Isochron Dating

[seebs]

This never got an informative response. I think it's worth getting a clear response, because, if people are gonna make claims about math, they should be able to support those claims, or they should grant that the claims were in error.

I previously wrote:
---
Well, my old math professor has been in the grave for some years now... I don't know that I've taken "upper level" math. I made it a couple courses short of a B.A., and both of my parents were mathematicians.

There is a famous "proof" that 1 and 1 do not equal 2. It is a joke, presented for the amusement of the students. The proof that they *DO* equal 2 is hard to adequately explain. If you want a simple version:

S(S(O)) = SSO

should do it.

As to the factorial... uhm... No. 0!=1. 1!=1, too, because it's 1*0!.

 

[ardipithecus]

Originally posted by npetreley
It is? So I guess we should take your word for it because you were there when the rock formed, right?

So here is my question to you. Five thousand years ago, did coconuts fall up or down or not at all? How do you know? Where you there? What has been done was nothing more than the application of basic physics and chemistry.

1. Actually, it's not necessarily true in lava formed today. It is assumed to be true in lava formed today because lava samples that do not yield the expected results are tossed out as anomalies or assumed to be contaminated. In other words, you get the results you want because you only accept the results you expect and throw out anything else.

Do you have an evidence that there is a world-wide conspiracy by those doing radiometric dating to cover-up the evidence? Do you have any idea that these test are not cheap and thus doing numerous test and throwing out all but a few that work out is simply out-of-the-question for reasons of basic economics. Do you have any idea that this sort of behavior is because of elementary physics/chemistry? Indeed, so simple that it stuff that someone is supposed to mastered within a few weeks of starting first year high school chemistry.

2. Lava doesn't necessarily form today the way it formed millions of years ago. That is, if indeed, we're talking about millions of years.

Irregardless of how lava formed, it must obey the laws of physics. The laws of physics are what forces this kind of behavior. Indeed any change of laws of physics that would allow this kind of behavior not to happen will as a minor side-effect kill off all life on Earth.

But for the sake of argument, lets assume that a newly formed rock does not start with a straight line with m=0. This is the real beauty of isochron methods, because if that was not initially true the isochron will be observed. The test will give the answer of "this test gives no results." The formation of the isochron depends on those initial assumptions being true.

The problem is that we can't know, because we're basing our methodology on the assumption that millions of years have passed, and therefore we've formed our methodology on a possibly false assumption. If so, we will always get erroneous results that are perfectly logical, self-consistent, and mathematically correct.

This is an outright false statement. Isochrons do not assume that the Earth or anything else is millions of years old. It measures the age of various things. What it assumes is that the laws of physics are unchanging, at least to the degree which they effect the test. Again if this is not true the isochron will be destroyed.

 

[DonaldW112]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
To be honest, I really don't think its worth the time as the reasons above state. If I could show you a mathematical or chemical way they don't work I doubt you would believe me.

If you could show how the above is wrong or even questionable I would love to help write it up for publication. My math and chemistry skills are fairly good and I have even worked in the nuclear chemistry area before. I would say that it should be worth your time since it would go a long way to support YEC.

Donald

P.S. Does the ICR have any comments on radioactive dating that don't involve the change in decay constants? Which of course causes a whole host of problems.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by seebs

We're still waiting, Louis.

Were you wrong about the math, or are you going to present even a *hint* of a reason to believe your claim that 1!=0, or that there's a good proof that 1+1 isn't 2?

If you're gonna comment about my habit of "dodging" questions, well, let's see you stop dodging 'em yourself.

---
Well, my old math professor has been in the grave for some years now... I don't know that I've taken "upper level" math. I made it a couple courses short of a B.A., and both of my parents were mathematicians.

There is a famous "proof" that 1 and 1 do not equal 2. It is a joke, presented for the amusement of the students. The proof that they *DO* equal 2 is hard to adequately explain. If you want a simple version:

S(S(O)) = SSO

should do it.

As to the factorial... uhm... No. 0!=1. 1!=1, too, because it's 1*0!.