Circular Reasoning

[RickG]

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.

As I said before, your source utilizes "intellectual dishonesty" by not including how specific problems are avoided. Furthermore, 36Ar is most certainly used in modern radiometric dating. Where did you get the idea that it doesn't, your dishonest source by the M.D.?

Here is how it is utilized. 40Ar in a sample has its origin from the decay of the parent 40K. However, 40Ar is also a constituent of the atmosphere and the source of contamination of excess 40Ar. 40Ar in the atmosphere is always accompanied by the stable isotope 36Ar at a ratio of 296:1, thus enables a correction to be made for the presence of any atmospheric 40Ar. Furthermore, the measurement of 36Ar also enables the isochron technique to be employed. Does your source describe what I just described, or did to mention Ar/Ar dating without mentioning the all important constant atmospheric ratio of 40Ar to 36Ar (296:1) and how it is utilized.

Again, my source: M. Walker, Quaternary Dating Methods, 2006. Mike is the author of the textbook I cited as well as coauthor in two other dating on dating method textbooks that are utilized globally in Earth Science education. Additionally, he has published over 150 papers in the scientific literature, not to mention other research and academic distinctions.

Your source, an M.D., has probably has never even taken even an introductory course in geology, much less geochemistry or dating methods. Do you think that an M.D. would send a patient with heart problems requiring surgery to a Urologist for that surgery? Of course not. Then why does he give advice in an area that is more than obvious well out of his expertise? One does not study dating methods either in pre-med or medical school.

 

[RickG]

I'll tell you what, just - let's not hijack Ricks's topic anymore. Start up your own topic, and we can discuss your pet peeves there.

That would be appreciated.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

But ignore the rest of the evidence - because you can't handle it.

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

No, you can't carbon date dinosaur bones.

a) The material in dinosaur bones is no longer the original material. When fossilization takes place, minerals replace the original bone material. So you aren't dating the dinosaur bones any more.

b) When dinosaur bones have some remnants of the original material left, it is a mixture of fossilization minerals and original materials. This doesn't make carbon 14 dating very reliable!

c) When very very old material is dated, the amount of the key isotopes for carbon 14 dating get to be very very thin. So little is left that trace contaminates rear their ugly heads, making the carbon dating wrong. This can happen from radiation exposure of nearby uranium atoms, feeble though such exposure happens to be, because the trace amounts corresponding to ages of 30,000 to 50,000 or so are so very very little as to make such dating problematic.

So don't bother fussing about lack of carbon 14 dating for dinosaur bones. We have other dating methods that we can rely on for them and we will continue to rely on them in spite of your faith based objections to the science.

 

[sfs]

maybe.
there is really no way to know what the physical reality of the big bang was.

Possibly true. Why did you write, "even you must admit the physical constants of black holes are different from surrounding space", though?

 

[whois]

As I said before, your source utilizes "intellectual dishonesty" by not including how specific problems are avoided. Furthermore, 36Ar is most certainly used in modern radiometric dating. Where did you get the idea that it doesn't, your dishonest source by the M.D.?

Here is how it is utilized. 40Ar in a sample has its origin from the decay of the parent 40K. However, 40Ar is also a constituent of the atmosphere and the source of contamination of excess 40Ar. 40Ar in the atmosphere is always accompanied by the stable isotope 36Ar at a ratio of 296:1, thus enables a correction to be made for the presence of any atmospheric 40Ar. Furthermore, the measurement of 36Ar also enables the isochron technique to be employed. Does your source describe what I just described, or did to mention Ar/Ar dating without mentioning the all important constant atmospheric ratio of 40Ar to 36Ar (296:1) and how it is utilized.

Again, my source: M. Walker, Quaternary Dating Methods, 2006. Mike is the author of the textbook I cited as well as coauthor in two other dating on dating method textbooks that are utilized globally in Earth Science education. Additionally, he has published over 150 papers in the scientific literature, not to mention other research and academic distinctions.

Your source, an M.D., has probably has never even taken even an introductory course in geology, much less geochemistry or dating methods. Do you think that an M.D. would send a patient with heart problems requiring surgery to a Urologist for that surgery? Of course not. Then why does he give advice in an area that is more than obvious well out of his expertise? One does not study dating methods either in pre-med or medical school.

yes, my source discusses isochron methods, and why they are used.
it specifically states isochrons are used to offset the "zero date" problem.
next.

 

[whois]

Possibly true. Why did you write, "even you must admit the physical constants of black holes are different from surrounding space", though?

because we have no way of knowing what goes on in a black hole.
instead of "are" i should have said "could be".

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[RickG]

yes, my source discusses isochron methods, and why they are used.
it specifically states isochrons are used to offset the "zero date" problem.
next.

Why do you completely ignore what I stated concerning K/Ar and Ar/Ar dating and only comment that your source does discuss isochrons?

Again, in every single dating method described by your source, medical doctor Sean D. Pitman, he provides almost no specific information on how any of the dating methods are performed. He only described the areas found in "dating method" textbooks where dating methods problems are described. What he completely ignores is how those problems detected and prevented which is also described is those same textbooks. And I am still wondering where you got the idea that Ar/Ar dating is no longer used. Pitman doesn't even make that claim, at least that I can find. Pitmans article is an excellent example of intellectual dishonesty performed by a layman on the subject.

 

[whois]

Why do you completely ignore what I stated concerning K/Ar and Ar/Ar dating and only comment that your source does discuss isochrons?

Again, in every single dating method described by your source, medical doctor Sean D. Pitman, he provides almost no specific information on how any of the dating methods are performed. He only described the areas found in "dating method" textbooks where dating methods problems are described. What he completely ignores is how those problems detected and prevented which is also described is those same textbooks. And I am still wondering where you got the idea that Ar/Ar dating is no longer used. Pitman doesn't even make that claim, at least that I can find. Pitmans article is an excellent example of intellectual dishonesty performed by a layman on the subject.

it is a beginning tutorial for radiometric dating methods.
your ONLY objection is that it's creationist.
too bad.
you HAVE NOT shown where any of the information is false or misleading.

 

[sfs]

because we have no way of knowing what goes on in a black hole.
instead of "are" i should have said "could be".

"Could be" is fine.

 

[crjmurray]

it is a beginning tutorial for radiometric dating methods.
your ONLY objection is that it's creationist.
too bad.
you HAVE NOT shown where any of the information is false or misleading.

Actually, he has. He explained that the writer discusses problems with dating methods but he doesn't talk about how to detect or prevent those problems. That is incredibly misleading.

 

[Aureus]

it is a beginning tutorial for radiometric dating methods.
your ONLY objection is that it's creationist.
too bad.
you HAVE NOT shown where any of the information is false or misleading.

No, he has in fact done a very good job of showing how the link is incredibly misleading to the point where it becomes worthless. That you sit in the corner and shout 'NEXT!' as if you've said anything of merit doesn't change that.

 

[RickG]

it is a beginning tutorial for radiometric dating methods.
your ONLY objection is that it's creationist.
too bad.

That is a very disingenuous statement. My objection is not because it is creationists. My objection is as I have repeatedly stated. The author of the article is not qualified, nor experienced in the area of any dating method. His argument concentrates only known problems with specific dating methods, ignoring how those problems occur and are avoided. That in itself is "intellectual dishonesty".

you HAVE NOT shown where any of the information is false or misleading.

Again, that is a very disingenuous statement. I have described exactly what Dr. Pitman failed to include in his paper specifically concerning K/Ar and Ar/Ar methods. By not including in his presentation how those problems are avoided that he described demonstrates a deliberate intent to misrepresent those methods in their entirety.

And for the third time I will ask, where did you get the idea that the Ar/Ar method is no longer used?

 

[whois]

That is a very disingenuous statement. My objection is not because it is creationists. My objection is as I have repeatedly stated. The author of the article is not qualified, nor experienced in the area of any dating method. His argument concentrates only known problems with specific dating methods, ignoring how those problems occur and are avoided. That in itself is "intellectual dishonesty".

well, uh, yeah, i guess discussing KNOWN problems would be helpful.
quote the particular passage of my source you have a problem with, or drop the matter entirely.

 

[Aureus]

well, uh, yeah, i guess discussing KNOWN problems would be helpful.
quote the particular passage of my source you have a problem with, or drop the matter entirely.

At least this time you didn't shout out 'NEXT!' after your post that didn't actually add to or rebute anything to what Rick has said.

Your source knowingly pretends that those known issues are problems while ignoring that those known issues are dealt with and aren't problems in the methods.

 

[crjmurray]

At least this time you didn't shout out 'NEXT!' after your post that didn't actually add to or rebute anything to what Rick has said.

Your source knowingly leaves out why those pretends that those known issues are problems while ignoring that those known issues are dealt with and aren't problems in the methods.

Still pretty rude though.

 

[Aureus]

Still pretty rude though.

Yep.

 

[whois]

At least this time you didn't shout out 'NEXT!' after your post that didn't actually add to or rebute anything to what Rick has said.

everything rick has said about my source is incorrect.

rick,
i want you to go through my source paragraph by paragraph, and point to the paragraph you have a problem with.

 

[lasthero]

it is a beginning tutorial for radiometric dating methods.
your ONLY objection is that it's creationist.

This is just a lie. I mean, there's no way around it.

Rick has repeatedly stated what his objection is. Primarily, the man is underqualified, which he certainly is. You can disagree with that - somehow - but don't just mistate it.

 

[lasthero]

everything rick has said about my source is incorrect.

So it's incorrect to say that your source is a MD with no qualifications in geochemistry?