Buz's refutation of all radiometric dating methods

^ bump ^

Buz,Your options are limited.1/ Accept you have no reliable falsifying data against your position, accept your opponents position is well supported, therefore abandon your position in favour of mainstream sciences position.2/ Maintain your position in the face of incredible evidence that radiometric dating is mostly *right*. Of course, to logically do this you need to provide reliable supporting evidence of your claims that make sciences evidence look silly.3/ Ignore the issue & pretend you addressed the salient points, yet your opponents didn't. It was a bad dream & it never happened. This way you can come out with the same objections, already pre-refuted at a later date. Pretend you won the previous debate, & maintain your erronious position.It's no.3 isn't it? Typical creationist denial.A lot of people have put a lot of time in responding to you & you are just being F*%@ING rude in ignoring them.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-16-2003]

quote:

---

Maintain your position in the face of incredible evidence that radiometric dating is mostly wrong.

---

You wish to make that "wrong" into a "right", I presume?Moose

Moose,Doh! Error corrected. Thanks!Mark

bump....

quote:

---

If the earth is old and life young, fossils created by sudden catastrophy would be entombed in old material rendering dating methods useless because of the contamination of the new by the old it is entombed in

---

BzZzzZZZzzZtT!!!! Try again. You apparently are unfamiliar with dating methods such as U234/Thorium and U235/Protractinium dating. Uranium is semi-soluable, and can leach into bone. Thorium and Protractinium are essentially insoluable. In short, these minerals are *in the bone themselves*, and the uranium (but not the decay products) enters when the organism is dead. Since it would be incredibly bizarre if all ancient organisms stored up any of these minerals, especially the rare decay products, but no modern organisms do, essentially all of it will have leeched in after death. U234 and U235 ratios additionally enable isochron dating.And guess what? It confirms all of the other methods. Potential pitfalls:
Slow leeching in. It is possible that leeching is not a single event, but is a slow process. However, this would make the fossil look *younger* than it is, not older.Uranium leeching *out* of the bone. Again, a possibility, although it occurs far more slowly than leeching in from the surrounding rock. Uranium leeching out of the bone would make the fossil look *younger* than it is, not older.A young earth could happen if all ancient organisms were weird, and liked to store Thorium and Protractinium in their bones, and ate a lot of these rare elements, but these same organisms made sure that the much more common uranium that they're associated with passed right through their systems. What a bizzare world *THAT* would be The only other possibility that I could think a creationist could challenge with is that Thorium and Protractinium were not near insoluable in the ancient past like they are today. The problems with that are so huge, it's not even worth going into.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

I'd also like to remind Buz that this is essentially the original question of this thread, and was a response to Buz's claim that all radiometric dating methods were bogus.

---

Please document, if I'm mistaken, but I believe my argument was that if there were a flood, if creation and miracle were involved in causing things to be and if the atmosphere and planet were different a few thousand years ago as implicated in the Bible, nobody would know the chemistry and other data that existed way back when. This is all theory and assumption on the part of scientists today, none of whom have any proof of exactly what things were like millions and billions of years ago. Rather than to argue that the methods were bogus in themselves, the premise of my arguments were that if conditions were different then, a false/bogus reading would be produced by them. I don't intend to get boggled down into this discussion again, but see the need to make this point.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 09-17-2003]

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.

Thanks Rei. The highest diploma I have is from my old high school, I did attend three semesters at Bob Jones University after high school, but dropped out to help my dad in his business. I've learned much since on my own, but not the bolts n nuts of these dating methods. I see the word "possibility" twice in your post and these possibilities seem to be much of the drive of scientists in some of their theories and assumptions which find their ways into our textbooks and manuals.

quote:

---

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.

---

On the contrary, Crashfrog, I'd rather think they would be fairly consistently wrong if the false reading were caused by conditions commonly affecting all.

quote:

---

On the contrary, Crashfrog, I'd rather think they would be fairly consistently wrong if the false reading were caused by conditions commonly affecting all.

---

If I am not mistaken, this is very near the point. What ARE those conditions commonly affecting all? There isn't ONE common factor in the various dating methods. Yes, yes... I hear it coming. "The decay rate..." But the elements currently decay at different rates, so if you scale that decay rate up or down, they still decay at different rates.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Not if we're talking about dating methods based on different mechanisms and assumptions.After all what single mechanism is going to make uranium decay into lead faster, cause sediment to settle out of lakes faster (all the while preserving a pattern that is normally annual), and make trees grow more rings per year?

quote:

---

I did attend three semesters at Bob Jones University

---

Well, THAT explains a great deal.

quote:

---

I see the word "possibility" twice in your post and these possibilities seem to be much of the drive of scientists in some of their theories and assumptions which find their ways into our textbooks and manuals.

---

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?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-18-2003]