Consistent Radiometric Dates

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Morat
Why is that, Nick? If 99.999% of dates yield an "Old Earth" value, and 0.001% are outliers, why do you trust the outliers?

Why do you assume I trust any radiometric dates, whether they're outliers or not? I don't.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Morat
  And the answer is rather obviously "Yes, yes they do". We had a geologist pop up and attest to it himself, and point to a large database of such.

  Then you start nattering about them "throwing out dates". Well, let's grant you a big assumption. Let's say they do throw out dates. 1% of them are outliers. Now, roughly half would be older and half younger then the mean. Let's say (as is mostly the case) that 90% of those dates can be resolved as instrument or sample problems (like excess argon).

  You are now left with 0.1% of all radiometric dates don't agree to a given age.

   That's a better margin of error than most of the parts in my car, Nick. If 99.9% of radiometric dates agree to a given age, why on earth would you take the 0.1% over the 99.9%?

 

   (Actually, it's worse. Outliers go both ways. It'd be roughly 0.05%, and most of those would be within a few standard deviations. To get "Young Earth" type dates would place it way out there....a much tinier percentage).

 

I'd like to see some hard data to support your statistics. But your point is still irrelevant to the problem.

 

[Morat]

  So you don't trust radiometric dating period. Great. So why this conversation, Nick? Why are you accusing scientists of tossing bad data? It's obvious they don't, and that even if they did, they couldn't afford (they aren't cheap) to toss enough to get such good agreement among multiple methods.

  So your problem is with radiometric dating to begin with. Great. What's wrong with it? Spit it out, Nicky. What's your beef? You think it gives wrong dates, tell us why.

  Go on. We're all ears.

 

 

[blader]

Originally posted by npetreley


Why do you assume I trust any radiometric dates, whether they're outliers or not? I don't.

Not unless they start turning up values of 5000 years for the age of the earth, at least.

I can just imagine how strong you think that would be proof for a young earth.

Morton's Demon, anyone?
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html

 

[blader]

Originally posted by npetreley


I'd like to see some hard data to support your statistics. But your point is still irrelevant to the problem.

Then why do you want to see hard data, if it's irrelevant? Why do you question radiometric dating values if you don't even trust the method anyway?

Spoken like a true creationist.

Use your common sense.

Let's make a few assumptions:

Let assume that the age of the earth is around 5000 years.

Let's also assume that radiometric dating is ridiculously highly unreliable, and has a standard deviation of approximately 1.4 BILLION YEARS away from the real age.

4.5 billion years is more than three standard deviations from the mean of 5000 years.

The probability of getting any value that is OLDER OR EQUAL to 4.5 billion years (or three standard deviations), under these ridiculously generous assumptions, is less than 0.15%. Now if we take only the values that are close to 4.5 billion years, this number becomes infinitesimal.

 

[Baloo42]

Originally posted by Morat
  So you don't trust radiometric dating period. Great. So why this conversation, Nick? Why are you accusing scientists of tossing bad data? It's obvious they don't, and that even if they did, they couldn't afford (they aren't cheap) to toss enough to get such good agreement among multiple methods.

  So your problem is with radiometric dating to begin with. Great. What's wrong with it? Spit it out, Nicky. What's your beef? You think it gives wrong dates, tell us why.

  Go on. We're all ears.

 

Exactly my point. This whole discussion, as Nick readily admitted awhile back, is a distration from the main point: Nick doesn't buy radiometric dating for a reason.

That reason has nothing to do with whether scientists methodically toss out bad data, or even whether they make up data altogether. It has nothing to do with JM's studies personally, or the other results listed in JM's tables, or any other results of other experimental attempts made to measure ratios of isotopes in rock. In fact, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the ability of modern technology to measure the concentration of various isotopes in natural objects. It has nothing to do with the ability to compare the ratios of different elements. It has nothing to do with the theories of radioactive decay, from which theoretical rates can be predicted based on the nuclear physics of different types of material. It has nothing to do with the fact that various empirical measures of radiometric dates agree with each other. It has nothing to do with the fact that they match the expected theoretical rates of decay. It doesn't even, really, deal with the fact that these measurements splendidly match a clear and consistent picture of a 4.5 billion year geological history of our planet. Nor, at it's core, does this reason deal with the fact that these measurements strongly corrabolate the theory of common descent for all life on earth today (although these last two points get closer to the "real reason").

The thing is, Nick probably cannot express the real reason for rejecting radiometric dating in terms that lack the sentiment "Jesus loves me - the Bible tells me so. If radiometric dating is true, the Bible is wrong, and Jesus might not love me." Not wanting to sound like a blathering pseudo-intellectual sheep, he has no choice but to avoid mentioning the one and only reason he personally rejects radiometric dating.

Sad, really.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by Baloo42
...he has no choice but to avoid mentioning the one and only reason he personally rejects radiometric dating.

The one and only reason is that the values aren't 5000 years.

 

[Morat]

  I think he realizes the pasting he'd take if he tried to break radiometric dating. Better minds than his have pounded on it, and it doesn't seem to want to break. No matter how hard you try, decay rates stay stubbornly constant...