Buz's refutation of all radiometric dating methods

Melvin Cook is - or was - a creationist, although not quite the usual sort of fundamentalist - he was a Mormon. And of course he wrote to support Mormon scriptures (which includes the Bible - more or less).

Lava is not a sediment. It is not deposited by water. Please go get a high-school Earth Science book and read it before you continue, buz.

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?

quote:

---

Hmmmmm.........Your statement here seems to be highly supportive of my contention earlier that the flood deposited sediments around fossils are tainted by various old materials deposited near the young to give an old reading.

---

Nope. Xenoliths in lava are an entirely different situation, and are easily detected.And you have not yet addressed the facts; the vast majority of fossil dates are not obtained by dating sediments. They are obtained by dating igneous rocks above and below the fossils. Your focus on sediments is a red herring.{edited for spelling}[This message has been edited by JonF, 07-06-2003]

Buz, you are the one who asked about the Creationists who, 100 years ago rejected the notion of a Noachian flood on account of there not being any evidence for it.A list was provided to you, and you then post some comments which seem to call into question how "legitimate" their Creationist "credentials" were, if you will.It is not "mean" of me to ask for clarification of why it is you are doing this. If these people, who were religiously-trained and Creationist, started out believing in a worldwide flood, but in the course of their investigations realized that it was impossible due to lack of evidence, does this mean that they aren't "Creationist enough" for you?Some people might think that they were being intellectually honest and good scientists.------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

Try concentrating on just learning about Adam Sedgwick. Pardon me, Reverend Adam Sedgwick. Inspirational example of how a true scientist, despite personal beliefs, can let the evidence speak. The man spent his career looking for evidence of the Great Flood, only to finally realize that no such evidence exists. Mind you, he knew, unlike today's Creationists, that the Great Flood couldn't possibly explain the entire geological record. That was clearly impossible then (and now). But for much of his career he felt there was evidence in the recent geological record for the Flood.If you're looking for "Creationists" just like today's creationists, you can't find them 200 years ago, because intelligent Christian scientists had easily figured out the impossibility of reconciling a literal Genesis (and a timetable of a few thousand years) with the geological evidence. Today's Creationism is a bizarre 1960's invention which pretended that the previous centuries of research hadn't happened.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 07-08-2003]

Actually, I see that buz has already been given at least one explicit link on Sedgwick a while back. Here it is again:http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/6040/flood21.htm

There's a good exposition on Sedgwick in A Flood Geologist Recants.

quote:

---

Lava is not a sediment. It is not deposited by water. Please go get a high-school Earth Science book and read it before you continue, buz.

---

Well howdy n duh-de-duh duh. You mean to tell me lava isn't a sediment???? I knew I shoulda explained to make it simple and clear. If new lava dates old by picking up these old rocks, why not catastrophic flood sediment which also picks up and breaks up a lota real old stuff mixing it in with the new? A powerful flood can cut through stone, you know and carry a lota heavy stuff.

quote:

---

Some people might think that they were being intellectually honest and good scientists.

---

Other people like me think most of them were about as much into the Bible and creationism as I am into needlework and crochet. It was not popular to openly critique God or the Bible back then.

Buz,Irrelevant. They believed in God, & that He created everything. Ergo, they were creationists. The conclusion is inescapable.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Buz, This has been made clear to you on more than one occasion. The sediment that fossils are in isn't dated. It is therefore irrelevant as to the age of the composite particles. It is a red herring, a logical flaw in your argument, so please don't go there again.It is the age of igneous rock (among others) that is dated, & you still have to explain why all methods seem to agree when based on different assumptions, decay values, & different potential errors.See post 18, I'll lay odds of radiometric dating getting the K-T boundary correct to within 700,000 years as over 70,000,000 : 1 based on the tektite examples alone. This is pretty impressive stuff, Buz, & I'm not sure why you are equivocating in the face of such strong evidence.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

If you're looking for "Creationists" just like today's creationists, you can't find them 200 years ago, because intelligent Christian scientists had easily figured out the impossibility of reconciling a literal Genesis (and a timetable of a few thousand years) with the geological evidence. Today's Creationism is a bizarre 1960's invention which pretended that the previous centuries of research hadn't happened.

---

I see it's true that around 1800 old earth geology began to change a lota minds on geology. I guess a fellow by the name of Osborne was sort of the John Morris of the day for young earth. It seems that quite a few around that time began to think like I do, that the earth could be old but not mankind and the animals. Many old earthies did also believe in the Biblical flood as I do, including some on the list.Enough for that on my. Take the rest for what it's worth.

quote:

---

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?

---

........And how many times did they not all jive? Likely when they did so far as the animal and mankind fossils go, likely they all had the same error/errors. Nobody's yet explained Carl Baugh's tools found in coal yet have they/you? I suppose they all date that coal way beyond their dates for man.

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?