Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 63 (9159 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: K.Rose
Post Volume: Total: 914,753 Year: 2,010/9,624 Month: 1,443/567 Week: 51/338 Day: 10/41 Hour: 4/2

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   The dating game
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

Message 76 of 94 (417201)
08-19-2007 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Ihategod
08-19-2007 8:18 PM

Re: Question,
. The fact that airplanes 50 years ago would date to millions of years is the question.
Except that they don't. The depth of the snow or ice layer has nothing to do with the annual layer formation -- those are marked by different phenomena, different chemisty, and what you have been reading is a typical creatortionista shell game misrepresentation of the truth. They mix storm layers with annual layers. Why? Because they need to have the dating method be false.
Response 2. I agree with the top half. Yes the planes were buried under snow. The fact they only take samples from "stable ice fields" is erroneous, explain to me how antartica isn't an active glacier. And in the last sentence its uniformitarianism all over again. How do they know that it's always been like that? Short answer: they don't
Response 3. Couldn't be melt layers that would ruin the theory. wait...., they are melt layers! The assumption is that it's summer/winter etc., not hot/cold.
Nope, you missed again. The ice that falls\forms in the winter is different from what fall\forms in the summer -- see if you can find that detail. I suggest research from the scientific sources, not creatortionistas ...
Error 404: Page or Resource Not Found | NCEI
UniBE: Error
Just a moment...
Just a moment...
Let me know if you have any trouble with the articles (pdfs may take a while to load)
Edited by RAZD, : .

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Ihategod, posted 08-19-2007 8:18 PM Ihategod has not replied

Member (Idle past 2100 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007

Message 77 of 94 (417205)
08-19-2007 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Ihategod
08-19-2007 8:18 PM

Re: Question,
Response 1. Is a red herring. The method of dating isn't in question. The fact that airplanes 50 years ago would date to millions of years is the question.
Is your typo intentional or accidental? Your article reference said "thousands", not "millions" (we don't have ice core sequences in the millions of years).
But your creationwiki article gives no evidence even of thousands. It talks about thicknesses, and implies that this must equate to thousands of years. The thickness of these layers gets thinner and thinner as one goes down due to the increasing pressure.
I think your YEC article is making an unwarranted uniformitarian assumption that the relation of ice thickness to time span is constant. It is not.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Ihategod, posted 08-19-2007 8:18 PM Ihategod has not replied

Member (Idle past 2100 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007

Message 78 of 94 (417208)
08-19-2007 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Ihategod
08-19-2007 7:31 PM

Re: Question,
Vashgun writes:
uniformitarianism has been verified? Stop the presses! I'd like to see the article on that. You really like saying science. It's like your religious mantra. Because if SCIENCE says it! What science? Science is your god and idol. lol
How does uniformitarianism not apply to this thread? We are talking about dating, so the fundemental aspect of radiometric dating is based on a religious worldview. Your religiousity scares me.
There's a LOT of confusion here.
1) "Uniformitarianism" vs "catastrophism" was a valid historical debate a century or so ago, restricted to discussions of geological processes. Uniformitarianism initially won out, but the modern picture is a combination of both. The impact event that killed the dinosaurs is an example. David Raup wrote a nice popular level book on this a few years back (Maybe The Nemesis Affair?). But this has little to do with modern dating methods. In fact, modern dating methods make the discussion moot because their dates do not depend on the rates of geological processes.
Note: the YEC application of "uniformitarianism" to all of science is just plain wrong. For most areas of science the term is irrelevant.
2) Radiocarbon was initially based on "uniformitarian" assumptions (decay rate is constant, natural abundance ratio in upper atmosphere is constant). Further research has verified the first assumption, and given minor corrections to the second. Calibrating to tree ring dates avoids these uniformitarian assumptions, BTW.
3) One's "uniformitarian philosophy" or religion does not change the facts or reliability of the dating methods.
4) Some of the early developers of radiocarbon dating were evangelical Christians. They did not treat science as their god or idol.
Edited by kbertsche, : clarified point 1.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Ihategod, posted 08-19-2007 7:31 PM Ihategod has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 79 of 94 (417219)
08-19-2007 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Ihategod
08-19-2007 8:18 PM

Re: Question,
Is a red herring.
No, it's not a red herring. It is how the assumption of uniformitarianism is justified. When different independent methods give the same answers, either the assumptions are correct, or we are witnessing a remarkable set of coincidences. For some reason, creationists prefer to believe the world is filled with remarkable, unexplainable coincidences.
The method of dating isn't in question.
Huh? What are you talking about? You and your link are questioning this method of dating. You are confused.
The fact that airplanes 50 years ago would date to millions of years is the question.
Huh? Who dated the airplanes? Not even your link claimed that anyone dated the airplanes. Your link just talks about the planes being buried under a lot of ice.
...explain to me how antartica isn't an active glacier.
Because they can actually observe the movement of the ice.
And in the last sentence its uniformitarianism all over again.
Sure. Because the assumption of uniformitarianism matches with actual observations.
Here is one abstract about volcanic ash found in an ice core in Greenland. The minerology of the ash is very similar to ash taken from a sediment core in the Atlantic. If the uniformitarian assumption is correct, then the two dates of these ash deposits should match. There's no other reason why these two different dating methods should give the same ages.
And the ages do match up. Just as the uniformitarian assumption predicts. To a creationist, this is another amazing coincidence among a huge number of coincidences that a creationist must accept. To someone with a little bit of sense, though, this is not surprising. One can count annual layers in the ice. One can use oxygen isotope dating to date layers in ocean sediment cores. And, seeing how these two methods agree with each other (and with examples in other dating methods), it appears that our confidence in our assumptions are justified.
Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Ihategod, posted 08-19-2007 8:18 PM Ihategod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Ihategod, posted 08-20-2007 12:44 AM Chiroptera has not replied

Member (Idle past 5998 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007

Message 80 of 94 (417243)
08-20-2007 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Chiroptera
08-19-2007 11:15 PM

Re: Question,
Your absolutely right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Chiroptera, posted 08-19-2007 11:15 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Member (Idle past 5303 days)
Posts: 22
From: Fernley
Joined: 07-03-2009

Message 81 of 94 (514079)
07-03-2009 3:36 PM

There are so many ways to try and tell how old something is, but because it is in the past and out of the reach of observable science, it can never be considered absolute fact.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset to eliminate signature spam.

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-03-2009 4:01 PM wirkkalaj has not replied

Posts: 3973
Joined: 09-26-2002

Message 82 of 94 (514085)
07-03-2009 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by wirkkalaj
07-03-2009 3:36 PM

Your signature spam has been deleted
See subtitle.
I've left your homepage link alone, although it doesn't seem to actually lead to a valid site.
Usually members trying to do such signature spam are permanently suspended. I'm giving you a break in that you might actually also be here for reasons other than spamming.
Behave yourself.
Added by edit: Some wirkkalaj The Age of the Earth material elsewhere.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1
Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 2
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by wirkkalaj, posted 07-03-2009 3:36 PM wirkkalaj has not replied

Member (Idle past 4894 days)
Posts: 40
Joined: 03-29-2010

Message 83 of 94 (552496)
03-29-2010 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Reserve
03-31-2007 2:11 PM

It says that Potasium-argon does not work for recent dates. I wonder, why not? why only for ages older than 100kya?
Because it has a long half-life. Not enough Argon will have accumulated for an accurate reading. It is intended for measuring things millions and billions of years old, not thousands.
A similar question for radiocarbon dating. If radiocarbon dating is only useful for a maximum date of 100,000 why is it that when dating anything older we would get "back nonsense numbers"?
Usually I think its from creationists contaminating the sample.
Radiocarbon, like all things, does not work in all situations or all circumstances. Honest researchers are aware of this, therefore they avoid carbon dating things that are likely to give inaccurate results. Creationists on the other hand will rush to carbon date things like 45 million year old petrified 'wood.'
Also, its the ratio of C12 to C14 that is important. If you date something millions of years old and say that you found carbon there, that doesn't mean anything.
Also, implying that radiocarbon dating doesn't work when tested in situations where it is not meant to work is like saying computers don't work because you just threw one in a volcano and it doesn't turn on anymore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Reserve, posted 03-31-2007 2:11 PM Reserve has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Percy, posted 03-30-2010 9:45 AM rockondon has not replied

Posts: 22275
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0

Message 84 of 94 (552626)
03-30-2010 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by rockondon
03-29-2010 1:59 PM

I wouldn't count on a reply - Reserve hasn't visited more recently than almost three years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by rockondon, posted 03-29-2010 1:59 PM rockondon has not replied

Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 4611 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 07-10-2011

Message 85 of 94 (623605)
07-11-2011 9:31 PM

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide content.

Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 4476 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 11-25-2011

Message 86 of 94 (642047)
11-25-2011 2:05 AM

we should be able to use it on anything that is 200 years or older.
RS Gold
Cheapest WOW Gold
Buy World Of Warcraft Gold supports spam. supports spam.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change subtitle, nuke spam links, add message.

Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011

Message 87 of 94 (642740)
12-01-2011 7:21 AM

This might be a good thread for me to seek some information from those who know. The lack of radioisotopes with half-lives less than about 80,000,000 years on the Earth is good evidence that it has to be billions of years old. The usual YEC explanation is there was a period of rapid decay at Creation and during and/or after the Flood. I believe the short-lived isotopes are observed to appear and disappear as expected in supernovae. My question is :- have the same radioisotopes been observed to be absent in the Sun and in Moon rocks? If so this would mean YEC would have to explain why Sun and Moon were affected by the Flood's episode of rapid decay. Are the isotopes with shorter half-lives e.g. 1 My able to be observed in younger stars? If so that would suggest the Sun did not have to be made without them. Thanks to any who can enlighten me. As a related thought I wonder if isotope abundance is how a star is determined to be young.

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Coragyps, posted 12-01-2011 11:05 AM Pollux has not replied

Member (Idle past 703 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002

Message 88 of 94 (642764)
12-01-2011 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Pollux
12-01-2011 7:21 AM

Technetium is present in some Red Giant stars that are actively dredging up material from their interiors - where fresh technetium is being synthesized by nuclear reactions. Googling "solar technetium" turns up some very old references that raise the possibility of some in the Sun, but more, later references that say probably the spectral lines are misassigned. The Moon doesn't seem to have any.
Some Cretinists claim the the "accelerated nuclear decay" was during their Creation Week - so they will just say that the Sun and Moon were made without Tc or were subject to accelerated decay as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Pollux, posted 12-01-2011 7:21 AM Pollux has not replied

Suspended Member (Idle past 4372 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 03-07-2012

Message 89 of 94 (655085)
03-07-2012 6:59 AM

My Candy Love is an online dating game
Hi,Welcome to My Candy Love, my name is john walker and I'm here to show you how the game works.Candy love is a online dating game. Are you ready? for Love Game,Kissing Games and Dating Sim.
Edited by Admin, : Spamify the links.

Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 4304 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 05-11-2012

Message 90 of 94 (661950)
05-11-2012 5:40 AM

Interesting Spam - Over 40s Dating
Proud supporter of spam!
Edited by Admin, : Hide spam text, spamify links.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024