|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Potassium Argon Dating doesnt work at all | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Kyle,
One reference per message is not a good investment of this site's resources. Your references include no supporting argument or discussion or comment, and so it is impossible to tell which of your earlier assertions are supported by which references.
Further info was not allowed by the server, as it did not allow the quotes on the subject to go past a certain word limit. The character limit for a message is well into the tens of thousands. Please do not post excessively long messages. Rather, please post them on a webpage and link to them. If you'd like to post long webpages at EvC Forum then let me know via email to Admin and I will help you. I have closed your K/T thread and requested that K/T references be posted here. --------------------EvC Forum Administrator [This message has been edited by Admin, 05-26-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5194 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Kyle,
Please respond to post 59 (& 67). Quite what you are insinuating with comments like, "researcher gets what he wants, pure and simple", I'm not sure. But I am sure that you have not substantively responded to my main points; four different methods producing concordant results against VAST odds of it occurring by chance. It seems if K/Ar dating is wrong, then so must the rest be, but by exactly the same degree? Doesn't that strike you as unlikely, especially when the Vesuvius eruption was radiometrically dated to within 10 years of the actual date (ie tested against a known date)? I'm also puzzled as to why you bring up index fossils when my post doesn't mention them? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 05-26-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lpetrich Inactive Member |
Kyle Shockley has claimed that radiometric ages are found by selecting those that fit into the ages derived from evolutionary relationships among the fossils.
However, he does not tell us how those ages are derived. Fossils are used as markers of rocks, since the various species live over well-defined spans of geological time. This is entirely independent of what is descended from what, and those who first worked out the geological column had believed that the various fossil species were separate creations over geological time. The inferred ordering, that lower is older than upper, is inferred from the order of deposition of sediments: older before younger. It is consistent with the orientation of features like footprints, mud cracks, in situ tree stumps, etc. Enter radioisotope dating. It gives dates in the right order, and dates that are consistent across methods and stratigraphically-determined layers. If radioactive-decay rates vary by significant amounts, they must vary in exact lockstep across nuclides, which is asking a bit much.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kyle Shockley Inactive Member |
Interesting article on what what we were originally discussing:
More Evidence Against So-Called Paleokarst | Answers in Genesis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kyle Shockley Inactive Member |
Radiometric content is content, nothing more. It is only by uniformitarian assumption and model that we assign isotopic content an age due to assumed uninterupted process. The age model was erected by Lyell, father of uniformitarianism (to a degree). But, as the above article shows, if interpretations based upon his model of stratigraphy are shown by the evidence to be in error, and our current age models are based upon his assumptions, doesn't that put an amount of contingency on the ages we assign to isotopic content from samples that come from those same stratigraphic layers?
[This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 07-23-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kyle Shockley Inactive Member |
Sedimentation Experiments: Nature Finally Catches Up!
| Answers in Genesis
Notice the very bottom photo. "Fine layering was produced within hours at Mt St Helens on June 12, 1980 by hurricane velocity surging flows from the crater of the volcano. The 25-foot thick (7.6 m), June 12 deposit is exposed in the middle of the cliff. It is overlain by the massive, but thinner, March 19, 1982 mudflow deposit, and is underlain by airfall debris from the last hours of the May 18, 1980, nine hour eruption." Decide for yourselves gentlemen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4549 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
quote:At first glance it may seem circular, especially when deliberately presented that way. However, science uses many different non-radiometric methods to corroborate radiometric dates. Historical records, tree rings, ice cores, and varves are all examples.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4549 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
quote:Once again we see the classic creationist fallacy of exhibiting one interesting anomaly and inferring the invalidation of all the combined research of thousands over centuries. Do you have any detailed analysis of this sediment that shows scientific methods producing more than a cursory resemblance to formations that we believe to be older?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Kyle,
Please restrict discussion to the thread's topic, K/Ar dating. I believe there is a Mount St. Helen's thread in the Geology and the Great Flood forum, but if not then go ahead and begin one. Your other post was on topic, assuming the link and the next post should actually have been together, but instead of beginning discussion anew with yet another link, could you attempt to resume the discussion already in progress and that you were a part of when last you were here? Thanks! --------------------Percy EvC Forum Administrator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1392 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
quote:So what? Are you saying that prior to 1980 no scientist believed rapid sedimentation could take place in the aftermath of a volcanic eruption? It's not so easy to speculate about rapid stratification when a stratum with evidence of extensive weathering is buried beneath a stratum containing fossilized sea creatures, buried in turn below a weathered stratum and another with aquatic fossils. Such strata are seen in the Grand Canyon area. At the Bay of Fundie (no pun intended) in Canada, there are several fossil forests buried one on top of the other. This does not indicate rapid stratification. ------------------Quien busca, halla
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5194 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Kyle,
It is only by uniformitarian assumption and model that we assign isotopic content an age due to assumed uninterupted process. The age model was erected by Lyell, father of uniformitarianism (to a degree). But, as the above article shows, if interpretations based upon his model of stratigraphy are shown by the evidence to be in error, and our current age models are based upon his assumptions, doesn't that put an amount of contingency on the ages we assign to isotopic content from samples that come from those same stratigraphic layers? Current age models weren't based upon Lyell, but hard data. If you think radiometric dating is bunk, then you will be able to refute this with no problem, right? Please explain why different dating methods produce congruent dates. If you can't do this, then your claims above ring hollow, & on the basis of tektite dating alone I can state that the Cretaceous & the Mesozoic ended 65 million years ago to within 700k years to a certainty of 70,000,000 : 1. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kyle Shockley Inactive Member |
I think "believe" was the key word there in regards to uniformitarian interpretations. Indeed, the current paradigm of "millions of years" is a dogma, when you have to loudly assert and assume that every exception to the rule of uniformitarianism is an anomaly. Thank you for at least showing the audience that. Enjoy the articles, and good day.
More Evidence Against So-Called Paleokarst | Answers in Genesis Sedimentation Experiments: Nature Finally Catches Up! | Answers in Genesis Sedimentation Experiments: Is Extrapolation Appropriate? - Part 1 | Answers in Genesis Fish Preservation, Fish Coprolites and the Green River Formation | Answers in Genesis The Principle of Least Astonishment! | Answers in Genesis ANDESITE FLOWS AT MT NGAURUHOE, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR POTASSIUM-ARGON | The Institute for Creation Research Radioactive Dating in Conflict! | Answers in Genesis Radioactive Dating Failure | Answers in Genesis Startling Evidence for Noah’s Flood | Answers in Genesis Flood Models: The Need for an Integrated Approach | Answers in Genesis Uniformitarian Paleo-Environmental Dilemma at Clarkia, Idaho | Answers in Genesis Antiquity of Landforms | Answers in Genesis Field Studies in the Columbia River Basalt, Northwest USA | Answers in Genesis Missing Link | Answers in Genesis Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I think "believe" was the key word there in regards to uniformitarian interpretations. Even if you assume uniformatarianism, the fact that there's such great concordance between different types of dating suggests that the uniformatarian assumption is correct, don't you think? Unless you have specific evidence for one single factor that could skew all kinds of different dates in exactly the same way, why is it better to propose some unknown factor that makes uniformatarianism not work? It seems like uniformatarianism has the least assumptions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Kyle!
Here at EvC Forum debate takes the form of actual discussion rather than by listing links. The Forum Guideslines state in rule 5 that Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Could you please describe the point you're trying to make with the links you listed, and then tie this in to the discussion that was taking place when last you were here? Thanks! --------------------Percy EvC Forum Administrator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4549 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
So your only substantial answer to my question is to make fun of a word choice? Despite your accusation, the fact is that I have no faith distracting me from the facts of this issue. I don't follow a religion, I follow information and ideas. If you have any information that would affect the current discussion of radiometric dating, go ahead and post them and we'll talk about their validity. However, if all you have is drive-by condescension and a tiresome whack at the worn-out creationist strawman of uniformitarianism, then you're just making your own flock look bad.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024