Dating methods continue to get better and better.

[SkyWriting]

A new dating method of ultrasensitive isotope trace analysis has been recently developed, Atom Trap Trace Analysis (ATTA), has captured the attention of the Earth Science community.

How do we test it for accuracy.....against what?
How do we know the age of something to test it?

 

[RickG]

How do we test it for accuracy.....against what?

Try looking at the links I provided in post #1 and #3. They are all full access papers describing that very thing. And against what? Measuring sensitivity down to PPT and PPQ as well as comparison with other methods and samples of known age.

How do we know the age of something to test it?

Comparison with other dating methods and items of historically known age. Again, try sourcing the papers I linked.

 

[SkyWriting]

Try looking at the links I provided in post #1 and #3. They are all full access papers describing that very thing. And against what? Measuring sensitivity down to PPT and PPQ as well as comparison with other methods and samples of known age.

Comparison with other dating methods and items of historically known age. Again, try sourcing the papers I linked.

What things do we know the age of?
Your baby shoes....perhaps.
And how would we know the new method is better than the ones we think are inferior...
...which we are using to check the new one.

"Gödel’s incompleteness theorems - Proven in 1931 by Kurt Gödel, these theories say that with any given set of logical rules, except for the most simple, there will always be statements that are undecidable, meaning that they cannot be proven or disproven due to the inevitable self-referential nature of any logical systems that is even remotely complicated"

 

[joshua 1 9]

This assumes that time is fixed. It is not.

Quantum principles acknowledge that the "future" or "present" can change the "past".

Could be if you had a way to observe the future or past.

 

[mark kennedy]

Some creationist arguments are unaffected by this new technique:
1. You can't prove the sample was always in a closed system.
2. You can't prove that radioactive decay rates haven't changed over time.

These are two of the more popular anti-isotope dating arguments, also, btw.

I have long held that the age of the earth and cosmos is irrelevant to Creationism as doctrine and history, the creation of life is what is emphasized in Scripture. My problem with the whole radiometric dating thing has always been that the earth is messy, fluid and co-mingling is inevitable. Henry Morris actually argued against the methodology of radiometric dating saying they test for months or years and project it over eons, something that would never be tolerated in any of the other sciences.

 

[RickG]

What things do we know the age of?
Your baby shoes....perhaps.
And how would we know the new method is better than the ones we think are inferior...
...which we are using to check the new one.

"Gödel’s incompleteness theorems - Proven in 1931 by Kurt Gödel, these theories say that with any given set of logical rules, except for the most simple, there will always be statements that are undecidable, meaning that they cannot be proven or disproven due to the inevitable self-referential nature of any logical systems that is even remotely complicated"

If you cannot read what I have already suggested for you to read, which answers those questions in detail, not to mention several posts where I have already commented on those very things. I don't care to play childish games with you.

 

[SkyWriting]

If you cannot read what I have already suggested for you to read, which answers those questions in detail, not to mention several posts where I have already commented on those very things. I don't care to play childish games with you.

I get that you don't understand what the articles say or am able to answer general questions about them.
Being critical of your own claim is a tough thing to do.

 

[Papias]

I get that you don't understand what the articles say or am able to answer general questions about them.
Being critical of your own claim is a tough thing to do.

I think Rick probably understands these articles better than you do.

Papias

 

[SkyWriting]

I think Rick probably understands these articles better than you do.

Papias

I'm sure it's fun for you to say that. Enjoy your comment.