Young Earth evidence (2)

[verysincere]

people who have high degrees in geology are experts in dating rocks. Who else would be an expert?

It depends entirely upon what you mean.

If by "experts in dating rocks" you mean knowing how to employ the right quality control procedures and to operate the laboratory equipment----and to recalibrate and maintain them---used in various kinds of rock dating techniques, both radiometric and otherwise, those are actually extremely specialized skills if one wishes to produce reliable results worthy of publication. As with so many specializations in modern science, a relatively small number of scientists and technicians really know the subfield inside out.

I regularly see anti-evolution (and anti-old-earth) posts online which naively accuse dating labs of "manipulating" the data by deviously flushing the surface of a sample with chemical treatments or "skewing" the age by selecting the dating method based on the geologic layer in which it was found or from general estimates of its age. These kinds of silly objections coming from the Answers in Genesis peanut gallery make the actual specialists laugh. Those kinds of posts continually remind me of the broad gulf between those with actual science training and experience versus the arm-chair dilettante critics. (And from studying such claims by amateurs online, I've learned a lot about how the failures of the American education system are compromising our future in a competitive world economy.)

 

[createdtoworship]

If we can't talk about geochronology without quoting a geochronologist, the thread might as well just close now because there would be no conversation.

opinions are just that, opinions and they need to be answered. If they can't be answered then we might as well just open another thread called geochronology.

 

[RickG]

okay then, go ahead a quote a geochronologist or geochemist with a phd in His/Her field of expertise. I don't want any more of your "opinions."

Good grief! I just did quote one, Mike Walker. Here it is again:

From the Geochronology textbook, Quaternary Dating Methods, Mike Walker, 2008; I find the following statement on page 58:

The 40K/40Ar method was developed in the 1960s and has been used largely to date igneous rocks. In terms of Quaternary applications, however, the 40K/40Ar technique is appropriate only for the dating of volcanic rocks that are older than ca. 100,000 years.

A variant of the method developed in the late 1960s early 1970s, involves the measurement of the ratios of two argon isotopes 40Ar and 39Ar..........the Ar/Ar method where meaningful dates of 10,000 years and less can be obtained.

As for my opinion, they are not exactly unqualified. I have a masters degree in Physical Earth Science from the Univ. of Memphis as well as nearly 30 years experience as a research chemist. I am not a layman.

 

[createdtoworship]

Myth: "Even though K-Ar dates can easily be rejuvenated, Rb-Sr isochron dates are very reliable owing to their resistance to open - system behavior.

Reality Check: At fist, uniformitarians had made claims about the great reliability of K-Ar dates. Subsequently, they have been forced to take back this claim, and to relegate most D-Ar results on plutons to so called cooling ages. Next, they claimed that Rb-Sr isochrons can be counted on to give the correct age of the rock. Now they are steadily backpedaling away even from this second premise.

"It is inferred that Rb-Sr isochron ages determined on samples of Precambrian age must be regarded with caution: a residual bias may somewhat alter the information from statistically acceptable isochron" (Jeteau 84, p 532)."

Furthermore, so-called "rejuvenated" isochrons are being invoked on an ad-hoc basis, as high-grade metamorphic events are no longer believed to be necessary to disturb the Rb-Sr isochron system:

"this study lends further support to the hypothesis that whole rock Rb-Sr systems can be disturbed and reset to give good - fit secondary isochrons by relatively low - grace events even when there may be little field evidence and only apparently relatively minor mineralogical alteration" (smalley et al. 83, p278)

"The overprint caused partial or complete resetting of the isochrons by lowering the isochron slopes increasing their "initial" Sr ratios and maintaining a linear point array. The overprint is assumed to be of hydrothermal nature, because any remnants of the Mesozoic thermal event (volcanics, Mesozoic mineral ages in the non-Alpine realm) are lacking throughout the Aar Massif....This even (a)had only minor impact on microscopic textures..."(Schaltegger 90, p. 721,722).

above excerpt from John Woodmorappe, M.A. Geology, B.A. Biology

The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods 1999 (p 65-66)

 

[verysincere]

okay then, go ahead a quote a geochronologist or geochemist with a phd in His/Her field of expertise.

I had understood that that was what he was doing. (Am I missing something?)

I don't want any more of your "opinions."

Yes indeed. ChristianForums.com has a very strict "No opinions" policy which is rigorously enforced at all times.

Only in this manner can the quality control standards of CF be maintained in the ongoing support of its stellar reputation as a world leader in both Science and Biblical Theology. The thorough screening of all participants before posting privileges are granted as well as the annual re-examination of every member before their posting license is renewed----not to mention the meticulous scrutiny of every academic curriculum vitae to ensure that all said posters are truly and duly qualified to comment within each respective subfield of expertise in which they are officially stamped as certified on their said license----has for these many years made possible the kind of consistent reliability and scholarly rigor which has become the proud hallmark of ChristianForums.com. After all, without such an almost obsessive quality control standard and continual attention to detail, there could always be the remote possibility, no matter how miniscule, that some clueless wannabe without the slightest training, educational background or experience in a given field might even be prone on some rare occasion to pontificate and post almost any random, nonsensical, juvenile, pointless, and worthless opinion which happened to pop into his/her uncluttered, neuron-free head!

Indeed, without such minute-by-minute attention to such superlative standards, within no time at all the ChristianForum.com could easily degenerate into just another dime-a-dozen, run-of-the-mill verbal confab where the average post is of no more value than a random man-on-the-street interview for a tabloid TV program produced by a bunch of journalism school dropouts who care even less about real facts than they ever managed to learn and know. And we CAN'T ever let THAT happen!

But as it is, and very fortunately for the academic world, few of my colleagues could EVER imagine (nor would they even WANT to imagine) publishing their latest work without first submitting it for review and comment on ChristianForums.com. To overlook that absolutely essential first step of subjecting all scientific and exegetical hypotheses to the wise and measured analysis of the superbly experienced and renowned intelligentsia who have made this forum what it is today----is, well, unthinkable!

Indeed, I try to think about it as little as possible.


.



.

 

[RickG]

Myth: "Even though K-Ar dates can easily be rejuvenated, Rb-Sr isochron dates are very reliable owing to their resistance to open - system behavior.

Reality Check: At fist, uniformitarians had made claims about the great reliability of K-Ar dates. Subsequently, they have been forced to take back this claim, and to relegate most D-Ar results on plutons to so called cooling ages. Next, they claimed that Rb-Sr isochrons can be counted on to give the correct age of the rock. Now they are steadily backpedaling away even from this second premise.

Yet another example of trying to pass off obsolete methods and current methods. Gradyll, I just got through descibing why the K/Ar method is unreliable on extrusive volcanic material without employing the Ar/Ar methods as well. Really, do you not understand what I was saying in my previous post. Please ask questions if you don't understand, instead of repeating the same old misconceptions. And I'm not sure what is meant by D-Ar unless it stands for delta (ratios) between 40Ar and 39Ar or 40Ar and 36Ar.

"It is inferred that Rb-Sr isochron ages determined on samples of Precambrian age must be regarded with caution: a residual bias may somewhat alter the information from statistically acceptable isochron" (Jeteau 84, p 532)."

Furthermore, so-called "rejuvenated" isochrons are being invoked on an ad-hoc basis, as high-grade metamorphic events are no longer believed to be necessary to disturb the Rb-Sr isochron system:

"this study lends further support to the hypothesis that whole rock Rb-Sr systems can be disturbed and reset to give good - fit secondary isochrons by relatively low - grace events even when there may be little field evidence and only apparently relatively minor mineralogical alteration" (smalley et al. 83, p278)

"The overprint caused partial or complete resetting of the isochrons by lowering the isochron slopes increasing their "initial" Sr ratios and maintaining a linear point array. The overprint is assumed to be of hydrothermal nature, because any remnants of the Mesozoic thermal event (volcanics, Mesozoic mineral ages in the non-Alpine realm) are lacking throughout the Aar Massif....This even (a)had only minor impact on microscopic textures..."(Schaltegger 90, p. 721,722).

above excerpt from John Woodmorappe, M.A. Geology, B.A. Biology

The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods 1999 (p 65-66)

Good grief! More quote mine games. Does it not throw up a red flag for you when one person known very well for misrepresenting science gives a citation to the legitimate scientific literature as if it supported his position. The people (actual geochronologists) Woodmorape cites do not support his claims nor does their research support his claims. What does it take for you to understand that simple fact.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yet another example of trying to pass off obsolete methods and current methods. Gradyll, I just got through descibing why the K/Ar method is unreliable on extrusive volcanic material without employing the Ar/Ar methods as well. Really, do you not understand what I was saying in my previous post. Please ask questions if you don't understand, instead of repeating the same old misconceptions. And I'm not sure what is meant by D-Ar unless it stands for delta (ratios) between 40Ar and 39Ar or 40Ar and 36Ar.

What About RbSr dating? I guess since you didn't rebut this post, you must not know about it yes?

Good grief! More quote mine games. Does it not throw up a red flag for you when one person known very well for misrepresenting science gives a citation to the legitimate scientific literature as if it supported his position. The people (actual geochronologists) Woodmorape cites do not support his claims nor does their research support his claims. What does it take for you to understand that simple fact.

good grief, someone who quotes another does not agree 100% with that person!

 

[Jazer]

---and to recalibrate and maintain them---

I assume you are aware of Dr Dino's explanation as to how they calibrate their equipment and their charts. It is pretty much a fraud anyways, because they have to know the date they are looking for. You can not run a double blind test and get accurate results. Two different labs on a blind test would give you two different results. At least according to the explanation we get from Dr Dino. You really should study up on Dr Dinos videos on you tube so you can be an expert on this sort of stuff.

 

[Valkhorn]

I assume you are aware of Dr Dino's explanation as to how they calibrate their equipment and their charts. It is pretty much a fraud anyways, because they have to know the date they are looking for. You can not run a double blind test and get accurate results. Two different labs on a blind test would give you two different results. At least according to the explanation we get from Dr Dino. You really should study up on Dr Dinos videos on you tube so you can be an expert on this sort of stuff.

You know sometimes I think credibility is going to shine through in one of your posts and you'll say something that is reasonable and prudent, and even based in reality.

Then you reference Hovind, a global flood that didn't happen, and completely misunderstand what is meant by a mitochondrial 'Eve' and all of that hope just vanishes out of the window.

Can you work out why Hovind isn't a credible source and why he isn't accurate? It seems like you stopped researching when you heard what you wanted to hear and didn't actually bother to see how things are radio-metrically dated.

 

[Valkhorn]

Yet another example of trying to pass off obsolete methods and current methods. Gradyll, I just got through descibing why the K/Ar method is unreliable on extrusive volcanic material without employing the Ar/Ar methods as well. Really, do you not understand what I was saying in my previous post. Please ask questions if you don't understand, instead of repeating the same old misconceptions. And I'm not sure what is meant by D-Ar unless it stands for delta (ratios) between 40Ar and 39Ar or 40Ar and 36Ar.



Good grief! More quote mine games. Does it not throw up a red flag for you when one person known very well for misrepresenting science gives a citation to the legitimate scientific literature as if it supported his position. The people (actual geochronologists) Woodmorape cites do not support his claims nor does their research support his claims. What does it take for you to understand that simple fact.

I applaud your effort, but I'm afraid Grady and Jazer both (much like most creationists) are only interested in what they want to hear. They aren't even open to the possibility that they might be wrong, or even know how they might be wrong. Until they are intellectually honest, there's no use debating them.

What I've started doing is asking at point-blank whether or not they could admit they are wrong, if they would know they were wrong, and if they were ever willing to change their minds if they were. They never can answer this. No creationist can, or else they wouldn't be a creationist.

 

[RickG]

What About RbSr dating? I guess since you didn't rebut this post, you must not know about it yes?

I didn't rebut! What part of citing Woodmorappe's most common distortion of facts, describing obsolete methods, and quote mining did you not understand. But if you want some specifics, okay.

The thing Woodmorappe and other young earth proponents like to do is play up the know problems with specific isotope dating methods as if the actual experts were totally oblivious to it. There are two problems that can occur with the Rb-Sr method; (1) Poorly mixed magma and (2) and metamorphic rocks. What Woodmorappe doesn't tell you is that those two things are easily recognizable by anyone familiar with basic petrology, which all geochemists and geochronologists are well schooled in. In rocks that do not have those traits there is no problem. In those that do, cross referencing with other isotope methods used to verify accuracy and any problems that may occur. Contrary to the impression Woodmorappe likes to convey, geochronologists are not a bunch of blithering idiots oblivious to any problems with dating methods. Pick up any textbook on dating methods and it will explain in detail what each method can and cannot do as well as all problems that need to be dealt with.

 

[RickG]

You know sometimes I think credibility is going to shine through in one of your posts and you'll say something that is reasonable and prudent, and even based in reality.

Then you reference Hovind, a global flood that didn't happen, and completely misunderstand what is meant by a mitochondrial 'Eve' and all of that hope just vanishes out of the window.

Can you work out why Hovind isn't a credible source and why he isn't accurate? It seems like you stopped researching when you heard what you wanted to hear and didn't actually bother to see how things are radio-metrically dated.

I think Jazer is just making fun of Dr. Dino. At least, I hope so.

 

[createdtoworship]

I didn't rebut! What part of citing Woodmorappe's most common distortion of facts, describing obsolete methods, and quote mining did you not understand. But if you want some specifics, okay.

The thing Woodmorappe and other young earth proponents like to do is play up the know problems with specific isotope dating methods as if the actual experts were totally oblivious to it. There are two problems that can occur with the Rb-Sr method; (1) Poorly mixed magma and (2) and metamorphic rocks. What Woodmorappe doesn't tell you is that those two things are easily recognizable by anyone familiar with basic petrology, which all geochemists and geochronologists are well schooled in. In rocks that do not have those traits there is no problem. In those that do, cross referencing with other isotope methods used to verify accuracy and any problems that may occur. Contrary to the impression Woodmorappe likes to convey, geochronologists are not a bunch of blithering idiots oblivious to any problems with dating methods. Pick up any textbook on dating methods and it will explain in detail what each method can and cannot do as well as all problems that need to be dealt with.

I can see this isn't going anywhere. I tell you there are problems with dating, and you say.....ah yes but it's easily fixed! But what about when
dates that are invalidated are often covered up and tagged with a special language to validate them. Orwellian language it is called. These include "delayed uplift ages, cooling ages, thermochronologic information, rejuvenated dates, inherited isochrons, and many other types of doublespeak."- ibid . woodmorappe pg 96

 

[verysincere]

Regardless of whether Jazer is serious or Poe-playing or just making fun of Kent Hovind, I'm going to go along and take him seriously for the benefit of readers who might not be familiar with the infamous "Dr. Dino":

I assume you are aware of Dr Dino's explanation as to how they calibrate their equipment and their charts.

Yes, but I had figured out that Kent Hovind was a liar LONG before I heard about that particular lie.

Hovind had been making a career of lying and fraud LONG before he got sent to federal prison on some 60 criminal counts.

It is pretty much a fraud anyways, because they have to know the date they are looking for.

Be honest with me: Doesn't it take a lot of.....gall to cite Kent Hovind on this? Or are you saying that because Hovind was such an accomplished fraud-artist (having made millions from fraud) that he knows how to spot it?

Do you have ANY evidence that Hovind is an expert about anything other than taking gullible people's money, committing fraud and tax evasion, and being stupid enough to threaten the judge and the prosecutor on a taped phone conversation from the jailhouse just before he went into the courtroom for sentencing?

You can not run a double blind test and get accurate results.

Sure you can. It happens all the time. Who told you otherwise?

(If you say, "Kent Hovind", I'll give up on you, because I'll know that you don't really care about the truth.)

Two different labs on a blind test would give you two different results.

No. Not at all. You would find the two results within minimal standard ranges. Who told you otherwise?

(If you truly believe that Hovind can document two different results, go ahead and post the two sets of results here along with the names and dates of the testing labs. Or is you claim just hearsay, also known as GOSSIP. The Bible has a few things to say about gossip. It also talks about bearing false witness.)

At least according to the explanation we get from Dr Dino.

[sigh]

You surely are aware that "Dr. Dino" has a diploma mill "doctorate". Right? You realize it is a kind of lie, right?

The guy has a high school diploma. (Allegedly.)

He has no Ph.D., no Masters Degree, not even a Bachelor's Degree. He doesn't even have an Associate Degree or a few credits from a community college. Zip. Nada. Zilch. And HE is the guy you look to for "expertise"?

Do you have ANY evidence that Hovind has ever even set foot inside of a radiometric testing laboratory? (Or a laboratory in general?) Could Hovind even find the power switch to turn on a mass spectrometer?

You really should study up on Dr Dinos.....

I did. As a fraud and a showman, he could have competed against P. T. Barnum. (At least Barnum openly ADMITTED that he ran a circus.) But Barnum operated within the law for the most part. I can't say that for Hovind.

Here's one of my favorite examples of how "Dr. Dino" played games with the truth. He always said in his introduction [or had it on a card for the person introducing him to read aloud]:

"I taught high school science for 15 years."

Most people would assume that that meant that he was a high science teacher for 15 years. But no. He didn't have a teacher's license and he had absolutely no experience as a public school teacher.

What he so carefully worded with the statement was that he home-schooled his kids and perhaps taught a few other kids from a high school science textbook. So, by a strained interpretation, if one used a high school science textbook to teach your kids at home, you were teaching "high school science".

Now, Jazer, tell me: Is that kind of person somebody you can trust to tell you the truth about the "fraud" of radiometric dating labs???

You really should study up on Dr Dinos videos on you tube so you can be an expert on this sort of stuff.

You mean so that one can be an expert on Kent Hovind's type of fraud?

Why not "learn" about radiometric dating from your garbage collector or the local taxidermist? At least they make their living honestly and not by fraud. And because they don't make money from telling lies about radiometric dating and science in general, they would be far more trustworthy than Hovind. (Plus, they probably know a lot more about science than he does.)

And all of that brings me to this question for my Christian brethren: Why do you wish to associate the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Bible itself in any possible way with the pseudo-science, nonsense, and criminal fraud of somebody like Kent Hovind? There are so many REAL, legitimate, Ph.D. scientists in the world----and many of them even specialize in the actual techniques of radiometric dating?

So what is your motivation for choosing an uninformed liar as your "authority"?

Do you have any idea of the message you send the non-Christian world when you prefer to identify with a con-artist who knows NOTHING about science while you reject all of the ACTUAL evidence which God has placed within His Creation? Why do you reject God's answers and look to a convicted liar, criminal fraud, and mocker of all that is true?

As a Bible-affirming follower of Jesus Christ, I'm very interested in your answers.

.

 

[verysincere]

I can see this isn't going anywhere. I tell you there are problems with dating, and you say.....ah yes but it's easily fixed! But what about when
dates that are invalidated are often covered up and tagged with a special language to validate them. Orwellian language it is called. These include "delayed uplift ages, cooling ages, thermochronologic information, rejuvenated dates, inherited isochrons, and many other types of doublespeak."- ibid . woodmorappe pg 96

Even though I do understand that the feigned denial is just part of a role playing exercise apparently meant to mock creationists [which saddens me greatly], I will admit that the histrionics of "the "Orwellian language it is called" flourish was a nice touch. If some readers failed to realize that you're pulling our collective legs, that last exercise in sophistry put it way over the top. Nevertheless, I'm willing to have some fun playing along. This must be what it's like to be a guest on Stephen Colbert's show. Here we go:


Radiometric dating is totally unreliable...
just like all odometers!


Here is the example I like to use for that kind of ridiculous denial of the merits of radiometric dating. Let's reverse the role-playing for this one. You play the rational person. I will play the role of the "skeptic".


YOU: Automobile odometers are an accurate and reliable way to measure mileage.

ME: No they aren't! They give inaccurate, unreliable results. Everybody knows that.

YOU: No, they don't "know" that. Odometers are commonly used for determining the total number of miles a car has been driven. The odometer can also measure the driving distance between two geographic locations.

ME: Rubbish. I will PROVE to you that odometers produce inaccurate results. In fact, odometer readings are not just misleading, they produce outright lies!

YOU: Then prove it.

ME: OK I will prove it in the laboratory. You will notice that I've elevated this motor vehicle on blocks so that none of the tires are touching the ground. I put the car in gear and placed a brick on the accelerator. This served to keep the engine running at high rpms. The wheels/tires which are connected to the drive train have been revolving for an hour now. And this is how I know that odometers are unreliable: the car has remained in place and hasn't moved even one inch during the entire experiment. And yet the odometer says the car has been driven 50 miles!

YOU: That doesn't debunk the reliability of odometers! You've simply demonstrated that you can come up a set of conditions within which an odometer is not MEANT to provide an "accurate" result, and within which no rational person would expect to use it!

ME: Not at all. An odometer is supposed to tell me how far a car has been driven. Period. No excuses! Yet, in one hour's time of running this car, the odometer says that the car has been driven 50 miles. But laboratory staff have watched it the entire time and the car has moved exactly ZERO feet! So not only does the odometer give inaccurate (and downright misleading) results, its accuracy fails at an order of magnitude which boggles the mind! Odometers are not only wrong, they are SO wrong that I can't believe you are arguing the fact!

YOU: That's absolutely ridiculous. That makes no sense. Everybody knows that this traditional type of odometer that has been used reliably within the auto industry for many decades is plenty accurate for the purposes for which it was intended. Nobody but an idiot expects the odometer to measure distances and work right if the wheels are all off the ground. The odometer is guaranteed to work WHEN DRIVING. The manufacturer knows that. A mechanic knows that. The driver knows that! If you are going to complain that the odometer doesn't work right, take the car off the blocks and put it back on the ground where it's supposed to be!

ME: No, you are just making excuses. Odometers don't work. I told you that I could prove that odometers aren't reliable. And I did exactly that. Why don't you admit it?

YOU: I'm NOT making excuses. I never said that you couldn't come up with a way to get the odometer to give a "wrong answer." After all, if you simply want to know how fast and how long an engine has been running (perhaps expressed as RPM or total revolutions), there are OTHER testing methods and instrumentation we can use for that. But for what the average driver wants to know, an odometer provides the miles traveled. Case closed.

ME: "I can see this isn't going anywhere. I tell you there are problems with odometers, and you say.....ah yes but it's easily fixed! But what about when mileages are invalidated and even covered up? You will use various excuses, a special language, to validate them. Orwellian language it is called, and many other types of doublespeak."



Now tell me that my dishonest sophistry to claim that odometers are deceptive is IN ANY WAY DIFFERENT from the games you are playing to try and discredit radiometric dating! I dare you.

___________________________________________


[And just for the record. I don't believe for a moment that you failed to understand RICKG's explanation of dating methodology. After all, you have to realize that EVEN IF scientists simply threw out the types of rocks which are more difficult to date, the rocks which can easily be dated would demolish any claims that the earth is only 6,000 years old!

.

 

[createdtoworship]

Even though I do understand that the feigned denial is just part of a role playing exercise apparently meant to mock creationists [which saddens me greatly], I will admit that the histrionics of "the "Orwellian language it is called" flourish was a nice touch. If some readers failed to realize that you're pulling our collective legs, that last exercise in sophistry put it way over the top. Nevertheless, I'm willing to have some fun playing along. This must be what it's like to be a guest on Stephen Colbert's show. Here we go:


Radiometric dating is totally unreliable...
just like all odometers!


Here is the example I like to use for that kind of ridiculous denial of the merits of radiometric dating. Let's reverse the role-playing for this one. You play the rational person. I will play the role of the "skeptic".


YOU: Automobile odometers are an accurate and reliable way to measure mileage.

ME: No they aren't! They give inaccurate, unreliable results. Everybody knows that.

YOU: No, they don't "know" that. Odometers are commonly used for determining the total number of miles a car has been driven. The odometer can also measure the driving distance between two geographic locations.

ME: Rubbish. I will PROVE to you that odometers produce inaccurate results. In fact, odometer readings are not just misleading, they produce outright lies!

YOU: Then prove it.

ME: OK I will prove it in the laboratory. You will notice that I've elevated this motor vehicle on blocks so that none of the tires are touching the ground. I put the car in gear and placed a brick on the accelerator. This served to keep the engine running at high rpms. The wheels/tires which are connected to the drive train have been revolving for an hour now. And this is how I know that odometers are unreliable: the car has remained in place and hasn't moved even one inch during the entire experiment. And yet the odometer says the car has been driven 50 miles!

YOU: That doesn't debunk the reliability of odometers! You've simply demonstrated that you can come up a set of conditions within which an odometer is not MEANT to provide an "accurate" result, and within which no rational person would expect to use it!

ME: Not at all. An odometer is supposed to tell me how far a car has been driven. Period. No excuses! Yet, in one hour's time of running this car, the odometer says that the car has been driven 50 miles. But laboratory staff have watched it the entire time and the car has moved exactly ZERO feet! So not only does the odometer give inaccurate (and downright misleading) results, its accuracy fails at an order of magnitude which boggles the mind! Odometers are not only wrong, they are SO wrong that I can't believe you are arguing the fact!

YOU: That's absolutely ridiculous. That makes no sense. Everybody knows that this traditional type of odometer that has been used reliably within the auto industry for many decades is plenty accurate for the purposes for which it was intended. Nobody but an idiot expects the odometer to measure distances and work right if the wheels are all off the ground. The odometer is guaranteed to work WHEN DRIVING. The manufacturer knows that. A mechanic knows that. The driver knows that! If you are going to complain that the odometer doesn't work right, take the car off the blocks and put it back on the ground where it's supposed to be!

ME: No, you are just making excuses. Odometers don't work. I told you that I could prove that odometers aren't reliable. And I did exactly that. Why don't you admit it?

YOU: I'm NOT making excuses. I never said that you couldn't come up with a way to get the odometer to give a "wrong answer." After all, if you simply want to know how fast and how long an engine has been running (perhaps expressed as RPM or total revolutions), there are OTHER testing methods and instrumentation we can use for that. But for what the average driver wants to know, an odometer provides the miles traveled. Case closed.

ME: "I can see this isn't going anywhere. I tell you there are problems with odometers, and you say.....ah yes but it's easily fixed! But what about when mileages are invalidated and even covered up? You will use various excuses, a special language, to validate them. Orwellian language it is called, and many other types of doublespeak."



Now tell me that my dishonest sophistry to claim that odometers are deceptive is IN ANY WAY DIFFERENT from the games you are playing to try and discredit radiometric dating! I dare you.

___________________________________________


[And just for the record. I don't believe for a moment that you failed to understand RICKG's explanation of dating methodology. After all, you have to realize that EVEN IF scientists simply threw out the types of rocks which are more difficult to date, the rocks which can easily be dated would demolish any claims that the earth is only 6,000 years old!

.

you are right actually odometers are misleading. they say a car has traveled 500 miles on a roller when it hasn't. the weight and the stopping and the acceleration all play a role in the wear and tear of an engine, so it is actually a bit misleading. Thats why tests on cars are not accurate they have to actually drive the cars for long periods to get that accurate wear and tear they need. So good point, bravo! I would disagree outright that all dating methods are as accurate as even an odometer however. An odometer gets the exact same result every time, going up hill, going down hill, turning to the right or the left. And when it produces a faulty errorsome readout, it doesn't cover it up and try to keep on trucking! Orwellian language, thats right. Orwellian language! Inherited isocrons? comon.

 

[RickG]

I can see this isn't going anywhere. I tell you there are problems with dating, and you say.....ah yes but it's easily fixed! But what about when
dates that are invalidated are often covered up and tagged with a special language to validate them. Orwellian language it is called. These include "delayed uplift ages, cooling ages, thermochronologic information, rejuvenated dates, inherited isochrons, and many other types of doublespeak."- ibid . woodmorappe pg 96

You know gradyll, it is really difficult for me to believe that you are sincere in what you are posting. I really do get the feeling that you are doing nothing more than trying to pull everyone's string.

Really! Let's look at this.

You cite Woodmorappe's book on dating methods, and give two of his citations as proof that geochronologists discard the dates they don't want and keep the ones they want. I looked at both papers and what did I find?

I found that both papers describe specific problems with the potasium/argon (K/Ar) dating method. In their description they discussed in detail on what type of rocks the K/Ar method is reliable and what type of rocks it is not reliable. There is not discarding of said inconvenient dates. I also added my input to make specific points as follows:

1. Extrusive igneous (volcanic) rocks may not give reliable dates because they may come in contact with atmospheric argon (40Ar).

2. Intrusive igneous rocks, those that cool and solidify below the surface, do not come in contact with atmospheric argon and therefore are not contaminated by 40Ar. The K/Ar method is completely reliable with that class of rocks.

3. As described in those papers as well, there are two additional methods that can account of the excess 40Ar in extrusive rocks, thus give reliable dates. They are the 40Ar/39Ar method and the 40Ar/36Ar methods, where true daughter 40Ar is separated atmospheric 40Ar.

You also made the claim (via Woodmorappe) that the Rb/Sr method is unreliable as well. I responded by giving you two specific problems that can be encountered with that methods. Both problems are easily recognizable and avoid even before testing. (1) Metamorphic rocks are not reliable with the Rb/Sr method due to subsequent heat histories and (2) Magma that is not well mixed. Nevertheless, those dates can be verified or discounted by testing with other isotope methods.

You also made the "fantastic" statement that carbon dating is accurate because it doesn't use isotopes. By such a statement I gather all dating methods that don't use isotopes to arrive at a date are accurate by your summation.

Guess what? Radiocarbon dating uses the cosmogenic isotope 14-Carbon (14C). Carbon-14 is generated in the upper atmosphere through the reaction of high energy photons with 14-Nitrogen (14N). Radiocarbon dating also gives accurate dates up to 60,000 years, but is used to date organic material generally of much less age.

Now, a challenge for you if you honestly believe what Woodmorappe says in his book. Go back to the two papers cited, critique them thoroughly and tell me and all posters and lurkers in this thread where you find:

"But what about when dates that are invalidated are often covered up and tagged with a special language to validate them. Orwellian language it is called. These include "delayed uplift ages, cooling ages, thermochronologic information, rejuvenated dates, inherited isochrons, and many other types of doublespeak."

So you don't have to backtrack and search the thread here they are:

http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/105_SR/VOLUME/CHAPTERS/sr105_47.pdf


Dating young basalt eruptions by (U-Th)/He on xenolithic zircons

 

[createdtoworship]

You know gradyll, it is really difficult for me to believe that you are sincere in what you are posting. I really do get the feeling that you are doing nothing more than trying to pull everyone's string.

Really! Let's look at this.

You cite Woodmorappe's book on dating methods, and give two of his citations as proof that geochronologists discard the dates they don't want and keep the ones they want. I looked at both papers and what did I find?

I found that both papers describe specific problems with the potasium/argon (K/Ar) dating method. In their description they discussed in detail on what type of rocks the K/Ar method is reliable and what type of rocks it is not reliable. There is not discarding of said inconvenient dates. I also added my input to make specific points as follows:

1. Extrusive igneous (volcanic) rocks may not give reliable dates because they may come in contact with atmospheric argon (40Ar).

2. Intrusive igneous rocks, those that cool and solidify below the surface, do not come in contact with atmospheric argon and therefore are not contaminated by 40Ar. The K/Ar method is completely reliable with that class of rocks.

3. As described in those papers as well, there are two additional methods that can account of the excess 40Ar in extrusive rocks, thus give reliable dates. They are the 40Ar/39Ar method and the 40Ar/36Ar methods, where true daughter 40Ar is separated atmospheric 40Ar.

You also made the claim (via Woodmorappe) that the Rb/Sr method is unreliable as well. I responded by giving you two specific problems that can be encountered with that methods. Both problems are easily recognizable and avoid even before testing. (1) Metamorphic rocks are not reliable with the Rb/Sr method due to subsequent heat histories and (2) Magma that is not well mixed. Nevertheless, those dates can be verified or discounted by testing with other isotope methods.

You also made the "fantastic" statement that carbon dating is accurate because it doesn't use isotopes. By such a statement I gather all dating methods that don't use isotopes to arrive at a date are accurate by your summation.

Guess what? Radiocarbon dating uses the cosmogenic isotope 14-Carbon (14C). Carbon-14 is generated in the upper atmosphere through the reaction of high energy photons with 14-Nitrogen (14N). Radiocarbon dating also gives accurate dates up to 60,000 years, but is used to date organic material generally of much less age.

Now, a challenge for you if you honestly believe what Woodmorappe says in his book. Go back to the two papers cited, critique them thoroughly and tell me and all posters and lurkers in this thread where you find:

"But what about when dates that are invalidated are often covered up and tagged with a special language to validate them. Orwellian language it is called. These include "delayed uplift ages, cooling ages, thermochronologic information, rejuvenated dates, inherited isochrons, and many other types of doublespeak."

So you don't have to backtrack and search the thread here they are:

http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/105_SR/VOLUME/CHAPTERS/sr105_47.pdf


Dating young basalt eruptions by (U-Th)/He on xenolithic zircons

google scholar posts this for inherited isocrons:

Inherited Palaeozoic and Mesozoic Rb–Sr Isotopic Signatures in Neogene Calc-alkaline Volcanics, Alborán Volcanic Province, SE Spain

that means the term is being used at oxford.

now will you change your tune again, and say "inherited isocrons" are valid!

shinanigans I tell you, shinanigans!

 

[RickG]

google scholar posts this for inherited isocrons:

Inherited Palaeozoic and Mesozoic Rb–Sr Isotopic Signatures in Neogene Calc-alkaline Volcanics, Alborán Volcanic Province, SE Spain

that means the term is being used at oxford.

now will you change your tune again, and say "inherited isocrons" are valid!

shinanigans I tell you, shinanigans!

I never said it wasn't a legitimate term. I said that it is being misrepresented out of context. Please define "inherited isocrons" and tell me what the problem is with them. I'll even make it easy for you. Instead of just reading the abstract you linked, look at the entire paper.

Inherited Palaeozoic and Mesozoic Rb–Sr Isotopic Signatures in Neogene Calc-alkaline Volcanics, Alborán Volcanic Province, SE Spain

 

[createdtoworship]

I never said it wasn't a legitimate term. I said that it is being misrepresented out of context. Please define "inherited isocrons" and tell me what the problem is with them. I'll even make it easy for you. Instead of just reading the abstract you linked, look at the entire paper.

Inherited Palaeozoic and Mesozoic Rb–Sr Isotopic Signatures in Neogene Calc-alkaline Volcanics, Alborán Volcanic Province, SE Spain

inherited isochrons are when a prexisting deposit allows isochrons to transfer to the rock being texted. However this is an invalid test non the less. Because how do you know which isochrons are the invalid ones, by the dates. But I thought the dates were unbiased? You see how this can be a problem and is a sort of orwellian double speak to cover up bad dates or whatever. Oh this rock is too young........it must have inherited isochrons from a younger mineral beside it (but it's now gone from the dig).