Isochron Dating

[Starscream]

Hmm...sorry, I'd have to disagree with you with that on here. not many lurkers in this area besides people that have made their mind up already from what I can see.

Funny you should say that.

Lurkers discuss Louis' mathematics

I guess this discusion isn't going to get too far now, but let me tell you LouiseBooth that you are one of the most dishonest and stubborn debaters I've ever come accross on the net.

But maybe that's what you want? Maybe you want me to get so frustrated with your childish "You didn't take higher level math" crap that my response to you would bring upon my banning? Is that it? Are you just playing a game with us here? Are you just trolling?

You can weasel out of this discussion any way you like but we all now you got burned here. (and BTW, we all see you have plenty of time to contribute to discussions on these boards)

Why can't you just admit that you don't have the mad skillz to back up your claims?

 

[LouisBooth]

Hey at least San was honest and admited I was right The point that I was making is that math and logic can't take you as far as you want, and never will, in terms of a philosphical issue. As far as the 30% thing was concerned if you actually look at the context of my post it wasn't a concrete number, but then again, most athiests don't ever understand the word context.

 

[LouisBooth]

ahh..and people talking on a board called the 'secular web' really doesn't matter to me that much, just to let ya know. You can't please everyone all of the time, and I really only have to please one person all of the time..his name is God Not the first time people have talked about me, not the last i"m sure.

 

[mac_philo]

Way to witness!

 

[LouisBooth]

Umm...When people have an closed mind about the subject or person already , I'm not sure the fault is mine

 

[Josephus]

"I guess this discusion isn't going to get too far now, but let me tell you LouiseBooth that you are one of the most dishonest and stubborn debaters I've ever come accross on the net."

This discussion has gotten way out of hand. I am reviewing all threads in this forum as a result.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Real mature Starscream. Start a flame against a user on another message board so that nothing can be done about it. You really need to analyize some things in your life my friend and I pray that the Spirit gives you some wisdom to straighten those issues out in your life.

 

[Josephus]

"Oh come on, isn't anyone going to try and contest this one? I am sure that someone out there "knows better" then all these scientists who must be wrong, who must have an agenda, who must be making it all up as they go along."

I have two objections to your method (if it is indeed your method):
First is, there is no need to go in a lengthy explanation of how to plot a simple graph based on isotopic decay. That only confuses people (even I had a bit of trouble trying to understand your point and purpose for it in relationship to the discussions at hand).

My second objection:

This proof does depend on one assumption that I have not mentioned so far. It assumes that every part of the rock when formed the radio of the radioactive daughter to the non-radioactive isotope of the same element as the daughter is the same.

First, this is quite an ambiguous statement. To which are you referring? The daughter radios of the isotopes, or the formation of the rock to include the isotopes themselves? Dude, you can make a simple statement out of this without confusing the lot of everyone. From that perspective, it appears this is a badly-worded statement. For purposes of this discussion, I ask you to rephrase it so your "lukers" can understand too. Or if you won't I'll be more than happy to oblige, but I first want to test to make sure YOU know what you are talking about.



And finally, my third objection:

Your post appears to be copied from another source since the coding appears to be cut and choppy when I edit your post - the characteristic signature of cut and pasted information from the web.

Your reference to Talk Origins also concerns me. Granted they have a LOT of information, but where they get it is often questioned by even other scientists and people I've debated on both sides of the issue. In short, I find Talk Origins to be just as unreliable in source-providing as Creationist websites. And this is why I am now banning the further use of source material from either Talk Origins and a few specified Creationist websites. A list will be up shortly.

People will get their own data, and use their own brains; and not someone else's words on this message board, in discussing topics requiring the base use of logical and rational thinking, and the comprehension of all involved.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Josephus, Nice to meet you. You have me concerned with this:

Your reference to Talk Origins also concerns me. Granted they have a LOT of information, but where they get it is often questioned by even other scientists and people I've debated on both sides of the issue. In short, I find Talk Origins to be just as unreliable in source-providing as Creationist websites.

The quality of articles found on TalkOrigins varies, and I agree that some of the ones found there are not well documented. I do sometimes link to their site, but I am very selective about what articles I will link to there. I hope you will consider disallowing TalkOrigins on a case by case basis instead of a blanket rule. After all, there is nothing on the web that can compare to the defences of evolution that are found there, and it is near impossible to refute every creationist argument from scratch, re-inventing the wheel each time.

I understand your objection to "cut & paste" scholarship. If this is what you mean to disallow, by all means, keep up the good work!

Very good to meet you,

Jerry

 

[Josephus]

I try to approach things from a third grade perspective because often times you will find that the average human intelligence is at a third grade level when it comes to understanding some of these concepts. This is why I'm not all that interested in doing the work of other creationists in refuting talkorigin articles.

What I am after in this forum is in fact, original thinking, since it is my personal belief and philosophy that if you can think for yourself, you stand a better chance of being secure in your faith (whatever that may be), and in the truth you trust.

 

[ardipithecus]

Originally posted by Josephus

I have two objections to your method (if it is indeed your method):
First is, there is no need to go in a lengthy explanation of how to plot a simple graph based on isotopic decay. That only confuses people (even I had a bit of trouble trying to understand your point and purpose for it in relationship to the discussions at hand).

I did not know I posted a lengthy explanation of how to plot a simple graph. Indeed I pretty much left that as implied. What I did provide was a lengthy explanation
to show that a line will be actually formed.

My second objection:


First, this is quite an ambiguous statement. To which are you referring? The daughter radios of the isotopes, or the formation of the rock to include the isotopes themselves? Dude, you can make a simple statement out of this without confusing the lot of everyone. From that perspective, it appears this is a badly-worded statement. For purposes of this discussion, I ask you to rephrase it so your "lukers" can understand too. Or if you won't I'll be more than happy to oblige, but I first want to test to make sure YOU know what you are talking about.

Maybe it would be clearer with a real example. For Rb-Sr isochrons, D is [sup]87[/sup]Sr. This isotope of strontium is produced from the decay of [sup]87[/sup]Rb. D[sub]i[/sub] is [sup]86[/sup]Sr. This isotope of strontium is not the product of radioactive decay and it does not decay itself. Thus the system is closed, [sup]86[/sup]Sr is a constant. When the rock forms [sup]87[/sup]Sr/[sup]86[/sup]Sr is the same for all points in the rock. The reason for this is simple chemistry. The isotopes of a given element have the same chemistry. The other physical characteristics are for all practical purposes identical since a tad over 1% difference in
mass not going to result in a major difference. Thus
[sup]86[/sup]Sr will behave in the same way as [sup]87[/sup]Sr. When the rock was lava it was homogenized. When it solidifies there is no reason for the D/D[sub]i[/sup] ratio to vary. On the graph a horizontal line will result. Now [sup]87[/sup]Rb/[sup]86[/sup]Sr ratios will vary when the rock forms since they are diffent elements and will act differently. N!ow since this last ratio varies the rocks the amount of [sup]87[/sup]Sr formed the beta decay of [sup]87[/sup]Rb will vary from spot to spot in the rock in proportion to the amount of that of the parent. Thus the line in the graph will no longer by horizonal. The line's slope will increase over time.
The math in the original post showed that the age of the rock can be determined from the slope the isochron line.
I did not solve for time in my original post. But if someone is interested, it is t=ln(m+1)/k.

And finally, my third objection:

Your post appears to be copied from another source since the coding appears to be cut and choppy when I edit your post - the characteristic signature of cut and pasted information from the web.

I am the original author of the piece. I edited the post on text editor and pasted to your system. I will NEVER copy and paste anyone's work without clear indication of credit. Only one of my posts was a cut and paste and it clearly stated who the real author was. (Now I will feel free to copy and paste things that I am the author of.)

Your reference to Talk Origins also concerns me. Granted they have a LOT of information, but where they get it is often questioned by even other scientists and people I've debated on both sides of the issue. In short, I find Talk Origins to be just as unreliable in source-providing as Creationist websites. And this is why I am now banning the further use of source material from either Talk Origins and a few specified Creationist websites. A list will be up shortly.

The reference to the T.O. FAQ on isochron dating is a reference. It was given for those who needed more detail on what I was talking about and in particular need to see a graph. Absolutely nothing that I have posted in this forum came from The T.O. Archive. [Edited in later: I forgot one thing. My post on the supernova misquotation was based on a segment from one of its FAQs though one that written by myself. Sorry forgot about that. And note that I am not going to hide my error though I could have easily done so with this edit.]

T.O. is FAR more accurate than any creationist web site that I have seen. (And I would have stated that even before I started helping there last fall.) But if you think T.O. has an incorrect piece of infomation in it please feel free to actually state what it is. And unlike Answers in Genesis that makes it a policy not to almost never link to opposing views, T.O.'s policy is to link to articles with opposing views.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by LouisBooth

Oh, and you can also mention that the factorial of 1 is not one, its zero. You've never taken upper level math have you?

If you had taken higher level math then you know that's not right. you can prove mathematically that 1 and 1 do not equal 2

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!.

 

[LouisBooth]

Seebs do you even look at the dates on the things you post to?

 

[npetreley]

Yes, math is grand. And math can be irrefutable, but perfect math doesn't compensate for imperfect logic.

Originally posted by ardipithecus
This proof does depend on one assumption that I have not mentioned
so far. It assumes that every part of the rock when formed the radio
of the radioactive daughter to the non-radioactive isotope of the same
element as the daughter is the same. This is quite reasonable.

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

The different isotopes...lah blah blah. That this assumption is true is seen everyday in the real world and is true in lava formed today.

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.

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. 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.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
Seebs do you even look at the dates on the things you post to?

What's the date got to do with it? Neither of those was posted on April Fools' day. You referred to "higher math", and there aren't probably a lot of people on the boards who got more than a year or two past calculus. So... when I happened to notice the math discussion, I thought I'd point out that neither of those was correct.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

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

So I guess we should take Moses' word for it because he was there when God created the Earth, right?

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.

You're pretty much calling all scientists liars -- even those scientists who consider themselves Christians. This is a rather bold accusation. Do you have any evidence to back it up or this this just more rhetoric?

Maybe you should read this for another Christian point of view:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

2. Lava doesn't necessarily form today the way it formed millions of years ago.

Sez who?

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.

This is plainly false. Read the following description of isochron dating and tell me where exactly in the process the rock is assumed to be millions of years old.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

 

[Caerbannog]

Originally posted by npetreley
Yes, math is grand. And math can be irrefutable, but perfect math doesn't compensate for imperfect logic.

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

Hey! That's a great way to get out of jury-duty.

"OK Mr. D.A., so I guess we should take your word for it because you were there when David Westerfield murdered Danielle Van Dam, right?"

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.

This argument comes up time and time again, and corroborating evidence is *never* supplied. People who make these claims are mindlessly parroting whatever religious propaganda they have most recently read.

Anyway, to demonstrate how silly this argument is, all one has to do is look at the economics of radiometric dating work. Radiometric dating tests are *expensive*, and most scientists have limited budgets. (That's why Linux and *BSD are so popular in the scientific community -- most researchers just don't have a lot of money to burn!)

If you poke around www.geochronlabs.com, you will find out that a single K-Ar test costs *at least* $400. And the $400 price applies only to samples that you have done full pre-analysis preparation work. For Rb/Sr isochron analysis, Geochron Labs will charge you a minimum of $510 per sample (one sample gives you one data point on the isochron line). When you take into account the costs of collecting and preparing the samples, you can figure on spending several thousand dollars *at least* for *one* complete isochron analysis.

Scientists have no interest in cooking up a massive conspiracy to misrepresent the age of the Earth; even if they did, they wouldn't be able to afford to pull it off!!

(edited to fix a silly grammatical "thinko")

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie


So I guess we should take Moses' word for it because he was there when God created the Earth, right?

So what you're saying is that isochron dating is accurate because Moses might not be? Gosh, you've outwitted me there. I must admit that your debating techniques and logical abilities are devastating to my argument.

 

[edgeo]

Originally posted by npetreley


So what you're saying is that isochron dating is accurate because Moses might not be? Gosh, you've outwitted me there. I must admit that your debating techniques and logical abilities are devastating to my argument.

Perhaps a little less subtlety is in order. I believe what LFOD was saying is that the argument "were you there?" is completely irrelevant.

 

[edgeo]

Originally posted by npetreley
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.

Ah yes, the old geochronological conspiracy theory. How do you know this happens?

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. 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. ...

And your evience for this is?