Circular Reasoning

[Subduction Zone]

LOL!
yes, i can actually believe you haven't heard of NCBI.
oh my.
stop it, your killing me.

Perhaps if you did not post it as an acronym. And please, let's not forget who is the terribly ignorant one here. You keep using creationists sources and creationist arguments, yet claim not to be a creationist. That does not seem to be to terribly honest to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

an honest person would post the link that proves their point.
go away, join your brothers.

No need. The mistake was so basic that you should have been able to understand my explanation.

Do you even know what an inert gas is?

 

[RickG]

i see.
can you point to the specific part where my source is wrong, then post a source where it says it's wrong?

I can point to lots of parts, but the main thing to understand is what I previously stated. The M.D., not a geochemist, described only problems that are associated with radiometric dating while ignoring how those problems are dealt with. Are you familiar with the term "intellectually dishonesty"? Intellectual dishonesty takes information that appears to support ones position while ignoring all information that does not support their position. That is what the good doctor has done. You can easily verify this yourself by simply visiting your local library and sourcing any academic textbook on geologic dating methods. Within any of those books you will see entire sections that describe problems with each method. Additionally, you will see sections on how those problems occur and how to avoid them. This is more than obvious to those of us who "actually" have an academic background covering those methods as well as hands-on experience with the chemical processes utilized with them. If you wish to isolate one of his claims, I would be more than happy to show you what he is ignoring, just pick one.

 

[whois]

I can point to lots of parts, but the main thing to understand is what I previously stated. The M.D., not a geochemist, described only problems that are associated with radiometric dating while ignoring how those problems are dealt with. Are you familiar with the term "intellectually dishonesty"? Intellectual dishonesty takes information that appears to support ones position while ignoring all information that does not support their position. That is what the good doctor has done. You can easily verify this yourself by simply visiting your local library and sourcing any academic textbook on geologic dating methods. Within any of those books you will see entire sections that describe problems with each method. Additionally, you will see sections on how those problems occur and how to avoid them. This is more than obvious to those of us who "actually" have an academic background covering those methods as well as hands-on experience with the chemical processes utilized with them. If you wish to isolate one of his claims, I would be more than happy to show you what he is ignoring, just pick one.

the thing about your post is, you haven't shown where my source is wrong.
it's that simple.

YOU isolate the claim, and then dissect it.
go ahead, be my guest.

 

[crjmurray]

Oh noes!! Not the nonsense that she did not understand and posted on another thread. I was hoping for something original.

She likes to be rude until you prove her wrong and then the conspiracy talk begins. Have fun!

 

[Subduction Zone]

the thing about your post is, you haven't shown where my source is wrong.
it's that simple.

YOU isolate the claim, and then dissect it.
go ahead, be my guest.

Yes, I did. You did not understand it.

In the K/Ar dating method the starting amount of Argon in a crystal is taken to be zero. This is not an assumption.

Do you understand this so far? You don't have to agree with the conclusion, but do you understand that I am declaring that there is no argon originally in a crystal?

ETA: I will be back in an hour or so.

 

[whois]

Yes, I did. You did not understand it.

In the K/Ar dating method the starting amount of Argon in a crystal is taken to be zero. This is not an assumption.

Do you understand this so far? You don't have to agree with the conclusion, but do you understand that I am declaring that there is no argon originally in a crystal?

ETA: I will be back in an hour or so.

uh, ASSUMED to be zero.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-argon_dating
next.

 

[RickG]

the thing about your post is, you haven't shown where my source is wrong.
it's that simple.

YOU isolate the claim, and then dissect it.
go ahead, be my guest.

I told you very specifically what your sources' problem was and how you can verify that for yourself. He is intellectually dishonest. I can't be more clearer.

I also showed where you were incorrect with your assertions concerning Fermi Theory of Beta Decay. Fermi was not wrong. See here: Fermi Theory of Beta Decay

 

[lasthero]

I told you very specifically what your sources' problem was and how you can verify that for yourself. He is intellectually dishonest. I can't be more clearer.

I also showed where you were incorrect with your assertions concerning Fermi Theory of Beta Decay. Fermi was not wrong. See here: Fermi Theory of Beta Decay

I think you're a bit confused - Justa was the one going on about the Fermi stuff. I don't think whois mentioned it, unless I'm missing something, which I could be.

 

[whois]

I told you very specifically what your sources' problem was and how you can verify that for yourself. He is intellectually dishonest. I can't be more clearer.

I also showed where you were incorrect with your assertions concerning Fermi Theory of Beta Decay. Fermi was not wrong. See here: Fermi Theory of Beta Decay

where in my source is fermi decay mentioned?

 

[whois]

I think you're a bit confused - Justa was the one going on about the Fermi stuff. I don't think whois mentioned it, unless I'm missing something, which I could be.

correct, i never mentioned fermi, and i can't find any references to fermi in my source.

 

[RickG]

uh, ASSUMED to be zero.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-argon_dating
next.

Okay, you asked for a specific in your sources material. Here is what you source fails to include:

One problem that is common with all radiometric dating techniques, namely that the system remains closed following the volcanic event. In other words, there has been no loss of argon following crystallisation. Loss of argon could occur if the mineral sample has been weathered or if there has been a further episode of reheating; in both cases an underestimate of age will be obtained. However, petrographic examination may reveal evidence of weathering, while the presence of secondary minerals, such as xenocrysts, will tend to indicate that recrystallisation has occurred. A further way possible loss of argon can be detected is to compare age estimates derived from the whole rock and mineral fractions to determine whether or not they are concordant. This approach can also be used to establish whether older mineral fractions have been incorporated into the rocks. Secondly, the measurement of 36 argon (the Ar/Ar method) accounts for any excess atmospheric 40Ar they may be present in extrusive rocks.

Source: Quaternary Dating Methods, Mike Walker 2006. Chapter 3.2.3, page(s) 58-66.
​

Also note that the K/Ar method was developed back in the 1960's. And yes, back then some problems with excess or diffused Ar did occur then. That is rarely the case with today's methods and technology. And BTW, as mentioned above, one way of determining whether the system is closed or not is through the observation of whether the sample has been weathered or not. Good grief! A 5th grader can tell whether a rock sample has been weathered or not. It is more than obvious just from casual visual observation.

 

[RickG]

where in my source is fermi decay mentioned?

Sorry, I apologize for the confusion, that was justa.

 

[Subduction Zone]

uh, ASSUMED to be zero.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-argon_dating
next.

No, not assumed. The more proper word is "deduced". You use "assumption" as if were a baseless act. That article explains why those so called assumption are not baseless and are quite reasonable. It also tells you when they might be wrong. You were using assumption in different way than they were.

 

[whois]

Okay, you asked for a specific in your sources material. Here is what you source fails to include:

One problem that is common with all radiometric dating techniques, namely that the system remains closed following the volcanic event. In other words, there has been no loss of argon following crystallisation. Loss of argon could occur if the mineral sample has been weathered or if there has been a further episode of reheating; in both cases an underestimate of age will be obtained. However, petrographic examination may reveal evidence of weathering, while the presence of secondary minerals, such as xenocrysts, will tend to indicate that recrystallisation has occurred. A further way possible loss of argon can be detected is to compare age estimates derived from the whole rock and mineral fractions to determine whether or not they are concordant. This approach can also be used to establish whether older mineral fractions have been incorporated into the rocks. Secondly, the measurement of 36 argon (the Ar/Ar method) accounts for any excess atmospheric 40Ar they may be present in extrusive rocks.

Source: Quaternary Dating Methods, Mike Walker 2006. Chapter 3.2.3, page(s) 58-66.
​

Also note that the K/Ar method was developed back in the 1960's. And yes, back then some problems with excess or diffused Ar did occur then. That is rarely the case with today's methods and technology. And BTW, as mentioned above, one way of determining whether the system is closed or not is through the observation of whether the sample has been weathered or not. Good grief! A 5th grader can tell whether a rock sample has been weathered or not. It is more than obvious just from casual visual observation.

my source discusses both of your concerns (leaching and ar/ar).
36 argon is not used in modern radiometric dating, 40Ar/39Ar is.
this too is discussed.
next.

 

[whois]

No, not assumed. The more proper word is "deduced". You use "assumption" as if were a baseless act. That article explains why those so called assumption are not baseless and are quite reasonable. It also tells you when they might be wrong. You were using assumption in different way than they were.

it's quite reasonable to assume the physical laws of the universe has remained constant too.
can you give any reason why they should not have been constant?
the gravitational constant for example.
have any idea why that would have varied?

 

[Subduction Zone]

it's quite reasonable to assume the physical laws of the universe has remained constant too.
can you give any reason why they should not have been constant?
the gravitational constant for example.
have any idea why that would have varied?

Nope, and if you talk to physicists I don't think there is any valid reason to believe so

And Loudmuth can hook you up with some links that show that rates of radiometric decay has not changed either.

Again, what you are calling "assumptions" are actually justified deductions.

 

[whois]

Nope, and if you talk to physicists I don't think there is any valid reason to believe so

3 words, the big bang.
even you must admit the physical constants of black holes are different from surrounding space.

Again, what you are calling "assumptions" are actually justified deductions.

they are still assumptions, they are not facts, i don't care how "reasonable" they are.

it's reasonable to assume that if i buy a liter of scotch and start drinking it, i'm gonna get snot nosed.
it might be a good guess, but that's all it is, a reasonable guess.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

i understand that.
okay, how's this:
it's a FACT that interpreting the fossil record in terms of evolution, then using that interpretation as proof, is circular reasoning.
it's a simple factual statement.
.

But you need to show an example of where that has happened.

The fossil record dates are constrained by the radiometric dates of the igneous layers above and below them. Some fossils are found to always be consistently in a certain date range; they are so consistent they came to be called index fossils. So when some of these index fossils are found in places where the igneous layers are not present to date them, the dates we have for them already established in other locations are used with confidence. That, however, is not circular reasoning.

Now please show us an example of a dating that you think is circular reasoning.

On the other hand, as long as we are talking about circular reasoning, do you quote bible verses as proof that the bible is always accurate and inerrant?

( ) yes I do

( ) no, I would never do that, it would be circular reasoning

 

[Subduction Zone]

3 words, the big bang.
even you must admit the physical constants of black holes are different from surrounding space.

they are still assumptions, they are not facts, i don't care how "reasonable" they are.

it's reasonable to assume that if i buy a liter of scotch and start drinking it, i'm gonna get snot nosed.
it might be a good guess, but that's all it is, a reasonable guess.

The Big Bang may very well have had different atomic rates. So what? The universe settled into our current "laws" shortly after that event.

And we are not talking about events in a black hole. We are discussing events on the Earth. But it is nice to see you grasping at straws so soon.

And no, they are not "assumptions" in the sense that you were trying to use the term.