RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#101  Postby rodcarty » Nov 04, 2012 7:09 am

Your claim that all dating methods agree with each other is false. It is the result of very selective acceptance of dating results. 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. One rare example of discordant results being published, likely because of the extreme publicity of the source and paucity of material, is moon rocks.

".. the age of the same rock measured by different scientists using different techniques varied widely."
"Sample 10017 was dated by five different sources with nineteen different results."
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v12i9f.htm

Here is the full table. Over 90% of the results do not match the supposed age of the moon.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/ages.htm
User avatar
rodcarty
 
Name: Rod Carty
Posts: 721
Age: 66

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#102  Postby Ihavenofingerprints » Nov 04, 2012 7:16 am

Good point. Those people who selectively review the results of objective research published in major scientific journals aren't accounting for all the evidence published on "science against evolution .com"

You've shown us a great demonstration about how to avoid selectively choosing evidence, and shown us how to objectively review the evidence. If only more people in this thread were as intellectually honest, I'm sure it would be a better place.
User avatar
Ihavenofingerprints
 
Posts: 6903
Age: 27
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#103  Postby Rumraket » Nov 04, 2012 7:38 am

rodcarty wrote:Your claim that all dating methods agree with each other is false. It is the result of very selective acceptance of dating results. 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.

Blind assertion. If they're never published, how do you know there are a lot of discordant results? This is just some personal hope story you creationists run around and tell each other all the time.
"One day, one day I tell you all those damned evolutionists will be shown wrong!!" You've been telling yourself this for 180 years now. It's the longest running falsehood in creationism.

rodcarty wrote:One rare example of discordant results being published, likely because of the extreme publicity of the source and paucity of material, is moon rocks.

".. the age of the same rock measured by different scientists using different techniques varied widely."
"Sample 10017 was dated by five different sources with nineteen different results."
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v12i9f.htm

Here is the full table. Over 90% of the results do not match the supposed age of the moon.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/ages.htm

Don't be silly. Most of those results aren't given with error ranges, and most of them lie pretty close to those 4.5 billion years. You don't have to have laser presicion to measure the length of a road, approximate ages are fine, especially if you can get a large amount of approximate ages and average them.

Then you can do statistics on your results to detect outliers also. Did you know there's a statistical test for outliers?
I should also add the discussion in the first link is a bit silly. They complain about a "mysterious" impact event. Have you taken a loot at the moon lately? Was it magically created with craters on it?

Creationist case dismissed. :roll:
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#104  Postby LucidFlight » Nov 04, 2012 8:15 am

Welcome back, Rod. Long time no see! :cheers:
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Kento
Posts: 10801
Male

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#105  Postby Bucky Ball » Nov 04, 2012 3:29 pm

Old result tables from an obviously biased source.
Come on.
You can do better than that.
The ONLY reason this argument exists at all, is because modern Fundamental Literalists NEED to support the literal interpretation of a set of ancient texts which had no clue how the universe worked, and in fact were appropriated from the Sumerian creation myth systems, and had no intention or notion of "historical accuracy" even in that culture.

Here's an article by a Christian Physicist, which debunks the Creationist dating claims. They ARE consistent, and here are some examples.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
Bucky Ball
 
Name: Jason ; Firestone
Posts: 5
Age: 28
Male

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

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#106  Postby Atheistoclast » Dec 23, 2012 7:54 pm

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.
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

#107  Postby Weaver » Dec 23, 2012 8:23 pm

All measurements thus far conducted demonstrate constant decay rate and well-understood processes.

If you want to "doubt" these, you need to 1) propose an alternative system, other than gee, my position would be so much easier to defend if x were so, and 2) you need to show that there's actual evidence that your alternative system is in fact taking place.

Otherwise you're just wishing up a tree.
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

#108  Postby Atheistoclast » Dec 23, 2012 9:42 pm

Weaver wrote:All measurements thus far conducted demonstrate constant decay rate and well-understood processes.

If you want to "doubt" these, you need to 1) propose an alternative system, other than gee, my position would be so much easier to defend if x were so, and 2) you need to show that there's actual evidence that your alternative system is in fact taking place.

Otherwise you're just wishing up a tree.


Wrong. The initial proportions of isotopes are based on evidence from meteorites and not from the earth itself. There are processes which can cause the depletion of material other than radioactive decay. It is known that decay rates do vary.
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

#109  Postby Kazaman » Dec 23, 2012 9:43 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:
Weaver wrote:All measurements thus far conducted demonstrate constant decay rate and well-understood processes.

If you want to "doubt" these, you need to 1) propose an alternative system, other than gee, my position would be so much easier to defend if x were so, and 2) you need to show that there's actual evidence that your alternative system is in fact taking place.

Otherwise you're just wishing up a tree.


It is known that decay rates do vary.


Oh, interesting, where did you read that? Could you share the papers?
User avatar
Kazaman
 
Name: Stephen
Posts: 2724
Age: 26
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#110  Postby Weaver » Dec 23, 2012 9:50 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:
Weaver wrote:All measurements thus far conducted demonstrate constant decay rate and well-understood processes.

If you want to "doubt" these, you need to 1) propose an alternative system, other than gee, my position would be so much easier to defend if x were so, and 2) you need to show that there's actual evidence that your alternative system is in fact taking place.

Otherwise you're just wishing up a tree.


Wrong. The initial proportions of isotopes are based on evidence from meteorites and not from the earth itself. There are processes which can cause the depletion of material other than radioactive decay. It is known that decay rates do vary.

Before we go down these rabbit holes, you have read the OP by Cali which addresses some of this, right? I mean, I wouldn't want to go around on something that's already been cleared up ...

And I'm sure you have some peer-reviewed science to support your claims, right?
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

#111  Postby Atheistoclast » Dec 23, 2012 11:16 pm

Weaver wrote:
Atheistoclast wrote:
Weaver wrote:All measurements thus far conducted demonstrate constant decay rate and well-understood processes.

If you want to "doubt" these, you need to 1) propose an alternative system, other than gee, my position would be so much easier to defend if x were so, and 2) you need to show that there's actual evidence that your alternative system is in fact taking place.

Otherwise you're just wishing up a tree.


Wrong. The initial proportions of isotopes are based on evidence from meteorites and not from the earth itself. There are processes which can cause the depletion of material other than radioactive decay. It is known that decay rates do vary.

Before we go down these rabbit holes, you have read the OP by Cali which addresses some of this, right? I mean, I wouldn't want to go around on something that's already been cleared up ...

And I'm sure you have some peer-reviewed science to support your claims, right?


I don't dispute the math. I dispute the assumptions. And, yes, I do have peer-reviewed articles in support of my skepticism.
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

#112  Postby Kazaman » Dec 23, 2012 11:17 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:
Weaver wrote:
Atheistoclast wrote:
Weaver wrote:All measurements thus far conducted demonstrate constant decay rate and well-understood processes.

If you want to "doubt" these, you need to 1) propose an alternative system, other than gee, my position would be so much easier to defend if x were so, and 2) you need to show that there's actual evidence that your alternative system is in fact taking place.

Otherwise you're just wishing up a tree.


Wrong. The initial proportions of isotopes are based on evidence from meteorites and not from the earth itself. There are processes which can cause the depletion of material other than radioactive decay. It is known that decay rates do vary.

Before we go down these rabbit holes, you have read the OP by Cali which addresses some of this, right? I mean, I wouldn't want to go around on something that's already been cleared up ...

And I'm sure you have some peer-reviewed science to support your claims, right?


I don't dispute the math. I dispute the assumptions. And, yes, I do have peer-reviewed articles in support of my skepticism.


I'd like to read them, could you share?
User avatar
Kazaman
 
Name: Stephen
Posts: 2724
Age: 26
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#113  Postby Atheistoclast » Dec 24, 2012 1:12 am

Kazaman wrote:
I'd like to read them, could you share?


Here are just a few to wet your appetite. There is more to come.

Effect of pressure on the decay rate of 7Be

http://www.earth.sinica.edu.tw/~huh/Pub ... 63-167.pdf

Searches for solar-influenced radioactive decay anomalies using spacecraft RTGs

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0512001004

EVIDENCE FOR TIME-VARYING NUCLEAR DECAY DATES:EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR NEW PHYSICS

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.1470.pdf
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

#114  Postby Kazaman » Dec 24, 2012 2:14 am

Atheistoclast wrote:
Kazaman wrote:
I'd like to read them, could you share?


Here are just a few to wet your appetite. There is more to come.

Effect of pressure on the decay rate of 7Be

http://www.earth.sinica.edu.tw/~huh/Pub ... 63-167.pdf

Searches for solar-influenced radioactive decay anomalies using spacecraft RTGs

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0512001004

EVIDENCE FOR TIME-VARYING NUCLEAR DECAY DATES:EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR NEW PHYSICS

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.1470.pdf


Whet. :)

Thanks.
User avatar
Kazaman
 
Name: Stephen
Posts: 2724
Age: 26
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#115  Postby Microfarad » Dec 24, 2012 9:15 am

Atheistoclast wrote:It is known that decay rates do vary.

In a very long time, they statistically are quite predictable.
Warning: the content of the post above may content inaccuracies, nonsense or insults to human intelligence. Read at your own risk.
User avatar
Microfarad
 
Posts: 1405
Age: 25
Male

Country: Italy
Italy (it)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#116  Postby Fenrir » Dec 24, 2012 9:25 am

and the variation is how much?

Enough to make 4.5 billion look like 6000?
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3613
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#117  Postby Rumraket » Dec 24, 2012 9:39 am

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.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#118  Postby Atheistoclast » Dec 24, 2012 12:26 pm

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:

The widely held view that nuclear decay rates, along with nuclear masses, are fundamental constants of nature has been challenged recently by reports from various groups of periodic variations in nuclear decay rates


1. J.H. Jenkins and E. Fischbach, Astropart. Phys. 31, 407 (2009)
2. J.H. Jenkins et al, Astropart. Phys. 32, 42 (2009)
3. E. Fischbach et al, Space Sci. Rev. 145, 285 (2009)
4. P.A. Sturrock et al, Astropart. Phys. 34, 121 (2010)
5. Javorsek II et al, Astropart. Phys. 34, 173 (2010)
6. P.A. Sturrock et al, Sol. Phys. 267, 251 (2010)
7. P.A. Sturrock, E. Fischbach and J.H. Jenkins, Sol. Phys. In Press, (2011)
8. P.A. Sturrock et al, ApJ In Press, (2011)

MIAOWWWWWW!!!!!
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

#119  Postby Kazaman » Dec 24, 2012 3:05 pm

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.
User avatar
Kazaman
 
Name: Stephen
Posts: 2724
Age: 26
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#120  Postby Atheistoclast » Dec 24, 2012 4:03 pm

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:
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

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests