lay down. I also can't reference it but I think this is why creationist geologists of 200 years ago realized that the earth had to be very old (at least millions of years).You said that mt st helen's rocks hardened very quickly. Of course, lava hardens in days if it is thin enough and on the surface. What specific types of sediments are they taking about and how hard?How about marble?

and Buz, do not go off on a tangent argueing about those people of 200 years ago. You have a lot of things left dangling here and elsewhere.

Does it really? LOL

WOW! I'm impressed

Buz, what it seems to come down to is that you have no idea how any of the methods, much less all of them could be wrong. You'd just like it to be that way.The "no one was there, so we don't know for sure argument" starts to look pretty silly very quickly. You can apply that to too many different cases including what happened in Palestine 2,000 odd years ago. No one there wrote anything down.What we do have is a huge, collosal, enormous collection of observations that all are tied together very nicely by the consensus view of how things have unfolded. There is simply no better suggestion for how things have happened. When someone has one that handles all the known facts then changes will be made.You've been asked specifically how the dating methods could all be wrong. You have now admitted that you have no idea. All you say is that things might have been different in some way.You haven't even constructed or found from creationist sources a coherent way that ANY conditions could produce the results we see. Once you have some scenarios for different conditions that are internally consistent and produce the results measured then maybe there would be a way ot test them to see if they are not only internally consistent but consistent with the external world.If you want instead to invoke miracles you are welcome to. However, this will have to be restricted to church. If that is the best you can do then the creation "scientists" can drop the scientist part and leave the rest of us alone.