|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there evidence that dating methods MUST be invalid? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Almeyda,
Arriving at 'dates' depends upon assumptions, This may be why i believe they are 'invalid' or 'unreliable' because if it could be proven then assumptions would not be needed only facts speaking for themselves. As I have pointed out, all methods of measuring require assumptions. What is it about radiometric assumptions that render the methods invalid?
- Evolutionists generally assume the material being measured had no original 'daughter' elements in it, or they assume the amount can be accurately estimated. For example, they may assume that all of the lead in a rock was produced by the decay of its uranium. Isochron methods do not make such an assumption. The date is derived from the slope obtained on a graph. All extra daughter elements will do is move the slope up & down relative to the xy axes without altering the slope. And since the isochron method shows good correlation with non-isochron methods we can nsay with some confidence that the potential introduced error is relatively small, anyway. Certainly nowhere near the millions of percent errors required by creationists.
- Evolutionists have also assumed that the material being measured has been in a closed system. It has often been wrongly assumed that no outside factors altered the normal ratios in the material, adding or subtracting any of the elements involved. Again, the concordance between different methods shows this to be of minor importance. You require MILLIONS of percent differences, not fractions.
- They assume that the rate of decomposition has always remained constant - absolutely constant. Correct, it hasn't been observed to change. You require the decay constants to alter by millions of percent, turning the earth into a nuclear inferno. If the constants have altered by as much as you need in the last 100 years, it would have been observed to alter, you think the universe is only 6,000 years old, remember. There is no evidence of this. No reason to doubt the observed constants. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
You have not replied to many of the issues raised in this thread. You just pop up, post a copy of something you grabbed at some other web site, and ignore the responses and refutations until you pop up and post another copy of somebody else's work. This is not how discussion is carried out.
You have claimed that dating methods regularly produce inconsistent results. Produce evidence or abandon the claim. You have claimed that when a date differs from that expected, "evolutionists readily invent excuses for rejecting the result". Produce evidence or abandon the claim. I notice you have not read the link that I provided in the first message of this thread. You really should; it's not long, and reading and heeding it would have avoided you wasting a lot of time. You are just regurgitating the same old creationist propaganda. But you really should indicate when you are pasting somebody else's words. It's polite, legally required, and acknowledges that you are not willing to actually think about the issues; rather, you just regurgitate the same old lies without question. Your message is a copy of material from RADIOACTIVE AGE ESTIMATION METHODS - Do they prove the earth is billions of years old? (or any of a few other places where this is copied) with a few minor changes in the first few lines..
Arriving at 'dates' depends upon assumptions, This may be why i believe they are 'invalid' or 'unreliable' because if it could be proven then assumptions would not be needed only facts speaking for themselves. You are misinterpreting the word "assumption". In this context it means "Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof within the context of the method". It does not mean "accepted as true without any proof whatsoever". Your mistake is common, that is why I prefer to use "premises" instead of "assumptions". However, most of your listed "assumptions" are not assumptions used to any great degree in radioisotope dating! I do get tired of the same old claims that were out of date fifty years ago ...
Evolutionists generally assume the material being measured had no original 'daughter' elements in it, or they assume the amount can be accurately estimated False. I discussed this in detail at the post linked to in the first message of this thread. The vast majority of methods used today or recently are either isochron methods, in which this premise/assumption is not used (the amount of initial daughter is a result of the method) or concordia-discordia methods in which the amount of initial daughter is fixed at near-zero by the physics of solidification of zircons and the other minerals with which these methods are used. Also see the "age-diagnostic" discussion below.
However One can almost never know with absolute certainty how much radioactive or daughter substance was present at the start. False. How isochron methods avoid this issue is discussed at Isochron Dating. I don't know of any good Web reference on why lead incorporation into zircons is so restricted, but it's so and you could verify that with any good geology department at a university.
Evolutionists have also assumed that the material being measured has been in a closed system. False. Isochron methods and concordia-discordia methods are what Dalrymple calls "age-diagnostic" methods, meaning that they produce both an age and an indication of how reliable that age is. In the case of most isochron methods, if the material was not a closed system, the analysis is almost certain to produce a "no age" result. That is, the procedure detects open system behavior and will not produce an age if the system has not been closed. Argon-Argon and concordia-discordia methods detect open system behavior just as isochron methods do, but they have an added advantage; they often produce a valid date even if the system has not been closed. It is possible that these methods will occasionally be fooled by random action that happens to act just right; it is not possible that they are fooled always or even often.
They assume that the rate of decomposition has always remained constant - absolutely constant. Now, this one is actually close to true ... but, when you come right down to it, it's false too. You're zero for four. This premise/assumption does underlie all radioisotope dating methods, and there are no checks of it within the context of radioisotope dating methods. However, it has been checked six ways form Sunday outside the context of radioisotope dating, as I pointed out in message 12 of this thread:
quote: So, "evolutionists" are not extrapolating or assuming when we say that radioactive decay rates are constant; we are stating a conclusion based on a wide variety of physical and theoretical evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I've raised this point a couple of times in the past, but they don't seem to want to hear of it. What about the many times that Sylas' list has been posted (e.g. in this thread see Message 12), or the "assumption" has been discussed? Have you done any research into the items that he mentioned? What about the fact that cobalt decayed at the same rate that it did almost 200,00 years ago, as shown by supernova SN1987A (see The Constancy of Constants? Have you read the discussion of the general issue at Have physical constants changed with time?? Have you read Isaac's discussion of the issue at Claim CF210? Have you studied the Oklo reactor and considered what it means, such as those at Natural Fossil Fission Reactors? If decay rates were different, the reactor would not have operated. Of course, I know the answer to all those questions. You are the one who "don't seem to want to hear of it".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The conditions discussed by AiG that would change a FEW decay rates require going way beyond melting the rock - they would reduce it to plasma. And they involved a decay mode that is involved in only one radioisotope dating method.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Your message appears to be a cut-n-paste without attribution from Bad Dating Techniques?. This is a violation of the Forum Guidelines. Please reply advising that this won't happen again, otherwise I will suspend your posting privileges in this forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Your message appears to be a cut-n-paste without attribution from Bad Dating Techniques?. Which explicitly acknowledges Radioactive Age Estimation Methods - FLAWED" from ChristianAnswers.net as their source. I found a more primary reference than you did! Neener neener neener!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Pointing to things like the results from a suppernova will be ineffective. You need to remember that Almeyda, even though asked many, many times, has not said where he thinks the stars are located. He does not acknowledge that they are physically distant. Since he believes that all the seen universe is within 6000 light years from the Earth, pointing to evidence beyond that limit has no meaning.
Until he is convinced that there is something more than 6000 light years away from the Earth, there is little you can point to that he will believe. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
jar
Jeez how can someone go through life never having looked through a telescope or binoculars and at least not wonder at the distances involved.Has almeyda never had the opportunity to test parallax and study such things as spectral analysis? I shudder to think at the loss of understanding that never investigating the world through science must entail. Pity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
Understood 100%.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
side note
quote: the same people with that immunity are also immune to the bubonic plague. nifty neh? or at least that's what i heard. *shrugs* but. i do have a question as i put in another thread. why would a god of truth create things that are deceptively old (or not)? like creating gemstones that take forever to make or something like that? why would he do something that would actively lead people astray? This message has been edited by brennakimi, 07-14-2004 05:09 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
JonF writes:
Ya, and Desdamona was one of them. I remember showing her some math calculations involving very simple algebra for the distances between the sun and the star and she rejected it, saying the rules of sin, cos, tan, ect... were wrong (I was using paralax). She was absolutely convinced that the stars were very near the earth and that falling stars were actually falling stars. Very few creationists argue against the laws of algebra Anyhow, I kinda miss her rants. She was somehow different than the other crackpots on the board. The Laminator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
why would a god of truth create things that are deceptively old (or not)? like creating gemstones that take forever to make or something like that? why would he do something that would actively lead people astray? because god is evil, vengeful, deceptive, traitorous, and maniacal, of course. what else does fundamentalism say about their god who lies?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
well naturally. but i think i was asking them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
While we all know that their are problems with the dating methodologies, however, their appears to be some truth therein, the biblical standards if going within the gap theory is not in disagreement with an old earth, so we have a problem wherein the rocks themselves might date old, and the fossils buried within the rock sediments would need be young (Genesis creation event somewhere between 6,000 to 11,250 years ago), given most fossil imprints are dated by the sediments you need to look to the theories of how these sediments came to reside on the earths surface overtime (hydroplate theory)(kjv pslam 104). The biblical evidences suggest that the fountains of the deep erupted, we see volcanic eruptions all the time, but the bible was talking of a world wide eruptions of the waters, it talks of a future shaking of the earth not such as was since man was upon the earth, where the islands will be no more, so we have to look that the sediments on the earths surface might well of came from within the earth (the bibles inference of past shakings of the earth pre-flood), the erupting of the sediments from within the earth), the only good source to check on the age of the rock sediments deep within the earth comes from the Kola Well, and reputable scientists interestingly dating these rocks date millions even billions of years old, the problem with the dating methodologies is that they are dating the rocks to age the fossil imprints(so all fossil imprints will date old, if they are dating the rocks to age the imprint), "if" the rock sediments formed via the biblical fountains of the deep eruptions, you need evidences that these sediments would of dated old even before they erupted out from within the earth ([in the Kola study you have your evidence]). With leaching, mineralization, elements seeking equilibrium after the earth belched up these sediments over time, the dating methodologies simply confirms that the reason the rock sediments primarily all date millions of years old is because they erupted out from within the earth, the reason the stratification layerings date millions of years that buried the fossils record within the biblical context, and the reason the dating methods seem to be in agreement (dating methodologies is simply creating an illusion that the fossils are as old as the rock sediments). TOE needs to do this to remain viable, interestingly the Kola sediments date old, and is this not the same kind of sediments that Walt Brown believes by the forces of cavitation erupted within the flood waters, and perhaps pre-flood when God created the foundations of the earth (past pre-flood shakings of the earth before man was upon the earth)if so then why would not all the sediments not date old, like the sediments within the kola's super deep well core samplings, etc...
ICDP: Error 404 - Page not found P.S. I'm taking a vacation, so wouldn't likely be back on line for a bit, seems though to me that your rocks should be dating old, cause the rock sediments deep within the earth dates old too(hydro-plate theory), but that doesn't mean the fossil imprints are as old as the rock sediments that buried them within(hydro-plate theory), that too me is simply an excuse by TOE to say the fossil imprints are old, cause they are found buried within these sediments, etc...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
whatever
earth, so we have a problem wherein the rocks themselves might date old, and the fossils buried within the rock sediments would need be young Would you care to explain how the fossilization of bone throigh the replacement by minerals that form a cast replica to replace the original bone came to be in the Genesis creation event somewhere between 6,000 to 11,250 years ago?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024