Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Descarte, “It is truth very certain that, when it is not in our power to determine what is true, we ought to follow what is most probable.”
A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the U/Th method to be undatable. An unbiased observer would be forced to admit that this contradiction prevents any conclusion as to the age of the crystal. But these authors reached their conclusion by ignoring the contradictory data! If a scientist in any other field did this he would never be allowed to publish it. Yet here we have it condoned by the top scientific journal in the world.
This doesn't specify why the U/Th method couldn't be used. The sample could have been from a set of conditions in which the method couldn't be used. http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/archaeology/...um_dating.html
Also, it should be noted that this "unbiased observer" never said that this gave "contradictory data". I assume that this person was concluding that, since there was no second test to reinforce the findings of the U/U test, the must stand as being uncorraberated.
As to the dating of the diamonds in the article, can diamonds be dated with K/Ar dating? I'm not sure so I'll look that up. If they can then I would assume that they're too young to be dated with this method and, as such, a rediculous date was given by the researchers.
"Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution."
-Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine
Last edited by troodon; 6th April 2003 at 01:02 AM.
I've seen this elsewhere recently. Utter foolishness. Your source does not give you the whole story and, in effect, has intentionally deceived you. The cited study was a provenance study to determine the oldest source rocks of a sandstone deposit. As such the zircons represent ages from various sources of a number of different ages. The whole purpose of this study, however, was to find the OLDEST zircons. This explains why the other samples were 'thrown out'.
I would like to ask you how it feels to be deceived by your professional creationists?
__________________ "We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special."
Stephen W. Hawking
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Descarte, “It is truth very certain that, when it is not in our power to determine what is true, we ought to follow what is most probable.”
__________________ "We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special."
Stephen W. Hawking
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Today at 01:38 AM Freedom777 said this in Post #5
Who's being decieved?
What an ironic question!
I'm assuming you haven't got the slightest clue how radiometric dating actually works? Or that you don't realize that every method has limitations that scientists know about, can correct for, and do correct for?
Or that, for instance, the oldest rocks on Earth are consistently dated to 3.9 billion years? Every time? Let's go through this logically: if there are rocks God put on Earth that are dated with several different unrelated methods that all return an age of circa 3.9 billion years, what are the chances that the planet's actual age is fifteen ten millionths of that result (around 6,000 years)?
Do you honestly think humans are that error-prone?
What's next? "Don't trust your odometers! A 15 kilometer stretch of road might in actuality be one centimeter long!" :rolleyes:
[
Obviously you, there are real live scientists here, or atleast people who know more about it than you do, and they have already debunked this nonsense. The only reason you think it's truth is because they tell you what you WANT to hear. Science isn't about what we WANT it's about what IS.
__________________ "Ach, stick it up yer trakkans!"
[
Obviously you, there are real live scientists here, or atleast people who know more about it than you do, and they have already debunked this nonsense. The only reason you think it's truth is because they tell you what you WANT to hear. Science isn't about what we WANT it's about what IS.
You. The site lied to you about the hypothesis being tested in the original study.
Edgeo said "cited study was a provenance study to determine the oldest source rocks of a sandstone deposit. As such the zircons represent ages from various sources of a number of different ages. The whole purpose of this study, however, was to find the OLDEST zircons. This explains why the other samples were 'thrown out'. "
The hypothesis was: "what is the oldest source rock of a sandstone deposit". NOT "all the source rocks are of the same age". Therefore that all the rocks in the sandstone were of differnent ages is irrelevant. They should be, as rocks of different ages were eroded and their pieces incorporated into the sandstone.
Linear Mode
