Dating methods

[Solly]

No, no not with girls. :doh: *thinks :rubia:

I want to learn something here.

Can you scientific types tell me about dating methods used in geology, paleontology, archeology etc. The ones where they tell us something is 164 mill years old next thursday.

What methods are out there - ie, I believe that sedimentary layers have to be dated from surrounding environment, rather than from tests applied to the rock. Is this so?

And for you Creationists, why don't they work properly

Please Please Please, no arguments, or I'll have the mods move this to Liberal arts, where it's Q&A only.

[tgamble]

Today @ 08:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46783#post46783)
Solly:

No, no not with girls. :doh: *thinks :rubia:

I want to learn something here.

Can you scientific types tell me about dating methods used in geology, paleontology, archeology etc. The ones where they tell us something is 164 mill years old next thursday.

What methods are out there - ie, I believe that sedimentary layers have to be dated from surrounding environment, rather than from tests applied to the rock. Is this so?

And for you Creationists, why don't they work properly

Please Please Please, no arguments, or I'll have the mods move this to Liberal arts, where it's Q&A only.

http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html

Enjoy!

P.S. The reason they don't work is that they contradict the Bible. Which is a pretty lousy reason but it's the only one creationists can come up with aside from a lot of lies, distortions, half truths and out of context quotes.

[Yog^sothoth]

And everyone wonders why evolution and really any science conversation turns to flame.

There have been a number of dating techniques, each more accurate than the next. (far far superior to my spelling I might add).

I'd love to explain them all but I know so little!

:yipee: :spam:

[Socrates]

Shlomo,

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and tgamble is right that long-age dating methods contradict the Bible.

Anyway, I would endorse the following from the AiG website

Determining the age of something

Biblical creationists believe that the best way to establish the Earth’s age is the testimony of the Eye-witness account in Genesis. In a law court, a reliable eyewitness that a suspect was absent from a crime scene overrules any circumstantial evidence, and there is no eyewitness more reliable than the all-knowing Creator. Creationists have also pointed out that ‘scientific’ methods are limited in dealing with the past, because of many assumptions. Therefore it would be folly to use any of this circumstantial evidence to overrule the plain meaning of the Bible. Sadly, many Christians do just that, i.e. the progressive creationists and theistic evolutionists.

Fighting the enemy with his own weapons

However, at Q&A: Young Earth Evidence (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp), we have published a number of articles about scientific evidence. The point of these articles is to overcome the enemy belief system (cf. 2 Cor. 10:4–5) by turning its own axioms against it. This is a form of argument well-known to logicians called the reductio ad absurdum, i.e. showing that a premise is false by demonstrating that it implies an absurd conclusion. It is a technique that Christians can use to great effect, and Jesus Himself used this and many other types of logical arguments. Many statements by anti-Christians might appear reasonable on the surface, but when each of these statements is turned on itself, it refutes itself, e.g.:
‘There is no truth’—this would mean that this sentence itself is not true.
‘We can never know anything for certain’—so how could we know that for certain?
‘A statement is only meaningful if it is either a necessary truth of logic or can be tested empirically’ (the once popular verification criterion for meaning of the ‘Logical Positivists’)—this statement itself is neither a necessary truth of logic nor can it be tested empirically, so it is meaningless by its own criteria.
‘There are no moral absolutes, so we ought to be tolerant of other people’s morals’—but ‘ought’ implies a moral absolute that toleration is good.
Evolutionists rely on a principle sometimes called uniformitarianism: ‘the present is the key to the past’. This is precisely the characteristic of the ‘scoffers’ prophesied in 2 Peter 3: ‘all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.’ Peter reveals the huge flaw of the uniformitarian scoffers: they are ‘willingly ignorant’ of special creation by God and a cataclysmic globe-covering (and fossil-forming) Flood.What the articles at Q&A: Young Earth Evidence show is that the evolutionists’ own axiom of uniformitarianism leads to conclusions contrary to their billions-of-years beliefs. If they wish to deny the conclusion of these articles, they must abandon their own axiom to do so. This is the whole point.

Three main points Atheists have no basis for believing in the uniformity of nature that makes science possible, while Christians have a basis in the Creator God of the Bible.
Atheists certainly have no basis for believing in a rigid uniformity in the past, which doesn’t even have the merit of being amenable to repeatable tests.
Since they have this belief, it is legitimate for Christians to show that it leads to conclusions that refute their long-age beliefs.

In other threads, I've cited the article The earth: how old does it look? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n1_earth_how_old.asp) which presents an excellent overview of the issues.

Also, in reply to your query:
I believe that sedimentary layers have to be dated from surrounding environment, rather than from tests applied to the rock. Is this so?Paleontologists claim to be able to date sedimentary layers by "index fossils". But at one time, finding a coelacanth fossil was proof positive that the rock was older than 70 million years. That is, until the fish was discovered swimming quite happily today!

But what you're probably thinking of is that sedimentary rocks are not amenable to radiometric dating. That's because they form from weathering, erosion, deposition and hardening of other rocks, so the particles would show the radiometric "age" of the source rocks rather than the sedimentary formation. So one thing they do is look for any volcanic rock, e.g. ash or tuff layer above and below the sedimentary layer, and volcanic rocks are supposed to be amenable to radiometric dating. So the sedimentary layer would be assigned a date "younger" than the ash layer beneath it and "older" than the one above it.

But for problems with radiometric dating, see Q&A: Radiometric Dating (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp).

[RufusAtticus]

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html)

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 10:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46937#post46937)
Socrates:

Paleontologists claim to be able to date sedimentary layers by "index fossils". But at one time, finding a coelacanth fossil was proof positive that the rock was older than 70 million years. That is, until the fish was discovered swimming quite happily today!

Except for the fact that the extant ones are different from the extinct ones. (Even in a different genus, IIRC.) I was at the Harvard Natural Museum last year and they have a good display on this.

[Socratism]

I would expect them to say that since determining these things is quite subjective and they need to support the paradigm. Gamble thinks that being able to breed is what defines a species.

[Socratism]

Today @ 10:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46955#post46955)
RufusAtticus:

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html)

I think it is absurd for this person to use such a title, when it is obvious it should have been titled:

"Radiometric dating: the Perspective of a Christian".

[RufusAtticus]

:ahem:

[Pilgrim]

Oh man, and I thought I was going to get every ones best pick up lines! Shoot!

[tgamble]

Today @ 04:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46967#post46967)
Socratism:

I would expect them to say that since determining these things is quite subjective and they need to support the paradigm. Gamble thinks that being able to breed is what defines a species.

So do biologists.

[tgamble]

Today @ 03:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46937#post46937)
Socrates:

Shlomo,

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and tgamble is right that long-age dating methods contradict the Bible.

Anyway, I would endorse the following from the AiG website


Just ridiculous nonsense is just one more reason why creationism isn't science. You claim to have a reliable eyewitness account but the truth is, all you got is a myth!

:argh: :argh:

[Socratism]

all you got is a myth!

Not an accurate statement, but the best that you have is a method that has never been successfully calibrated. The only tests on known dates have failed to give the correct answer.

[tgamble]

Today @ 08:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47213#post47213)
Socratism:

Not an accurate statement, but the best that you have is a method that has never been successfully calibrated. The only tests on known dates have failed to give the correct answer.

Your lies do not change reality. You still only have a myth.

Creationists have to tell such lies. The truth doesn't support their ridiculous myths.

[Yog^sothoth]

and the band played on:argh: :spam: :whip:

[Woman]

[Socratism:]
Not an accurate statement, but the best that you have is a method that has never been successfully calibrated. The only tests on known dates have failed to give the correct answer.

That is a boldfaced lie!

Rufus - Wow - that is a great resource. thanks for posting it.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Soc Jr. - I challenge you to read it thoroughly, with an open mind (even half open, as I know we're all prone to prejudice) and then come and discuss it.

I dare you!:yipee:

In fact, I double dare you!!:yipee: :yipee:

What do you say? Just read the article. That's all. :read:

[Bald Ape]

I see this thread deals with the subject of radiometric dating. I'm going to move my radiometric dating posts from the old earth thread to this one, as they'd seem to be more on target here.


I'd be very interested to hear a detailed young-earth explanation for the precise relationship between the ratio of C-14 and C-12 carbon and varve counts, demonstrated by this graph
http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/image/PE-05L.gif
Caption reads:
Figure PE-5. Atmospheric radiocarbon calibration for almost the complete 14C dating range (<45 ka cal BP) reconstructed from annually laiminated sediments from Lake Suigetsu (Japan).
Read more (http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htm).

This graph exactly matches the predictions of old-earth theorists (namely, the varve count = number of years ago formed = carbond date).

Can anyone come up with a theory (no matter how outlandish) of varve-formation and a theory of C-14 decay which answer these questions:

Why is the ratio of C-14 to C-12 almost exactly twice as high at 1000 varve layers as it is at 6700 varve layers?
Why is the ratio of C-14 to C-12 almost exactly twice as high at 6700 varve layers as it is at 12400 varve layers?
Why is the ratio of C-14 to C-12 almost exactly twice as high at 12400 varve layers as it is at 18100 varve layers?
Why is the ratio of C-14 to C-12 almost exactly twice as high at 18100 varve layers as it is at 23800 varve layers?
Why is the ratio of C-14 to C-12 almost exactly twice as high at 23800 varve layers as it is at 29500 varve layers?
Why is the ratio of C-14 to C-12 almost exactly twice as high at 29500 varve layers as it is at 35200 varve layers?
Why is the ratio of C-14 to C-12 almost exactly twice as high at 35200 varve layers as it is at 40900 varve layers?

After you've answered all of the above, would you like to take a stab in the dark at the half-life of C-14 (e.g., how many years does it take for half of a sample of C-14 to convert to N-14)?

[tgamble]

Yesterday @ 11:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47361#post47361)
Woman:

[Socratism:]


That is a boldfaced lie!

Rufus - Wow - that is a great resource. thanks for posting it.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Soc Jr. - I challenge you to read it thoroughly, with an open mind (even half open, as I know we're all prone to prejudice) and then come and discuss it.

I dare you!:yipee:

In fact, I double dare you!!:yipee: :yipee:

What do you say? Just read the article. That's all. :read:

It's been posted before. His only response is to dismiss him as a comprimiser or some other such putdown. Socrates isn't interested in how well radiometric dating works. It doesn't matter to him becasue all he cares about is what some archaic myths says.

[Butters]

Posted by Socretes,

"Biblical creationists believe that the best way to establish the Earth’s age is the testimony of the Eye-witness account in Genesis. In a law court, a reliable eyewitness that a suspect was absent from a crime scene overrules any circumstantial evidence, and there is no eyewitness more reliable than the all-knowing Creator."

I hate to burst your bubble, but what you have is hearsay, you have testimony that has been put forth from an unknown source. You may claim that it is eyewitness testimony, but it would never be allowed in a court of law.

From Earl Doherty,
We cannot question, let alone cross examine, those who wrote the gospels (This applies also to the OT -B) We have nothing that goes back to the original text, and so we cannot tell what changes have been made to the original, allegedly eyewitness account. In fact, our courts disallow such second or third hand reporting of words and actions as "hearsay".

But please,do not let me distract you from answering the question of dating the varves.

[Butters]

Oh yea, what about the ice cores?

[Butters]

Wow! great site Rufus! This guy had the most complete information, collected in the most reasoned manner that I have yet to see, and the fact that he's a Christian is even better.

[Butters]

I also noted this.

"It would not be inconsistent with the scientific evidence to conclude that God made everything relatively recently, but with the appearance of great age, just as Genesis 1 and 2 tell of God making Adam as a fully grown human (which implies the appearance of age). This idea was captured by Phillip Henry Gosse in the book, "Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot", written just two years before Darwin's "Origin of Species". The idea of a false appearance of great age is a philosophical and theological matter that we won't go into here. The main drawback--and it is a strong one--is that this makes God appear to be a deceiver. However, some people have no problem with this. Certainly whole civilizations have been incorrect (deceived?) in their scientific and theological ideas in the past. Whatever the philosophical conclusions, it is important to note that an apparent old Earth is consistent with the great amount of scientific evidence."

Now I've heard it claimed that the reason scientists have to promote an old earth, is because they want to defend evolution. evolution would need time, and lots of it.

But here Gosse was defending a young earth against old earth geologists TWO YEARS BEFORE the thoery of evolution! WTH?

[Butters]

What happened? To many facts presented here?

[Bald Ape]

Socratism,

Can you explain these natural, uninterpretted observations:

Why is the ratio of C-14 to C-12 almost exactly twice as high at 1000 varve layers as it is at 6700 varve layers?
Why is the ratio of C-14 to C-12 almost exactly twice as high at 6700 varve layers as it is at 12400 varve layers?
Why is the ratio of C-14 to C-12 almost exactly twice as high at 12400 varve layers as it is at 18100 varve layers?
Why is the ratio of C-14 to C-12 almost exactly twice as high at 18100 varve layers as it is at 23800 varve layers?
Why is the ratio of C-14 to C-12 almost exactly twice as high at 23800 varve layers as it is at 29500 varve layers?
Why is the ratio of C-14 to C-12 almost exactly twice as high at 29500 varve layers as it is at 35200 varve layers?
Why is the ratio of C-14 to C-12 almost exactly twice as high at 35200 varve layers as it is at 40900 varve layers?

[tgamble]

Yesterday @ 01:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47426#post47426)
Butters:

Now I've heard it claimed that the reason scientists have to promote an old earth, is because they want to defend evolution. evolution would need time, and lots of it.

But here Gosse was defending a young earth against old earth geologists TWO YEARS BEFORE the thoery of evolution! WTH?

Try over 50 years!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geohist.html

An old earth was established and accepted long before Darwin, no matter what lies creationists spew out.

[Butters]

And once again, when the rubber meets the road, no response from creationists!

[Socratism]

I've tried to get you all to see the fallacies in the varve analysis by giving you a "hint", but apparently everyone here is too set in their ways to "get it".

Perhaps you have not even read the full analysis that the link referred to and/or are too pleased with yourselves to see the fallacy I was hinting at.

BTW, belief in evolution and an old earth is a very ancient idea. Try reading some of the ancient Greek philosophers. Genesis is the only antidote to such ideas that I can think of. Does anyone here know of any others?

[Butters]

Socratism, I'll bite. I am to dumb to pick up your hint. Could you please present it in clear consise terms for me?

I'm glad you can admit that the idea of an old earth is not new. so maybe we won't have to hear it's part of an athiest plot to take over the world anymore!

[Butters]

Oh Yea, What about the ice cores?

[tgamble]

Yesterday @ 07:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48625#post48625)
Socratism:

BTW, belief in evolution and an old earth is a very ancient idea. Try reading some of the ancient Greek philosophers. Genesis is the only antidote to such ideas that I can think of. Does anyone here know of any others?

Nope! But interesting that you're claiming that Genesis is the only one. Rather than claiming that there's also scientific evidence!

[TheFiveSolas]

Bald Ape wrote:

I'd be very interested to hear a detailed young-earth explanation for the precise relationship between the ratio of C-14 and C-12 carbon and varve counts, demonstrated by this graph


As I stated in another thread, I'm by no means educated on radiometric dating techniques. However, I did re-read the article in question and noticed the caption directly under the graph you pasted.

The caption under the graph reads:

Figure PE-5. Atmospheric radiocarbon calibration for almost the complete 14C dating range (<45 ka cal BP) reconstructed from annually laiminated sediments from Lake Suigetsu (Japan).


Perhaps I'm mistaken but isn't this a "calibration" chart of "atmospheric radiocarbon" to "the complete 14c dating range" and NOT a comparison of the ratio of c14 to c12 from the lake varve samples, as you claimed?

With that being said, where in the article referenced did you come up with the following:

Can you explain these natural, uninterpretted observations:

Why is the ratio of C-14 to C-12 almost exactly twice as high at 1000 varve layers as it is at 6700 varve layers?
Why is the ratio of C-14 to C-12 almost exactly twice as high at 6700 varve layers as it is at 12400 varve layers?
Why is the ratio of C-14 to C-12 almost exactly twice as high at 12400 varve layers as it is at 18100 varve layers?
Why is the ratio of C-14 to C-12 almost exactly twice as high at 18100 varve layers as it is at 23800 varve layers?
Why is the ratio of C-14 to C-12 almost exactly twice as high at 23800 varve layers as it is at 29500 varve layers?
Why is the ratio of C-14 to C-12 almost exactly twice as high at 29500 varve layers as it is at 35200 varve layers?
Why is the ratio of C-14 to C-12 almost exactly twice as high at 35200 varve layers as it is at 40900 varve layers?


Thanks for your patience with me in trying to understand this.

[Socrates]

Woman:

That is a boldfaced lie.And that is a highly inflammatory comment.www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html[list]Soc Jr. - I challenge you to read it thoroughly, with an open mind (even half open, as I know we're all prone to prejudice) and then come and discuss it.When Woman finds an "open-minded" person, then she should have him preserved for posterity. I've amply shown that a number of leading evolutionists are dogmatically closed to any owlrd view besides materialism.

Wiens simply regurgitates the basic theory about how radioactive dating should work. It looks superficially impressive to laypeople like Woman because he goes into so much detail. However, he does not address any problems in practice with the methods, or discuss the sources of error or examples of errors. The latest fiasco about Mungo man in Australia (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0117mungo.asp) demonstrates, once and for all, that no geologist believes in these dating methods unless the answer agrees with what they think the answer should be. So we have the situation where the scientists at a University in Canberra have done dating using luminescence, uranium series and electron spin resonance. The three methods agree that the age is 62,000 years. BUT, the geologists and scientists at a Melbourne university don’t accept this number because it disagrees with their theories of human evolution. So, just recently they have published a paper saying the age is 44,000 years. In other words, no scientist accepts the dating results without question.

The articles at www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp show how the methods do not work in practice. The Mungo fiasco is hardly typical.

The key fact on dating is that a date cannot be measured directly (as mass, length, composition can). All dating results depend on assumptions about the past, assumptions which are unprovable. And you can get any age you like depending on the assumptions you make. The only reliable method is the historical method, hence the Bible is the only reliable way to understand the past. Hence, you can go to the Bible and on the basis of the records in it determine the true age of the earth.

And of course, this once again should explain to Woman why I think such WFJs are dangerous -- look how the overt God-haters rush to use him as a "useful idiot" to help prmote their cause.

And the old-Earth idea was heavily promoted by Bible-rejecting deists such as Hutton and Lyell. Their geological evolutionary uniformitarian ideas paved the way for Darwin's biological evolutionary uniformitarian ideas.

[Woman]

[Socratism:
Not an accurate statement, but the best that you have is a method that has never been successfully calibrated. The only tests on known dates have failed to give the correct answer.”
Woman:
That is a boldfaced lie!

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Soc Jr. - I challenge you to read it thoroughly, with an open mind (even half open, as I know we're all prone to prejudice) and then come and discuss it.

While I patiently waited for Socratism to read the article and answer - his mentor, Socrates decides to answer for him. Hefirst chides me for calling a spade (lie) a spade. Then refers me to an AiG article. He continues:

The key fact on dating is that a date cannot be measured directly (as mass, length, composition can). All dating results depend on assumptions about the past, assumptions which are unprovable. And you can get any age you like depending on the assumptions you make. The only reliable method is the historical method, hence the Bible is the only reliable way to understand the past. Hence, you can go to the Bible and on the basis of the records in it determine the true age of the earth.

And of course, this once again should explain to Woman why I think such WFJs are dangerous -- look how the overt God-haters rush to use him as a "useful idiot" to help promote their cause.

I already know that you are constitutionally unable to challenge the Bible. I was giving Socratism the chance to educate himself about dating methods so he would not embarrass himself with statements like: "...a method that has never been successfully calibrated. The only tests on known dates have failed to give the correct answer." But I won't repeat my rude statement and call this a bold-faced lie! Instead I say, there is NO truth at all in that statement." I do wish he's read the reference and reply though.

[AtheistArchon]

When Woman finds an "open-minded" person, then she should have him preserved for posterity. I've amply shown that a number of leading evolutionists are dogmatically closed to any owlrd view besides materialism.

- Hey Soc. Show me something immaterial, and we'll talk. :brow:

The only reliable method is the historical method, hence the Bible is the only reliable way to understand the past. Hence, you can go to the Bible and on the basis of the records in it determine the true age of the earth.

- OHO man! Why are you bothering with science at all? Seriously, why are you bothering? There is just nothing scientific about your beliefs, you just read a bible and *poof*, it's true. Why use a method you don't even believe in to bolster your religious beliefs?

- That's a classic quote, by the way. I really like it.

[Socratism]

03-28-2003 @ 06:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47361#post47361)
Woman:

That is a boldfaced lie!

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Soc Jr. - I challenge you to read it thoroughly, with an open mind (even half open, as I know we're all prone to prejudice) and then come and discuss it.

I dare you!:yipee:

In fact, I double dare you!!:yipee: :yipee:

What do you say? Just read the article. That's all. :read:

I had previously read the article. Nothing in it changes the validity of the statements I made (you might want to review the definition of "calibration").

If you can find anything in that article which refutes what I said please post it. I dare you.

(I do understand that the C-14 method has been calibrated to a certain extent because it deals with ages in the thousands rather than millions of years, however there are some problems with it that are not normally advertised)

[tgamble]

However, he does not address any problems in practice with the methods, or discuss the sources of error or examples of errors. The latest fiasco about Mungo man in Australia <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0117mungo.asp> demonstrates, once and for all, that no geologist believes in these dating methods unless the answer agrees with what they think the answer should be.


I see you still have no problem lying and slandering thousands of geologists (including Christians) in order to cling to your silly myths and to justify your rejecting of reliable dating methods. Conspiracy theories, accusations of coverup and rejecting dates that don't conform to expectations for no reason etc. etc. You'll spew out any lie to justify your hatred of science and to cling to the ridiculous claim of a young earth.

As well, even if dating methods didn't work, the the earth still wouldn't be young. Yet again, you ignore the fact that estimates of the earth were in the millions long before readiometric dating.

The antiscience loonies at AIG are hardly a reliable source of information. They offer no evidence, just endless whining that "secular dating methods" don't work without offering any evidence for such a moronic claim. They are simply desperate to cling to Biblical myths. It's pathetic!

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/EP/Mungo_Man.html

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-02/uom-naf021803.php

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mungonhm.html

The articles at www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp <http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp> show how the methods do not work in practice.


The articles already posted from scientists like Wiens show that they DO work. The actual data and results and the agreements of different methods show that they DO work.

The key fact on dating is that a date cannot be measured directly (as mass, length, composition can). All dating results depend on assumptions about the past, assumptions which are unprovable. And you can get any age you like depending on the assumptions you make.

What a load of absolute rubbish! Obviously you didn't read the article by Wiens and instead rely on the misinformation of AIG.

And the old-Earth idea was heavily promoted by Bible-rejecting deists such as Hutton and Lyell.

Who cares if they rejected the Bible? It's irrelvent. You also ignore (as usual) the fact that theologians like Buckland had no problem with an old earth. They (unlike you) were unwilling to believe lies over truth.

Their geological evolutionary uniformitarian ideas paved the way for Darwin's biological evolutionary uniformitarian ideas.

So? Do you have evidence against either? Nope! Just dishonest antiscience ravings from the AIG loonies.

The only reliable method is the historical method, hence the Bible is the only reliable way to understand the past. Hence, you can go to the Bible and on the basis of the records in it determine the true age of the earth.


Of course, this assumes that the Bible is reliable and gives an eyewitness account. Of course, it's neither. When tested against reliable dating methods, we find the Bible to be wrong yet again.

The earth is still 4.5 billion years old at least. You've offered no valid evidence to dispute this fact.

[Socratism]

Unfortunately the radiometric dating methods are not reliable.

Datings of lava flows known to have occurred in historical times frequently give results in the millions of years, and thus are discarded for any number of reasons.

Other times a dating is discarded if it does not lie between the dates previously established for layers above and below it.

There are many different rationalizations that can be called upon to discard a dating that does not "fit" preconceived notions.

In a legitimate field like medicine, scientists have had to institute "double blind" testing so that unconscious bias does not lead to erroneous conclusions. This does not seem to be done by geologists, who even have found it necessary to insist that estimates of a sample's age be included when they are submitted to the testing laboratories.

[TheFiveSolas]

AtheistArchon wrote:

Hey Soc. Show me something immaterial, and we'll talk.


How about the laws of logic or mathematics? You don't claim they are material do you?

[AtheistArchon]

How about the laws of logic or mathematics? You don't claim they are material do you?

- I think they're descriptors of material things. As such, they exist within the mind, but are not "things" themselves. They are ideas.

- Thus, I'm willing to allow that a deity might also be an idea. :smile: Of course you know where I'm headed with that.

[Socratism]

Information is immaterial.

[AtheistArchon]

- Information is what our mind does with sensory input. Again, I'm willing to concede that deities may exist within one's mind.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 01:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49536#post49536)
Socratism:

Unfortunately the radiometric dating methods are not reliable.

Actually, radiometric dating methods are very reliable when used properly. All scientific techniques have their limitations, such as using a ruler to measure the size of an atom. The problem here is that creationists get so caught up on the known instances where radiometric dating won't work that they are completely ignorant about the know instances where is does work.

Datings of lava flows known to have occurred in historical times frequently give results in the millions of years, and thus are discarded for any number of reasons.

What type of dating is being used in this instance?

Other times a dating is discarded if it does not lie between the dates previously established for layers above and below it.

I hope you can cite some scientific papers to support this.

There are many different rationalizations that can be called upon to discard a dating that does not &quot;fit&quot; preconceived notions.

Yeap and creationists use all of them

In a legitimate field like medicine, scientists have had to institute &quot;double blind&quot; testing so that unconscious bias does not lead to erroneous conclusions. This does not seem to be done by geologists, who even have found it necessary to insist that estimates of a sample's age be included when they are submitted to the testing laboratories.

Double blind testing is used in medicine when doctors have to subjectively evaluate a patients condition. This prevents them from injecting their on biases into it. However, radiometric dating is not a subjective tool. The reason to submit estimates is that the various types of radiometric dating have different windows of time in which they will give accurate reasults. Thus it is worthless to attempt to use a technique that can only give results <50,000 years on a sample that is known to not be <50,000 years old. However, if the researcher does make a mistake in estimating, then the techniques will pick it up because they will return a value with low confidence.

[Socratism]

When used properly. LOL

And when are they not used properly? Why when they give unexpected and unwanted results of course (a value with low confidence).

If the methods fail on material of known age, then why do people think they are reliable when used to date material of unknown age?

If the methods were reliable then datings would not have to be discarded.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 06:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49751#post49751)
Socratism:

When used properly. LOL

Yeap the same reason why you don't put diesel fuel in a car that expects gasoline. It's not designed to work with it.

And when are they not used properly?

Radiometric dating first measures the amount of radioisotopes in the sample and then statistically correlates that with an age. These statistical correlations require certain assumptions, such as atmospheric carbon in C-14 dating. Now if a sample violates these assumptions, radiometic dating will return an anomolous result, such as trying to date a sea shell using C-14 data. These limitations are well known and are predictable.

If the methods fail on material of known age, then why do people think they are reliable when used to date material of unknown age?

Because they don't fail on materials of known age that satisfy the assumptions of the correlation.

If the methods were reliable then datings would not have to be discarded.

Failing 1% of the time != Failing 100% of the time.

[TheFiveSolas]

Aren't there three unproven assumptions used in any form of radiometric dating?

1) The decay rates have remained constant since the rock/object being tested was first formed.
2) There was no (or very little) daughter product originally present in the rock/object being tested.
3) There has been no change in the amount of mother or daughter product over the entire history of the rock/object being tested.

How are these three assumptions justified?

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 11:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50000#post50000)
TheFiveSolas:

Aren't there three unproven assumptions used in any form of radiometric dating?

1) The decay rates have remained constant since the rock/object being tested was first formed.
2) There was no (or very little) daughter product originally present in the rock/object being tested.
3) There has been no change in the amount of mother or daughter product over the entire history of the rock/object being tested.

How are these three assumptions justified?

How else could you convert a measurement of the rock's ingredients into a dating?

BTW, these are not the only assumptions made.

[tgamble]

Today @ 04:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50278#post50278)
Socratism:

How else could you convert a measurement of the rock's ingredients into a dating?

BTW, these are not the only assumptions made.

Your ignorance aside, they are not assumptions but verified conclusions based on evidence. Yet again

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Everyone of these questions is answered there!

1) The decay rates have remained constant since the rock/object being tested was first formed.

2) There was no (or very little) daughter product originally present in the rock/object being tested.

3) There has been no change in the amount of mother or daughter product over the entire history of the rock/object being tested.

[RufusAtticus]

Yesterday @ 11:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50000#post50000)
TheFiveSolas:

Aren't there three unproven assumptions used in any form of radiometric dating?

Do you mind if I stick with radiocarbon dating, since I am more familiar with it than the other measurements?

The decay rates have remained constant since the rock/object being tested was first formed.

Well, that is what physicists have observed. I'm not knowledgable enough in nuclear physics to explain the physical reasons why the first order rate is constant "for all practical purposes." I will see if I can dig up, until then here (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/halfli2.html) is some math behind it.

There was no (or very little) daughter product originally present in the rock/object being tested.

For C-14 this is not an assumption since it looks at the parent isotope (C-14).

There has been no change in the amount of mother or daughter product over the entire history of the rock/object being tested.

For C-14 dating, when a terrestial lifeform dies it stops incorporating atmospheric carbon and thus it stops being at equilibrium with the C-14 content of the atmosphere. This is what isolates it.

A couple of links for edification.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html
http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
http://www.gpc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102.htm

[Bald Ape]

First, TheFiveSolas, my apologies for the delay. I thought I'd have a chance to swing by my university's library this weekend (I live off campus), and had planned to track down some of the references in the article in question. My hope is to find an actual table linking actual varve counts with actual measurements of C-14 to C-12 ratios. I have to admit that it isn't entirely clear whether the graph I linked to is representative of direct measurements.

I am perfectly honest when I say that I have not seen these exact numbers, and I have no way of knowing what they will be (and I'm pretty sure you are in the same boat).

This leads to a particularly interesting point: we can now do some real science (that is, using models to make predictions, not provide ad hoc explanations for anything we might come across).

So, a short prediction test: based on the rapid varve formation model, please answer the following:

1) There ratio of C-14 to C-12 will __________ throughout the varve layers.
2) The ratio of C-14 to C-12 at the top most layers will be about ___ : ______ (in the current atmosphere, this ratio is 1:100).
3) At 6,000 layers, the C-14/C-12 ratio will be about 1: _____.
4) At 12,000 layers, the C-14/C-12 ratio will be about 1: _____.
5) At 23,000 layers, the C-14/C-12 ratio will be about 1: _____.
6) At the bottom most layers (about 40,000 or so), the C-14/C-12 ratio will be about 1:__________ .

My answers:
1) decrease
2) 100
3) 200
4) 400
5) 800
6) 1600

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll really quickly deal with defending the assumption of constant decay rates of C-14. The rate at which any isotope will decay depends on how stable it is (more stable isotopes decay more slowly than instable isotopes).

The instability of an isotope is a computable quantity. In the case of C-14, it is possible, taking into consideration the number of protons and neutrons compressed into the nucleus, to compute on paper how stable that C-14 is and, synchroniously, what the projected half-life is before C-14 will decay into N-14.

Point being, if a C-14 atom is defined by the number of protons and neutrons it has (which it is), and is governed by the same fundamental physical constants we have today (e.g. Planck's contant <> 2), then the theoretical rate of decay will be the same as it is in laboratories today.

Temperature, pressure, surrounding chemistry, and phase state of the isotope also have no effect on the decay rate.

[Bald Ape]

Might I add, TheFiveSolas, that I find your demeanor in addressing this topic be a breath of fresh air. It has inspired me to spend next Saturday tracking down the raw data, simply because it seems you are interested in attempting to take a hate-free, level-headed analysis of said data.

In contrast, and being brutally honest, it's my impression that Socratism flatly does not care about many raw observations of nature. To him, it seems forensics, archeology, paleontology, astronomy, biology, or any other science with theories which attempt to explain observed evidence of historic events amounts to creative, but useless, storytelling.

[TheFiveSolas]

Bald Ape wrote:

I am perfectly honest when I say that I have not seen these exact numbers, and I have no way of knowing what they will be (and I'm pretty sure you are in the same boat).


You are right, I am in the same boat, not knowing what the exact numbers were. I'm also interested in any (C-14 dating) anomolies they came up with that they might have discarded (usually found in the footnotes only, or at worst, in the appendix).

By the way, thanks for taking the time to respond and research this.

You wrote:

So, a short prediction test: based on the rapid varve formation model, please answer the following:

1) There ratio of C-14 to C-12 will __________ throughout the varve layers.
2) The ratio of C-14 to C-12 at the top most layers will be about ___ : ______ (in the current atmosphere, this ratio is 1:100).
3) At 6,000 layers, the C-14/C-12 ratio will be about 1: _____.
4) At 12,000 layers, the C-14/C-12 ratio will be about 1: _____.
5) At 23,000 layers, the C-14/C-12 ratio will be about 1: _____.
6) At the bottom most layers (about 40,000 or so), the C-14/C-12 ratio will be about 1:__________ .

My answers:
1) decrease
2) 100
3) 200
4) 400
5) 800
6) 1600


I agree with your assessment (though, with regards to number 1, I'm assuming you meant "as we go to deeper layers". If I remember correctly the half-life of C-14 is something like 5700yrs (with you rounding up to 6000) which is how you arrived at the figures in your answers.

Also, I'm assuming that the varve layers themselves aren't being tested for C-14 to C-12 ratio, but only organic matter that was found encased in them. Am I correct in this assumption?

You continued:

Might I add, TheFiveSolas, that I find your demeanor in addressing this topic be a breath of fresh air. It has inspired me to spend next Saturday tracking down the raw data, simply because it seems you are interested in attempting to take a hate-free, level-headed analysis of said data.


Thanks for the compliment. Being a combination of German and Irish its definitely a struggle, such a demeanor doesn't come naturally! :rofl:

[Socrates]

Socratism:

Unfortunately the radiometric dating methods are not reliable.

RA replied:
Actually, radiometric dating methods are very reliable when used properly. Rufe (who can decide whether this is an English shortening or the Latin vocative :brow:), after chiding creationists for allegedly speaking outside their fields, you do the same (AGAIN)! Of course, whether they are used "properly" is determined by whether they give the "correct" results!

[tgamble]

Today @ 02:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50632#post50632)
Socrates:

Socratism:

Of course, whether they are used &quot;properly&quot; is determined by whether they give the &quot;correct&quot; results!

Still lying are ya? Typical.

[rogerthomas]

Today @ 12:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50917#post50917)
tgamble:



Still lying are ya? Typical.

Well, considering his outlook, and not to be snide, and I surely would have worded it better.....but truly, I think that is the way he really does come to accept something.

[RufusAtticus]

Yesterday @ 09:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50632#post50632)
Socrates:

Of course, whether they are used &quot;properly&quot; is determined by whether they give the &quot;correct&quot; results!

:dufus: Well wouldn't you expect any tool to give correct measurement only when used properly? You don't use a yard-stick to measure your waste-size; do you? The thing you apparently don't understand is that the limitations of radiometric dating are known without taking any dates, thus there is no circularity problem. Not to mention the fact that for things like C-14 the measurments can be correlated with samples of known historical ages. For older samples we can examine if the various measurements conform to the rule of superposition.