Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potassium Argon Dating doesnt work at all
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 107 of 133 (41420)
05-26-2003 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Kyle Shockley
05-26-2003 3:47 PM


Re: Edge=Lysenko?
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Kyle Shockley, posted 05-26-2003 3:47 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 108 of 133 (41422)
05-26-2003 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Kyle Shockley
05-26-2003 4:01 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Kyle Shockley, posted 05-26-2003 4:01 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 133 (42768)
06-12-2003 5:59 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Kyle Shockley, posted 07-23-2003 3:24 PM lpetrich has not replied

  
Kyle Shockley
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 133 (47113)
07-23-2003 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by lpetrich
06-12-2003 5:59 PM


Interesting article on what what we were originally discussing:
More Evidence Against So-Called Paleokarst | Answers in Genesis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by lpetrich, posted 06-12-2003 5:59 PM lpetrich has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Kyle Shockley, posted 07-23-2003 3:31 PM Kyle Shockley has replied

  
Kyle Shockley
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 133 (47114)
07-23-2003 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Kyle Shockley
07-23-2003 3:24 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Kyle Shockley, posted 07-23-2003 3:24 PM Kyle Shockley has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Kyle Shockley, posted 07-23-2003 3:36 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied
 Message 113 by zephyr, posted 07-23-2003 3:41 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied
 Message 117 by mark24, posted 07-23-2003 4:15 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied

  
Kyle Shockley
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 133 (47115)
07-23-2003 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Kyle Shockley
07-23-2003 3:31 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Kyle Shockley, posted 07-23-2003 3:31 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by zephyr, posted 07-23-2003 3:46 PM Kyle Shockley has replied
 Message 115 by Admin, posted 07-23-2003 3:59 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied
 Message 116 by MrHambre, posted 07-23-2003 4:03 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4549 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 113 of 133 (47116)
07-23-2003 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Kyle Shockley
07-23-2003 3:31 PM


quote:
Radiometric content is content, nothing more. It is only by uniforitarian 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?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Kyle Shockley, posted 07-23-2003 3:31 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4549 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 114 of 133 (47117)
07-23-2003 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Kyle Shockley
07-23-2003 3:36 PM


quote:
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.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Kyle Shockley, posted 07-23-2003 3:36 PM Kyle Shockley has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Kyle Shockley, posted 07-23-2003 4:16 PM zephyr has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 115 of 133 (47118)
07-23-2003 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Kyle Shockley
07-23-2003 3:36 PM


Topic Drift Warning
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Kyle Shockley, posted 07-23-2003 3:36 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 116 of 133 (47120)
07-23-2003 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Kyle Shockley
07-23-2003 3:36 PM


quote:
Fine layering was produced within hours at Mt St Helens
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Kyle Shockley, posted 07-23-2003 3:36 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 117 of 133 (47121)
07-23-2003 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Kyle Shockley
07-23-2003 3:31 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Kyle Shockley, posted 07-23-2003 3:31 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied

  
Kyle Shockley
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 133 (47122)
07-23-2003 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by zephyr
07-23-2003 3:46 PM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by zephyr, posted 07-23-2003 3:46 PM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2003 4:22 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied
 Message 120 by Admin, posted 07-23-2003 4:26 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied
 Message 121 by zephyr, posted 07-23-2003 11:15 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 119 of 133 (47123)
07-23-2003 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Kyle Shockley
07-23-2003 4:16 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Kyle Shockley, posted 07-23-2003 4:16 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 120 of 133 (47124)
07-23-2003 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Kyle Shockley
07-23-2003 4:16 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Kyle Shockley, posted 07-23-2003 4:16 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4549 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 121 of 133 (47228)
07-23-2003 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Kyle Shockley
07-23-2003 4:16 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Kyle Shockley, posted 07-23-2003 4:16 PM Kyle Shockley has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024