RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#121  Postby Weaver » Dec 24, 2012 4:16 pm

I've noticed. So instead of nickel and dimeing us to death, how about you present a clear, concise, complete exposition of your claims, with appropriate references?
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 52
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#122  Postby Kazaman » Dec 24, 2012 4:19 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:
Kazaman wrote:It's one thing to be iconoclastic, it's quite another to pedal pseudointellectual and pseudoscientific dribble.

EDIT: Not to say the studies you posted are invalid, but that they don't support the position you think they do.


I haven't yet discussed my criticism of the other 2 assumptions used in the dating methods. :nono:


You haven't yet even discussed the first one. You've named it, exalted yourself as a skeptic a few times and posted a series of studies which vaguely have something to do with what your point is, but you haven't discussed it.
User avatar
Kazaman
 
Name: Stephen
Posts: 2724
Age: 26
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#123  Postby Atheistoclast » Dec 24, 2012 7:51 pm

Weaver wrote:I've noticed. So instead of nickel and dimeing us to death, how about you present a clear, concise, complete exposition of your claims, with appropriate references?


I prefer to tickle my opponents to death rather than just behead them with one fell swoop. In the meantime, you can read this Government report that discloses the uncertainty about Potassium-Argon dating methods:

Empirically Determined Uncertainty in Potassium-Argon Ages For Pilo-Pleistocene Basalts From Crater Flat, Nye County, Nevada

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0319/ML031950526.pdf

. Differential preservation of either potassium or argon in the crystallized rock as well as the evolution and character of the initial rockforming magma can contribute to real differences among K-Ar ratios from even a single lava flow. This, in turn, can lead to variations in age determinations of a crystallizing event. Another source of variation in radiometric age determinations is the difference in analytical methods and instruments used by various geochronology laboratories. Kuntz et al (1980) discuss these sources of age discrepancies for young basalts in detail. Variance among and within the subsamples and the overall laboratory-to-laboratory differences observed in this study supports previous conclusions that laboratory techniques contribute significantly to limits on the reproducibility for measurements of potassium and especially argon contents of young basalts. A small source of variation may be attributed to 'the use of different numerical values for electron and beta potassium decay constants. One laboratory in this study used 4.72 x 10-' per year for AO and 0.585 x 101- per year for e, whereas the other two laboratories used 4.96 x 10-10 per year and 0.681 x 10-'° per year for gfi and Xe, respectively. However, these differences caused negiligible variation among the reported ages. Isochron plots (Hayatsu and Carmichael, 1970; Shafiqullah and Damon, 1974) provide a method for estimating corrections for extraneous argon. This method must still rely on measured values for potassium and argon and does not explain the variance in these values.
Nothing in biology makes sense when you include evolution.
User avatar
Atheistoclast
Banned User
 
Name: Joe
Posts: 1709

Country: UK
Iran (ir)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#124  Postby Rumraket » Dec 25, 2012 6:40 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:
Weaver wrote:I've noticed. So instead of nickel and dimeing us to death, how about you present a clear, concise, complete exposition of your claims, with appropriate references?


I prefer to tickle my opponents to death rather than just behead them with one fell swoop. In the meantime, you can read this Government report that discloses the uncertainty about Potassium-Argon dating methods:

Empirically Determined Uncertainty in Potassium-Argon Ages For Pilo-Pleistocene Basalts From Crater Flat, Nye County, Nevada

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0319/ML031950526.pdf

. Differential preservation of either potassium or argon in the crystallized rock as well as the evolution and character of the initial rockforming magma can contribute to real differences among K-Ar ratios from even a single lava flow. This, in turn, can lead to variations in age determinations of a crystallizing event. Another source of variation in radiometric age determinations is the difference in analytical methods and instruments used by various geochronology laboratories. Kuntz et al (1980) discuss these sources of age discrepancies for young basalts in detail. Variance among and within the subsamples and the overall laboratory-to-laboratory differences observed in this study supports previous conclusions that laboratory techniques contribute significantly to limits on the reproducibility for measurements of potassium and especially argon contents of young basalts. A small source of variation may be attributed to 'the use of different numerical values for electron and beta potassium decay constants. One laboratory in this study used 4.72 x 10-' per year for AO and 0.585 x 101- per year for e, whereas the other two laboratories used 4.96 x 10-10 per year and 0.681 x 10-'° per year for gfi and Xe, respectively. However, these differences caused negiligible variation among the reported ages. Isochron plots (Hayatsu and Carmichael, 1970; Shafiqullah and Damon, 1974) provide a method for estimating corrections for extraneous argon. This method must still rely on measured values for potassium and argon and does not explain the variance in these values.

lol, a report from 1983, completely unrelated to the subject of decay-rate constancy, speaking only about methodological issues in determining initial isotope contents in specific basalts from a specific area.

I see what you mean with tickling to death, I'm laughing alright. :lol:
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#125  Postby Atheistoclast » Dec 25, 2012 10:02 pm

Rumraket wrote:
lol, a report from 1983, completely unrelated to the subject of decay-rate constancy, speaking only about methodological issues in determining initial isotope contents in specific basalts from a specific area.

I see what you mean with tickling to death, I'm laughing alright. :lol:


We already settled the decay-rate issue. It has been demonstrated that they do vary. Now we have moved onto isotope proportions.
Nothing in biology makes sense when you include evolution.
User avatar
Atheistoclast
Banned User
 
Name: Joe
Posts: 1709

Country: UK
Iran (ir)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#126  Postby Weaver » Dec 26, 2012 5:19 am

Uh - no.

That's not how it works, you see. You aren't debating yourself - you can't simply put up something you think is interesting or good, then declare victory and refuse to engage in discussion.
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 52
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#127  Postby Ihavenofingerprints » Dec 26, 2012 5:29 am

I for one agree with Clastie. Clearly decay rates do in fact vary, and given that if these rates sped up too much - the earth would be a ball of fire,. Therefore, we should assume that the current estimates for things like the age of the earth are vast underestimates.

Given the number of christians researching this field we can only assume they are ignoring this factor due to their tendency to date objects to the youngest age possible in order to reconcile scientific findings with their faith.

For too long scientists have been underestimating the age of the earth, it is about time things changed. And it all starts here, go get them Clastie.
User avatar
Ihavenofingerprints
 
Posts: 6903
Age: 27
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#128  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 26, 2012 5:35 am

rodcarty wrote: Most of the time discordant results are never published, only the results which agree, which then appears to others as if there are no such discordant results.



How, pray tell, would you know this to be the case?

If they're never published - how on Earth are you aware of them?

Let me guess... a guy down the pub told you it was true?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27782
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#129  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 26, 2012 5:37 am

Atheistoclast wrote:I am skeptical of the claims of radiometric dating for 3 reasons:

1. We don't know the initial proportions of the isotopes we are comparing.
2. We are not allowing for changes to those proportions to occur other than through radioactive decay.
3. We assume a constant decay rate.

Take Newton's first law of motion: v= u + at

v= final velocity of object .
u= initial velocity.
a= acceleration of body.
t= time.

If we know v, if we know a and if we know u, it is possible to calculate t:

t= v-u/a

But what if we just assumed u to be 0 and a to have been constant? What u was much greater than zero and a had been much greater than it was when v was measured? We would necessarily get a much smaller value for t
.

It conflicts with my belief in Sky Pixies
It conflicts with my belief in Sky Pixies
It conflicts with my belief in Sky Pixies


FIFY.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27782
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#130  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 26, 2012 5:38 am

Atheistoclast wrote:
Rumraket wrote:It's funny how when creotards see the slightest hints of something going their way, they instantly swallow it as The Truthtm(and blow it massively out of proportion), but at the same time they deride science and insinuate giant international conspiracies when it doesn't go their way.


I am an iconoclast...I like things which challenge the accepted view:


And yet you spend your life trying to get people to accept the view which was challenged and thrown out by empirical evidence.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27782
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#131  Postby Atheistoclast » Dec 27, 2012 5:53 pm

Weaver wrote:Uh - no.

That's not how it works, you see. You aren't debating yourself - you can't simply put up something you think is interesting or good, then declare victory and refuse to engage in discussion.


Who says I am refusing to engage? I am merely showing how isotopic concentrations can be altered other than through decay just as I pointed out that decay rates can vary. Maybe the dinosaurs were killed off by a blast of radioactivity as well as an asteroid.
Nothing in biology makes sense when you include evolution.
User avatar
Atheistoclast
Banned User
 
Name: Joe
Posts: 1709

Country: UK
Iran (ir)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#132  Postby Kazaman » Dec 27, 2012 5:54 pm

There's no evidence to suggest that's the case, sorry.
User avatar
Kazaman
 
Name: Stephen
Posts: 2724
Age: 26
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#133  Postby Atheistoclast » Dec 27, 2012 5:56 pm

Spearthrower wrote:

It conflicts with my belief in Sky Pixies
It conflicts with my belief in Sky Pixies
It conflicts with my belief in Sky Pixies

FIFY.


I happen to think the Earth is old (millions), just not whether it is billions of years old. The biggest gripe I have with radiometric dating is that, even if it were 100% accurate, you aren't measuring the age of a planet, but the age of an atom.
Nothing in biology makes sense when you include evolution.
User avatar
Atheistoclast
Banned User
 
Name: Joe
Posts: 1709

Country: UK
Iran (ir)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#134  Postby Rumraket » Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:
Weaver wrote:Uh - no.

That's not how it works, you see. You aren't debating yourself - you can't simply put up something you think is interesting or good, then declare victory and refuse to engage in discussion.


Who says I am refusing to engage? I am merely showing how isotopic concentrations can be altered other than through decay.

But you know that scientists know that, right? When you're "pointing it out" you're not making the case for a 4.5 billion year old Earth any less solid, you're only demonstrating your own ignorance of the subject matter(or your ideological motivations).

The estimate for the age of the planet wasn't just invented out of thin air and then subsequently scientists started ignoring cases such as these you bring up here.

When geologists estimate the age of something, they usually take a lot more factors into account than just an age extracted from radiometric dating. The type of rock, it's structural composition etc. can tell a lot about what processes the rock went through during and after it's formation, and these influences often have impacts on the dating of the material. Scientists are aware of this, and they almost always try to correct for it.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#135  Postby Weaver » Dec 27, 2012 7:58 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:
Weaver wrote:Uh - no.

That's not how it works, you see. You aren't debating yourself - you can't simply put up something you think is interesting or good, then declare victory and refuse to engage in discussion.


Who says I am refusing to engage?

You are the one saying you're not going to continue in the discussion ...

Atheistoclast wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
lol, a report from 1983, completely unrelated to the subject of decay-rate constancy, speaking only about methodological issues in determining initial isotope contents in specific basalts from a specific area.

I see what you mean with tickling to death, I'm laughing alright. :lol:


We already settled the decay-rate issue. It has been demonstrated that they do vary. Now we have moved onto isotope proportions.


I am merely showing how isotopic concentrations can be altered other than through decay just as I pointed out that decay rates can vary. Maybe the dinosaurs were killed off by a blast of radioactivity as well as an asteroid.
You haven't shown shit yet. You've just asserted, then refused to discuss.
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 52
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#136  Postby Sityl » Dec 27, 2012 7:59 pm

All I can say, is at least Joe's bullshit posts are bumping Cali's excellent OP.

So, :cheers:
Stephen Colbert wrote:Now, like all great theologies, Bill [O'Reilly]'s can be boiled down to one sentence - 'There must be a god, because I don't know how things work.'


Image
User avatar
Sityl
 
Name: Ser Sityllan Payne
Posts: 5131
Age: 39
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#137  Postby Pulsar » Dec 27, 2012 8:01 pm

The age of the Sun can be determined from helioseismology. The helioseismic age of the Sun is 4.57 ± 0.11 billion years (see http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0204331), in complete agreement with meteoritic radiometric datings.
"The longer I live the more I see that I am never wrong about anything, and that all the pains that I have so humbly taken to verify my notions have only wasted my time." - George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Pulsar
 
Posts: 4618
Age: 43
Male

Country: Belgium
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#138  Postby Atheistoclast » Dec 28, 2012 1:19 am

Sityl wrote:All I can say, is at least Joe's bullshit posts are bumping Cali's excellent OP.

So, :cheers:


And where is the butterfly these days?
Nothing in biology makes sense when you include evolution.
User avatar
Atheistoclast
Banned User
 
Name: Joe
Posts: 1709

Country: UK
Iran (ir)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#139  Postby Onyx8 » Dec 28, 2012 3:06 am

Atheistoclast wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:

It conflicts with my belief in Sky Pixies
It conflicts with my belief in Sky Pixies
It conflicts with my belief in Sky Pixies

FIFY.


I happen to think the Earth is old (millions), just not whether it is billions of years old. The biggest gripe I have with radiometric dating is that, even if it were 100% accurate, you aren't measuring the age of a planet, but the age of an atom.



Really? How does one measure the age of an atom? Count the rings, the length of beard, what?
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 64
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#140  Postby Kazaman » Dec 28, 2012 3:18 am

Atheistoclast wrote:
Sityl wrote:All I can say, is at least Joe's bullshit posts are bumping Cali's excellent OP.

So, :cheers:


And where is the butterfly these days?



Hiding from your awesome refutations no doubt.

He's been around, but I noticed he's somewhat less active.
User avatar
Kazaman
 
Name: Stephen
Posts: 2724
Age: 26
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

cron