Buz's refutation of all radiometric dating methods

The article you point to only deals with carbon 14 and potassium-argon. These are known to be unreliable in certain cases due to environmental factors.

quote:

---

Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years).

---

This is true. There are a number of cases I know of where isotope data has proved to be misleading, most notably in the dating of the Mull pluton in Scotland. This used rubidium-strontium isotopes (which are also known to be faulty in certain circumstances).Geologists know to be wary of isotope data, especially when it does not fit with the field evidence. But there are other techniques - such as the neodynium one - that have proved to be far more reliable and as such I doubt you will find any cases on the Internet where it has proved to be incorrect.Take a look at the other topic on carbon14 reliability - my post details some of the factors that can distort isotope data.The Rock Hound------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."

This is for Percy...You're absolutely right about the Rb/Sr dating - and I should have thought about the example a bit more. I think I made a mistake about the Mull pluton - I'll have to check it up, but it might have been oxygen isotopes instead. My original post was just from memory (which is obviously failing me )I am sure, though, that an isotope analysis was done on the pluton and a whole range of distorted figures were found because the rock had been metamorphosed by hydrothermal alteration. It's just to show that isotopes can be very tricky sometimes, and you have to be careful of the condition of the rock.The Rock Hound------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."

I was going to jump in too... Ok, back to business - Buzsaw, post some actual evidence of your assertation that all radiometric dating methods are bogus. We are tired of hearing your unsupported opinions. You may believe that the Flood happened - you may believe that the sky is purple for all I care; yours is a free country, as they say - but unless you have some kind of evidence, you are simply making a fool of yourself.Post something - anything - scientific that supports your claim, or admit for once that you are WRONG.Failing that, some indication that you understand the basic concepts of palaeontology would be nice.The Rock Hound

From my knowledge of palaeontology, the story goes something like this (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong):At the end of the Cretaceous, the number of dinosaur taxa had declined from 30 to about 12. Across the K/T boundary the number fell to 7; so some dinosaurs did survive into the Tertiary, but these died out very quickly.

quote:

---

He also challenges them with the fact that if the k/t event did indeed wipe out about 75% of life world wide, why ALL of the dinos and so many others got through it quite unscathed?

---

This is incorrect. Most of the dinosaurs were extinct before the K/T event, which finished off much of the remainder.Let's do a little thinking - compare how many species existed before and after the K/T event. Is there a drop of 75% in number?This is beside the point anyway. Buzsaw, post your evidence for bogus radiometric dating methods, or retract your claims.The Rock Hound

I know that this thread is temporarily closed, and I apologise to the Admin for this post... but I just can't let this go. This is a personal attack and I am not about to take it lightly; I only wish I could have been here sooner to respond before the thread was closed.

quote:

---

It never ceases to amaze me how you people fire off these statements allegedly having gone on 60 million years ago in such detail as if you were discussing historical record of the civil war. You've all become so comfortable with these astronomical figures in the scores of million to billions that I do believe you've lost all sense of just how awfully long ago this was and how awfully much time there has been for the unknown factors to have happened undected by mere modern finite fallible humans. Then you so pompously give creatos unceasing heck for alleging all this order and complicated intricacy was designed by intelligence, using the data we have pertaining to a few thousand years ago.

---

What can I say to this? It's an insult to me and my profession, and to the last hundred years that geologists have spent trying to better understand the world we live in. I did not come to this forum for this - I wanted to engage in debates on what I consider to be a very serious topic. You wish to show that radiometric dating is flawed, and this is your best argument?Pathetic.I apologise to the Admin again. If you feel it is appropriate, you can delete this message the moment I post it - I just hope you understand why I wrote this.The Rock Hound

I think I'll be bowing out of this topic. I can't maintain an objective view any more while debating with Buzsaw, and you guys obviously don't need my help.I might join back in later on. Until then, happy posting...The Rock Hound------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."

Sorry I haven't been around - I've been busy at work. I'll try to be more regular in posting from now on.

quote:

---

I think, but IRH or another may correct me, that specific rocks are known to solidify and chemically react at known rates.

---

Hmmm... as far as I know, the actual rate of lithification depends on the temperature and pressure the sediment experiences. If you know all the variables (pressure, temperature, composition etc.) you can work out the rates.The Rock Hound------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."