Buz's refutation of all radiometric dating methods

quote:

---

If the lava, limestone, sand, or whatever makes up the layers or rock beds, existed before the organism buried in it existed, that doesn't make the organism the same age as those elements into which it becomes buried, does it? If I bury a dead carcas in the earth, that doesn't make it the same age as the earth.

---

As Rhain says, many events reset the "clock" by which rock is dated. If this weren't the case, all rocks would date to pretty much the same time. That's why some people make so much noise about claims of modern objects or fossils found in rocks that date millions of years. (None have been substantiated) It's rather difficult for a fossil to end up inside a rock after formation without leaving evidence of the process that put it there - like a burial. Therefore, the date of the rock tends to strongly suggest the date of the fossil.

quote:

---

Imo, that's nonsense. We all know that if, I say if, there was a flood 4500 years ago, that the inorganic material it is fossilized in is not a mere 4500 years old. And for sure, no modern dating method is going to register the material it is encased in at 4500 years. That just ainta gona happen. Maybe herein lies the lie. The young organic thing is pullingfor a youthful read and the inorganic old stuff is pulling for an aged read on the meter, bogasizing (bussism ) the whole dating process.

---

Speechless. Me, that is. This is utterly astounding.If your faith is incapable of surviving even a minimal education in science, and if you need miracles to hold your ideas together, then why are you trying to argue materialistic explanations for events that have already been explained very well? By doing so, you are (unnecessarily, it seems) entering an area in which you CHOOSE to know very little, and trying to argue with the best of the best! (I speak not of myself here) How is that worth your while? How does debating make any difference in anybody's mind when 1)yours has been made up and your conclusion reached, before you possess even a small fraction of the available knowledge; and 2)ours are too "brainwashed" and "corrupted" by factual learning to accept these evidence-free opinions of yours?This is getting extremely frustrating, going round and round in discussions that always end in "Buzsaw, learn about geology" and a reply of "won't bother, it's all in the interpretation anyway." There is plenty of hard data to be had, if you really care about the TRUTH, and it's available without the interpretive aid of professional scientists, if you really want it that way. Some very basic learning would stop you from making statements like the one above, because it just doesn't make sense. Not just imo, but in the opinion of just about anyone who cares enough to educate themselves about the subject.

quote:

---

Zephyr, you begin by saying you're speechless and then proceed to go on and on about how stupid buzz is. What's the matter? Can't refute the specifics of my statements? Why don't you be nice and simply cut n paste the specific statements I make which you deem to be erroneous and refute those individual statements if you can. Isn't that the way these exchanges are suppose to work?

---

The specifics are starting to seem pointless, which was the whole point of my post. I'm losing interest in telling you about specifics because you don't seem to acknowledge them most of the time. You seem bent on viewing everyone who disagrees with you as a brainwashed slave of the evo paradigm. But many of us were taught what you were and, through honest pursuit of the truth, realized we had been deceived. It's rather insulting to hear your blanket dismissals, and kills the spirit of good faith debate.

quote:

---

Please expecially note item #3 pertaining to K/T:

---

There's a big difference between acknowledging the imprecision of a method and discarding it entirely because it may be off by a few percentage points. Besides, you've not substantially responded to detailed descriptions of very close agreement between several different methods used for the same rock.

Trench warfare can be entertaining, but not when the response to your carefully planned charge is just gas, gas, gas.You were going to tell us, with some scientific basis, why all radiometric dating methods are bogus. Or, if you prefer, "bogasized." All you've done so far is make vague, unfounded speculations about possible uncertainty that would skew the results... even though they all tend to agree very well. When substantial objections are made, you then make a sweeping generalization about the inability of everyone here to understand and mentally process factual information, just because we have been taught about an idea that you don't understand. You see it as some kind of trump card, I see it as unfair play. It's a subtle ad hominem that excuses you from learning basic information that's vital to the subjects at hand, and keeps us from real debate by miring the thread in attempts to explain scientific facts that, contrary to your belief, are not part of an evo conspiracy but stand quite well on their own. It's not trench warfare, it's at best a snowball fight.

quote:

---

With all due respect, are you considering the links I have posted to show some of the problems and weaknesses of dateing methods to somewhat bolster my case? It appears that when I begin to bring these supportive things to strengthen my argument, so many begin to get uptight and personal rather than sticking to addressing links and views which I post?

---

If you're referring to the discussion to which you linked in post 54, the best argument I could find there was "We have a fossil record showing the extinction of 75% of species; therefore, 100% of species should have gone extinct." It was laughed off because it's so obviously illogical. That thread also mentioned coccoliths, which are devastating to a YEC because of the huge volume of the deposits found worldwide and their inability to settle in violently churning waters. Even in still water, the YEC timeframe doesn't allow enough time for them to form.I hope you don't consider this response uptight and personal. I'm doing my best to avoid my past failings

quote:

---

Again, in spite of these millions of hours of science, honest scientists who really face the enormity of time scores of millions to billions of years ago really is to the limited mind of man, admit there's a lot we just don't know for sure and it's not like a debate on the civil war or something where we can confidently say, "this is how it was."

---

But until you give their research an honest look, you don't have the right to just assume it's all useless. You're depriving yourself of useful knowledge based on a convenient assumption.

quote:

---

The above from a Berkley scientist which offers some, I say some, credence to certain statements I've made in my posts regarding the reliability of these dating methods.

---

It would lend you some credence if the methods could be shown to be off by several million percent. Cite your evidence....

I thought you wanted trench warfare. Rigorous debate. That means making distinctions between small errors (detectable by known techniques) and show-stopping inaccuracy, because the two are drastically different.The consensus among scientists is that there is an acceptable level of inaccuracy to all dating methods. I don't even know what you mean by "down pat," because nobody claims there's no error - but usually it's in the single digits. When we use multiple methods, the likelihood of getting a good number just increases.

quote:

---

Concordance with itself, I would say quite possible if the contamination is consistent for three attempts.

---

We're talking about three different techniques here. Unless you have a specific type of contamination or other error in mind, and a way of showing that it affects three different methods of dating the rock, then your speculation isn't too convincing.How do you interpret the article above about argon dating? Forum guidelines would seem to encourage a bit more commentary on what knowledge you gained from it. Otherwise it's hard to tell what you're bringing to the discussion.

quote:

---

How can they assume factors present today to be close enough to being consistent at any given age of the past to know for sure.

---

Are you suggesting the laws of physics were different in the past? Otherwise, our knowledge of existing mechanisms is sufficient to tell us quite a lot about what happened long before our race existed. It's dirty and tedious work that, thankfully, many people have been willing to do.[This message has been edited by zephyr, 06-29-2003]

quote:

---

So, you admit to not understanding the "nuts and bolts" (i.e. the basics) of these dating methds, but disbelieve them all because of the use of the word "possibilities" is used twice in a short layman-level explanation of two methods??

​

You must get pretty sore from all of the twisting and contorting, don't you?

---

Not to mention the hand-waving and insertion of fingers into ears....[This message has been edited by zephyr, 09-18-2003]

quote:

---

I started with a human eye, shifted the colors, and overlayed a distorted computer chip over the eye itself. I then did some frame-by-frame distortions to make it slowly look around, and some distortions plus painting for the blinking. I then optimized the frames so that it would be a small file so that I could use it as an avatar.

---

It's absolutely beautiful.