Dating Methods

[EternalDragon]

Then why do you continue to present dating methods as being wrong?

I'll say it again. I don't have a problem with the method or what
is being detected.

 

[RickG]

I'll say it again. I don't have a problem with the method or what
is being detected.

I get the feeling that you are leaving something out.

 

[RickG]

Anymore questions with regard to a specific dating method?

 

[lasthero]

I'll ask one to break the silence.

I've always been curious about tree ring dating, specifically how it works over through multiple trees to measure dates that go beyond the tree's lifespan. Can you help me parse it?

 

[stevevw]

Anymore questions with regard to a specific dating method?

Yeah I want to know about the assumptions that are used in the dating methods.

All radiometric dating methods require making at least three assumptions. These are:
1) The rate of decay has remained constant throughout the past.
2) The original amount of both mother and daughter elements is known.
3) The sample has remained in a closed system.

I would also like to know what people think about the [FONT=&quot]Helium diffusion from Precambrian Zircons.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Scientists have discovered that, in zircons where a billion years of uranium decay has allegedly taken place, too much helium remains—way too much helium. It appears as if the helium hasn’t had enough time to diffuse out of the crystals. [/FONT]

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Stevie,
Did you miss the opening post?

There are numerous dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric. I know there have been numerous threads on the topic, but I have yet to have any actual serious discussion on the topic.

For those who insist they are unreliable, I would genuinely like to have an honest open discussion concerning them. In this discussion I want to discuss the actual method(s) and follow the process through. I am not interested at all in seeing any copy/paste material. Please read and try to understand from whatever source(s) you choose and express your/their concerns in your own words.

(my bold, red)

---
Your prior is duly noted: here, and my response here

 

[Loudmouth]

Yeah I want to know about the assumptions that are used in the dating methods.

All radiometric dating methods require making at least three assumptions. These are:
1) The rate of decay has remained constant throughout the past.

That is not assumed. We have independent evidence that decay rates were the same in the past. Both Supernova 1987a and the naturally occuring nuclear reactors at Oklo offer tests for the decay rate in the past.

CF210: Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates

Not only that, but you would have to change the strong and weak nuclear forces in order for decay rates to change. According to creationists, these values are so finely tuned for life that changing them even by a little bit would produce a universe incapable of sustaining life. Creationists argue against themselves on this one.

2) The original amount of both mother and daughter elements is known.

Using isochron methodologies, you can measure the amount of daughter element present at the start.

Isochron Dating

3) The sample has remained in a closed system.

How do you remove the Pb from a zircon without melting the zircon?

I would also like to know what people think about the [FONT=&quot]Helium diffusion from Precambrian Zircons.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Scientists have discovered that, in zircons where a billion years of uranium decay has allegedly taken place, too much helium remains—way too much helium. It appears as if the helium hasn’t had enough time to diffuse out of the crystals. [/FONT]

Funny how creationists complain about rocks not being a closed system, and then choose an element that freely moves in and out of zircons for their dating technique.

 

[SkyWriting]

There are numerous dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric. I know there have been numerous threads on the topic, but I have yet to have any actual serious discussion on the topic.

For those who insist they are unreliable, I would genuinely like to have an honest open discussion concerning them. In this discussion I want to discuss the actual method(s) and follow the process through. I am not interested at all in seeing any copy/paste material. Please read and try to understand from whatever source(s) you choose and express your/their concerns in your own words.

Science cannot test past events.
Only future experiments and the ability
to hold all variables constant and
only change one is dubious outside
of documented procedure.

 

[Loudmouth]

Science cannot test past events.

Yes, they can. Radiometric dating is a perfect example of a test done on rocks that produces a scientifically supported age.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes, they can. Radiometric dating is a perfect example of a test done on rocks that produces a scientifically supported age.

You mean the method supports it's own conclusions.
Pretty slick.

 

[florida2]

You mean the method supports it's own conclusions.
Pretty slick.

You mean like creationists who only accept evidence which supports creation?

 

[Loudmouth]

You mean the method supports it's own conclusions.

That is not what I mean, and something you have never shown.

Why don't you back up your accusations for once.

 

[SkyWriting]

You mean like creationists who only accept evidence which supports creation?

There can be no such evidence. But yes.

 

[SkyWriting]

That is not what I mean, and something you have never shown.

Why don't you back up your accusations for once.

OK

I accuse you of stating that science backs up science.

" 1 .Radiometric dating is a perfect example
2. of a test done on rocks that produces
3. a scientifically supported age."

There ya go. Backing for my accusation.

 

[Loudmouth]

OK

I accuse you of stating that science backs up science.

" 1 .Radiometric dating is a perfect example
2. of a test done on rocks that produces
3. a scientifically supported age."

There ya go. Backing for my accusation.

Where is the circular logic?

You have also changed your accusation. Before, you said that the "method supports it's own conclusions". Now you have changed it to" science backs up science". At least try to stick to one accusation at a time.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I accuse you of stating that science backs up science.

" 1 .Radiometric dating is a perfect example
2. of a test done on rocks that produces
3. a scientifically supported age."

1) Scientists discover a 'clock'.
2) Scientists use it to measure time.

 

[stevevw]

That is not assumed. We have independent evidence that decay rates were the same in the past. Both Supernova 1987a and the naturally occuring nuclear reactors at Oklo offer tests for the decay rate in the past.

CF210: Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates

Not only that, but you would have to change the strong and weak nuclear forces in order for decay rates to change. According to creationists, these values are so finely tuned for life that changing them even by a little bit would produce a universe incapable of sustaining life. Creationists argue against themselves on this one.




Using isochron methodologies, you can measure the amount of daughter element present at the start.

Isochron Dating



How do you remove the Pb from a zircon without melting the zircon?



Funny how creationists complain about rocks not being a closed system, and then choose an element that freely moves in and out of zircons for their dating technique.

I will have to take your word for it as I get conflicting info when I checked it out. But I would just like to clarify that not all creationists are young earth.

 

[stevevw]

Stevie,
Did you miss the opening post?



(my bold, red)

---
Your prior is duly noted: here, and my response here

Yeah I checked out the link and that name does appear at the bottom. But how does that invalidate the questions.

 

[Doveaman]

We have His word. That's how.

What kind of person seeks to explain history while ignoring the records of history?

A scientist.

 

[EternalDragon]

You mean like creationists who only accept evidence which supports creation?

That's not how it works. If we look at say a bacteria under a
microscope, that is evidence. What it means and where it
came from is an assumption.

We all have the same evidence. There is no special evidence
one side has that the other does not. You are doing what a lot
of people here do. You are confusing conclusions about the
evidence with the evidence itself.