|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Validity of Radiometric Dating | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
But their treatment of the KT boundary is simply, flatly, not at all as you have described it. Your example is not an example. It is something you made up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I did not make it up so now I have to prove it to you? Maybe later.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes, maybe later you'll prove that the article I've just read and quoted doesn't say what it says. Or maybe not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
That is far from the point I'm trying to make. I don't care about the detailed arguments, what I care about is how the public is being brainwashed by a presentation of questionable material as fact. There is no way to rationalize this.... Because (1) it is not brainwashing -- nobody is being forced to learn it -- it is just information being made available (that's what the purpose of wiki is after all), (2) because it is not questionable material, it is the best explanation known at this time, and (3) it is not presented as fact, but as the best explanation known at this time.
... Presentations of TRUE science don't do this to the public. What is "TRUE science" Faith? Every science is based on the objective evidence and the best explanation of that evidence known at the time. There is no such thing as "TRUE" in science ... what we have instead is accepted facts, science is shades of grey rather than black and white. Global climate change is a non-historical science based on observed facts of temperature rising in the atmosphere and in the ocean, it shows a very clear trend of increasing energy absorption by them, not just in temperature. This is why there is over 90% acceptance of these facts by the scientific community, and why people that read and understand science are concerned that actions should be taken. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mram10 Member (Idle past 3529 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
Faith,
I share some of your concern. I have many questions that have not been logically explained by secular science. There are not many TRUE scientists that seek truth. As you have seen here, true science is discouraged if you disagree. The massive fossil beds can both be explained by a massive meteorite strike 60m years ago, or by a global flood at some point. I digress, but I too have questions about the validation of radiometric dating methods that are too old to verify by observation. But, what do I know? I only have a few posts, which shows I am new to this whole "science" thing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
If you have questions, we will be glad to answer them. If you are interested in learning the basics of radiometric dating, a very good place to start is Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective (Dr. Weins is an evangelical Christian). In case you are interested, at least one widely used radiometric method has been "calibrated" against history, the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD: Precise dating of the destruction of Pompeii proves argon-argon method can reliably date rocks as young as 2,000 years (press release) or 40Ar/39Ar Dating into the Historical Realm: Calibration Against Pliny the Younger (technical paper, free registration required to get full text).
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
But, what do I know? I only have a few posts, which shows I am new to this whole "science" thing Welcome! You have come to the right place, as a number of us are very familiar with science. If you have questions about radiocarbon dating, please let me know and I'll try to answer them.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
mram10 writes:
That's false. There are not many TRUE scientists that seek truth. As you have seen here, true science is discouraged if you disagree. Science depends entirely on disagreement. Scientists try to falsify their own hypotheses - if they don't, somebody else might do it for them and make them look bad.
mram10 writes:
I would suggest that all of your questions have been answered many times; you just don't know the answers yet.
I have many questions that have not been logically explained by secular science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
I digress, but I too have questions about the validation of radiometric dating methods that are too old to verify by observation. Perhaps it might help to list the observations that do verify radiometric dating. 1. The observed decay rate of isotopes, and the constancy of the physical laws that govern radiometric decay as seen across the entire universe verify the validity of using decay rates as clocks. Even a small amount of an unstable isotope can produce thousands of decay events in a few minutes, even for isotopes with very long half lives. This means that measuring their decay rates does not require us to sit around for billions of years. We also know that the stability of isotopes is governed by atomic forces, the very same atomic forces that govern the power output of stars and the spectra that they produce. We observe that stars all have the same power output throughout the universe, and have the same spectra. 2. The observed properties of newly formed rocks verify the validity of the models used for radiometric dating. For example, we observe that the chemistry of zircon formation results in the inclusion of uranium and the exclusion of lead. Therefore, we can know that any Pb found in a zircon got there from the known decay products of U. 3. The cross correlation of different radiometric methods is another independent test of the methods validity. There are many different radioisotopes used in dating, and they each have a different stable product. Three examples are K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr dating. Different isotopes have different decay rates, and there are different types of decay processes (e.g. beta and gamma). Therefore, if radiometric dating didn't work, then there would be no reason why dates from completely different isotope pairs would produce the same dates, but they do. Different methods using different isotopes give us the same dates. 4. Correlation of radiometric dating with non-radiometric dates is also a very strong source of validation. For example, if radiometric dating really does work then we should see a strong correlation between radiometric dates and specific fossils and sediments. That is exactly what we see. This is exactly what they did with radiometric dating and the famous K/T boundary which marks the end of the dinosaurs. The K/T boundary had already been defined at several places around the globe well before radiometric dating came along. When they used radiometric dating on that boundary it returned the same date at every location. If you want to argue that radiometric dating doesn't work, then you need to explain all of these correlations, be they correlations with fossils or correlations between different radiometric dating methods. In science, this type of consilience (a very important term to understand) is the gold standard for validating a method. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Below is a chart from the article "Radiometric Dating Does Work" written by G. Brent Dalrymple, and expert in radiometric dating.
Dalrymple does a good job of summarizing the data. "First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible." I would love to see someone who discounts radiometric dating to explain how it is possible to get such consistent results.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I would love to see someone who discounts radiometric dating to explain how it is possible to get such consistent results. 1. They claim there is a difference between "true" science and those "other" sciences. 2. They refuse to accept the consistent results no matter what the evidence. 3. They claim that radiometric dating is based on assumptions as if that was an automatic disqualification. Finally, they ask... 4. "Were you there?" As if that was a valid challenge to huge amounts of evidence. In other words, all they need to do is fool themselves, which is apparently surprisingly easy for them to do.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mram10 Member (Idle past 3529 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
JonF,
Thank you for the respectful post. I have not read that book, but have spent a lot of time studying RMD. I wish I had my own lab for my own testing As for K-Ar, I have a tough time with any dating methods that range starts at 1mil years for accuracy. I trust observation and do not care for assumptions that I cannot verify. I am very interested in the RATE team that is working these issues now. Either way, thank you and I will try to check out that book when time allows.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mram10 Member (Idle past 3529 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
Zombie,
As for my experience, I have not met many true scientists. Fact Every time I have questioned macro ev, I get the "you must be a ...." treatment. I mentioned piltdown, nebraska, etc being found to be flawed, to make sure they were no longer part of the debate and I get met with the above Again, there are very few TRUE scientists in MY EXPERIENCE. Ask someone if they believe in the possibility of unicorns or aliens and see what you get met with
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mram10 Member (Idle past 3529 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
Taq,
Thank you for your respectful post. Good info, just a couple questions I have about each. 1. I have been reading about helium dating of rocks from 0-12000 ft in new mexico done by the RATE team. The article mentioned the uranium alpha particles becoming helium levels were different than originally thought, thus making the age based on helium dating, younger. It was the first I had heard of this, so I am seeking more info. 2. I also have questions about the assumptions you listed (rate been a constant, etc). Again, I read a study by the same RATE team, that I need to link, stating ideas to the contrary. I need to read more, but it did raise a red flag. Again, thank you for the info and the way it was presented. I will keep learning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I am very interested in the RATE team that is working these issues now. Interesting. You are aware of some recent work by the RATE team?Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024