|
Author
|
Topic: Uranium Dating
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4440 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
the bolded parts are a very big assumption and cannot be verified nor confirmed. such conclusions mean nothing. And why can they not be confirmed? If a particular rock structure is dated by Uranium Dating, Ar/Ar Dating & K/Ar Dating and the same figure of 60 million years is found by all three methods than it would be logical to assume that the rock is at least 60 million years old and thus the earth would have to be at least the same age. This is not a big assumption at all.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
jar
Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
archaeologist writes: jar writes: Science is how we found out that the Biblical Flood never happened, remember? this is a fallacy and untrue. given that we cannot dig up the whole world to get uiform evidence, given that we would not know what noah's flood evidence would look like, given that we do not know what the pre-flood geography was like, given that the many natural disasters, volcanoes, earthquakes, local floods etc, would change the evidence insome way, given the many wars and their destructive nature would affect the evidence, given that construction and marching of armies, migrating people would alter the evidence in some way, given that approx. 3,500 years have transpired since the event--- just what kind of evidence do you think science would find in the modern age? let's put it in simple and realistic terms, you just do not want to believe in & obey God, use faith, or agree with the Bible so you use a limited field like science to provide your excuses or justifications to live the life you want. just be a man and say you do not want to follow God and be done with it. at least that can be respected. Again, you simply post untruths. As I have told you I am a devout Christian so your last point is just silly. I have taught adult and child Sunday school, helped found several new churches, personally helped build a couple and maintain websites for a half dozen or so churches. I posted the evidence for you already and it absolutely refutes the Biblical Flood. Plus it does not depend on any of the nonsense that creationist bring up like some pre-flood nonsense. But I will post it yet again for you.
quote:
In the version of the myth found in Genesis 6 God instructs Noah to:
quote:
19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."
In the version of the myth found in Genesis 7 we see similar (close but not the same) instructions:
quote:
2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
We also find similar explanations of what will be destroyed in Genesis 6 it says:
quote:
7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earthmen and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the airfor I am grieved that I have made them."
and in Genesis 7:
quote:
4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."
In both myths lots of critters get killed, in the myth found in Genesis 6 it seems to be talking about land animals and birds while the myth found in Genesis 7 goes even further and wipes out all living things. If we play mix and match and take the best scenario from each of the myths we might be able to claim that only the birds and land animals were wiped out based on the passage from the Genesis 6 story and that we have the larger saved population found in Genesis 7. Based on that mix and match game set we have a situation where all land animals and birds found today will be descended from a population that consisted of at most fourteen critters (seven pairs of clean animals and birds) and at worst case four critters (two pair of unclean animals). Now that is what I would call a real bottleneck. We know we can see bottlenecks in the genetic record; a great example is the one in Cheetahs but we even see them in the human genome and most other species. BUT... If the flood actually happened we would see a bottleneck in EVERY species of animal living on the land and EVERY bird and EVERY one of the bottlenecks show up in the SAME historical time period. Talk about a big RED flag. That bottleneck signature would be something every geneticists in the world would see. It would be like a neon sign, Broadway at midnight on New Years Eve. It would be something even a blind geneticist could see. So it seems to me to be a very simple test that will support or refute the Flood. If that genetic marker is there in EVERY species living on land or bird of the air, then there is support for the flood. It does not prove the flood happened but it would be very strong support. If on the other hand that genetic marker is NOT there, then the Flood is refuted.
That genetic marker is NOT there. The Biblical Flood has been refuted.
But the point remains. How do you explain the fact that many different and independent dating methods all give us the same results.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10296 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 7.1
|
and you cannot use the fact that they are found in supposedly 60,000,000 ear old rocks as an indication of old age. Why not? Because you don't like it? We are going to need more than that.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 662 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
archaeologist writes: and you cannot use the fact that they are found in supposedly 60,000,000 ear old rocks as an indication of old age.
You're using the word "fact" in a clumsy way. You make it sound like you're agreeing with the measured age of the rocks. I suggest that you learn some basic vocabulary if you want to talk about science. But the point is that the rocks are measured to the same age, regardless of the depth that they're buried. You didn't seem to understand that concept, so I tried to clarify it for you. If you want to dispute those measurements, that's what this thread is for.
Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10296 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 7.1
|
havng the same date does not mean they originated at that time. Since when?
you can have 5 different, independent people examine different objects and all agree to the date of each object but the problem is it is still an assumption. And that assumption is . . .?
1. because the material dated may not have originated as thought. How does that affect the date for all of those different dating techniques? Be specific.
2. the objects may not have started with the ideal or accepted amount of isotopes needed to get a date Then the assays would have returned "no isotope detected" in the instrument. This is not the case. They did get a measurement which means there was enough.
3. given their life conditions, the decline rate may not have proceeded as pre-determined for those isotopes; How would their "life conditions" change the decay of all of those different isotopes in the same way to give the same wrong date? Please explain what these conditions are.
4. what situations did those objects endure that would have corrupted the sampe and the daters are unaware of the corruption They endured the cold of space for 4.5 billion years and a few seconds of heating in the atmosphere. This heating is so brief that freshly fallen meteorites are reported to be cold to the touch. What in those conditions is going to change the isotope ratios of all of those different parent and daughter pairs to give the same wrong date? Please explain.
5. there is no way to verify that those dating systems are correct in their assessment. Cross correlation between labs and between techniques is the verification. They use different isotope pairs that decay through different mechanisms to cross check one to the other. They all match up between techniques and between meteors.
calibrating them against each other is just the same as one evolutionist going to another evolutionist to agree on the evolutionary theory. Isotopes are not people. Their concentrations are objective facts, facts that you have not explained. All you seem capable of doing is finding excuses to ignore the data. Not a good move on your part.
also you have no ancient corroborration that the material tested is the same date as the objects tested, Why do we need ancient corroboration? Isotopes decay at a steady rate. That is the clock. We can measure how long the clocks have been ticking. It is very, very simple.
the bolded parts are a very big assumption and cannot be verified nor confirmed. such conclusions mean nothing. Meteors mark the point at which larger bodies started to form in the accretion disk. They date the beginning of planet building in our solar system.
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2356 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Science is how we found out that the Biblical Flood never happened, remember? this is a fallacy and untrue. given that we cannot dig up the whole world to get uiform evidence, given that we would not know what noah's flood evidence would look like, given that we do not know what the pre-flood geography was like, given that the many natural disasters, volcanoes, earthquakes, local floods etc, would change the evidence insome way, given the many wars and their destructive nature would affect the evidence, given that construction and marching of armies, migrating people would alter the evidence in some way, given that approx. 3,500 years have transpired since the event--- just what kind of evidence do you think science would find in the modern age? Evidence of the time period ca. 4,350 years ago is easy to come up with. There are sediments and cultural deposits of that age all over the world. Very likely some could be found in your back yard or neighborhood. But we don't need to check all over the world, as you erroneously suggest above. We only need a few places that have evidence of that time period but show no evidence of a flood to disprove the belief in a global flood ca. 4,350 years ago. I have tested over a hundred archaeological sites personally that cross-cut that time period, but there was no evidence of a flood in any of them. My colleagues have tested tens of thousands of similar sites with the same results. What I have found at that time period, and both before and after, was Native American cultures. We have continuity of cultural evidence, fauna and flora, sediments, and mtDNA. That latter is a telling argument: we have the same mtDNA types dating 5-10,000 years of age that are also found in living individuals in the same areas. There has been no destruction and replacement by mtDNA associated with the Middle East (Noah's female kin). Now you may not agree with that evidence, or the dating, but that doesn't matter. You can think the moon is made of green cheese and rub blue mud in your naval on alternate Thursdays. But that doesn't make the evidence go away. It just marginalizes your position. This was understood many years ago: Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7] Saint Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
Adminnemooseus
Inactive Administrator
|
|
Message 112 of 153 (574061)
08-13-2010 7:15 PM
|
|
|
All messages should have some obvious connection to Uranium dating
Not Carbon dating, not Biblical references, not "great flood" considerations, etc. etc. etc. Uranium dating - That's the topic theme. Find old or start new topics for the other themes. Adminnemooseus
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1655 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Uranium Halos and Redirect on 14C
Hi archaeologist and welcome to the fray. It appears you have a lot to say and no embarrassment about whether it is correct or not.
While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age the bolded parts are a very big assumption ... Denial is not refutation. Conceptually it is entirely logical and consistent that some evidence of age can be less than the actual age of the earth, however it is not possible for evidence to be older than the earth. This is not an assumption, it is an objective, impartial and unbiased logial conclusion
... and cannot be verified nor confirmed. such conclusions mean nothing. But they can be verified very simply: Uranium halos.
Radiometric Dating (an excellent source of good information on radiometric dating methods):
quote:
At any rate, halos from uranium inclusions are far more common. Because of uranium's long half-lives, these halos take at least several hundred million years to form. Because of this, most people agree that halos provide compelling evidence for a very old Earth.
Simply put:
- the radii of the halo shells are a function of the decay rates for each isotope,
- change the decay rate and you change the diameter of each halo,
- each halo takes many decay events to form a visible shell, so
- it takes "several hundred million years to form" the uranium shell,
and thus
- the decay rate has not changed during the formation, and
- the earth is at least "several hundred million years" old.
QED. Much more detail is available if you need it. For an answer on 14C dating see new thread 14C Calibration and Correlations. Enjoy. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide content - Add off-topic banner. Edited by RAZD, : Gosh moose, give me a chance to set up the new thread eh? Edited by RAZD, : promoted link
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
archaeologist
Inactive Member
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 114 of 153 (574087)
08-13-2010 11:37 PM
|
|
|
And why can they not be confirmed? If a particular rock structure is dated by Uranium Dating, Ar/Ar Dating & K/Ar Dating and the same figure of 60 million years is found by all three methods than it would be logical to assume that the rock is at least 60 million years old and thus the earth would have to be at least the same age. This is not a big assumption at all.
i have already illustrated this but let's go back to the example of the tablemaker. if he is still alive, he can pinpoint a start date to guage age, he could say that he built it 30 years ago, 50 years ago or 5 and we could determine the age correctly. but if the tablemaker dies and someone owns the table who did not know him, nor know any of the details of construction and tries to sell it. when asked how old it is, he would say i do not know, i bought it at ..... so they decide to date it but since the maker is no longer available they try other methods and they use 3-4 different methods and they all agree that the wood is 50 years old but that does not mean that the table is 50 years old, just that when the wood was cut it had reached the age of 50 bt when it was turned into a table is anyone's guess because the dating methods were too limited and did not cover all the variables. plus there is no start date to help, thus only assumptions can be made regardless of how accurate the dating methods used are. you cannot date backwards, there are just too many problems to overcome and one has to start with assumptions not fact. even if all dating systems agree, they still could be and probably are wrong. the main problem with libby's work and other systems is that they deal with the ideal and there is no way possible to tell how many isotopes are in the speciman at their origin or how many really did exit throughout their life and after. if all dating systems agree, then i would think that there was collusion, pre-programming done to ensure a certain date was selected or there was a problem somewhere else down the line because like-minded people developed all the dating systems from their bias, men who are not perfect and have no reason to want to prove the Bible true. claiming that because all dating systems agree is like a being in a store that has a cash register that has vulnerabilities and the customer is over-charged. when the customer realizes it, the storekeeper goes, well use my other cash register and when the same price pops up as the first, the storekeeper goes, see i didn't over-charge you. sorry but basically all you are doiong is using circular reasoning with the dating systems. this is our dating system and if you do not like the date use our other ones and see how accurate they are. sorry but you canhowl all you want about how good they are, it doesn't change the fact that having multiple dating systems agree doesn't guarantee they got the date correct.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 117 by subbie, posted 08-14-2010 12:27 AM | | archaeologist has not replied |
|
archaeologist
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 115 of 153 (574090)
08-13-2010 11:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 113 by RAZD
08-13-2010 9:31 PM
|
|
Re: Uranium Halos and Redirect on 14C
Denial is not refutation. i am not denying anything, i am pointing out what it is.
however it is not possible for evidence to be older than the earth. you actually can't say that unless you think and can prove that the earth was created at the same time as the universe and all the stars and planets in it. according to some theories, space particles formed and then joined together to create planets and gravity but they can't prove that nor can you prove that dating backwards is accurate. from the article:
Radiometric dating can be compared to an hourglass that is a bad comparison as isotopes are not sand nor do they need gravity to help them escape a body. nor are there other granals intheir way.
But they can be verified very simply but you are not verifying it, all one is using are modern ideas without any help fromancient sources to confirm. it is still all assumption, speculation and omits too many variables.
Because of uranium's long half-lives, these halos take at least several hundred million years to form. Because of this, most people agree that halos provide compelling evidence for a very old Earth. still an assumption and ignores other possibilities for their existence. scientists are assuming that formation only goes their way and nothing or no one had a hand in their construction. i believe i gave a car example to illustrate this earlier and the dating systems advocates remind me of the scientist inthe example. things can only be done their way regardless of what the creator said. that is one of the problems, scientists will not listen to anyone else, eventhose who were there and created the objects. they are like stubborn little children who will not listen to reason. let me illustrate it another way. i put salt in a jar and ask someone to date it and they come back saying because the glass is old and it takes 4 million years for salt to form to that specification, that i must have filled it 4-5,000,0000 years ago because all of their dating systems said so. that is the logic dating systems advocates are using and ignore the reality that the salt and glass were already formed for a specific purpose and was made in a special way. it is not deceiving the dater, it is just reality. ***side note: i do not care what jar has done for or in churches those things do not make a person a christian and when you call God a liar you are not being a christian but denying God's word and saying you do not believe HIm. think again what a christian really is before claiming it. P.S. i try to respond to each person but the majority of the comments are far below the standard set by the rules everyone must agree to that i just do not bother reading past the insulting or demeaning language and move on to the next poster in line. Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 113 by RAZD, posted 08-13-2010 9:31 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2356 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Re: Uranium Halos and Redirect on 14C
I suggest you read the following article:
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens. This explains a lot of the details in radiometric dating, of which uranium dating is only one of many methods. This will help you to understand the methods and to avoid silly mistakes. I really do hope you will give this article some good study.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
subbie
Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: 02-26-2006
|
Please, just explain one thing to me. Why is it that virtually the entire scientific establishment, many of whom worship the same god that you do, accepts the accuracy of everything that you are arguing against? I know you think you already have, but you haven't. All you said was they have the choice to follow god, but you haven't explained why they choose as they do. Let me explain. The scientific establishment might accept it because that's what all the evidence says. That's obviously not what you think. They might accept it because Satan has fooled them. They might accept it because they are tools of Satan. They might accept it because they're stupid and don't understand the lack of evidence. Why do you think they accept what you reject?
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
Dogmafood
Member Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: 08-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 118 of 153 (574097)
08-14-2010 12:31 AM
|
|
|
Anything Archeologist says. Is it just me or is this guy way over the top?
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4440 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
Re: Uranium Halos and Redirect on 14C
let me illustrate it another way. i put salt in a jar and ask someone to date it and they come back saying because the glass is old and it takes 4 million years for salt to form to that specification, that i must have filled it 4-5,000,0000 years ago because all of their dating systems said so. 1) date what the jar or the salt? either way you point is not what dating is about. no scientist would assume the jar was 4 billion years old. as for the salt again the age of the salt would only go back to when it crystallized from solution. Your idea is ludicrous as to how dating is done. The sodium & chlorine which make up the slat would be as old as the earth but the salt wouldn't, not as salt.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 3099 days) Posts: 397 Joined: 01-10-2009
|
Re: Uranium Halos and Redirect on 14C
there is no way possible to tell how many isotopes are in the specimen at their origin or how many really did exit throughout their life and after.
Ah, so you didn't do your homework..if you had read the articles cited you would know that the method proves the starting isotopic composition and that the system has remained closed. If it were as bad as you intimate then the data points would not fall on a straight line (isochrons).
but you are not verifying it, all one is using are modern ideas without any help from ancient sources to confirm.
Again, you didn't even read the articles. If you had read the articles you might have noticed that the dating methods were verified by testing them on historical samples of known age.
if all dating systems agree, then i would think that there was collusion, pre-programming done to ensure a certain date was selected
And who would be responsible for this collusion?? It would have to have taken place before the existence of mankind.. (someone is calling God a liar..)
|
™ Version 4.2
