Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Do you reject radiometric dating?
If so, why?
As indisputable proof of geologic deep-time? Of course.
Simple. Because any unwelcome radiometric "dates" may be blamed on nature and discarded and thus the methodology is never truly being tested.
LOL. The fact that some dates are falsified through contamination does nothing to undermine the method. It's like saying that your laptop never works because it doesn't work when you run it right next to the electromagnet they use for lifting cars. When a method which, in theory, should be very robust starts giving completely nonsensical results, the first thing you do is not jettison the method completely, the first thing you do is check to see if there's any reason why the result would be that way. For example, the reservoir effect makes carbon-dating marine animals a basically futile task. This doesn't mean, however, that it doesn't provide robust results when examining land plants. Indeed, in many of these cases, we'd need to be wrong about the rate of radioactive decay in order for the method not to work. Obviously, it's far more likely that the samples have been somehow corrupted, and that's something that needs to be explored. Now, if no source of such corruption can be found, then we have a problem. But to date, the answer has never been "our understanding of how radiometric decay works is totally wrong", but rather "Oh, we're getting a wrong result because the sample has been contaminated".
It's like that time one of Kent Hovind's associates tried to carbon date a dinosaur fossil and came out with the result of 20,000 years. No scientist would ever do that. Why? Is it because they don't want their phony dates to be revealed? Err... Not quite. It's because carbon-dating a mineralized bone with no carbon in it is a misapplication of the method that will lead to nonsensical, meaningless results, and scientists understand the limitations and potential problems of these dating methods. (The 20,000 years result came from shellack on the bone.)
Routinely found, I heard that as well.You are clearly wrong as, non-mineralized original organic material are also routinely found in dinosaur remains. Time to update your arguments.
You are clearly wrong as, non-mineralized original organic material are also routinely found in dinosaur remains. Time to update your arguments.
Unfavorable radiometric "dates" will always be blamed on something nature did, whether or not the source of contamination can be absolutely identified is not a problem. There can even be a consilience of bad "dates" resulting from multiple methods. They will still be discarded.
You are clearly wrong as, non-mineralized original organic material are also routinely found in dinosaur remains. Time to update your arguments.
Well then let's hear some examples.I'm sure you have tons of examples where radiometric dating of a known object with appropriate qualities (using carbon dating on a fossil with no carbon in it is impossible because, again, there's no carbon in it) within the date range the method is accurate for (carbon dating, relying on the decay rate of C14, cannot reasonably be used for things beyond the age where the C14 would have vanished beyond our ability to measure it) has led to completely bogus results without a clear explanation of why the results are bogus.
Boy, I hope you're not talking about Mary Schweitzer's paper, because she did not find non-mineralized organic material. Cite please?
I already told you that the explanation will be contamination. Obviously if you believe a rock is a certain age, and you get a contradictory "dating" result, then you're going to infer that the sample was contaminated.
"Recently, still-soft biomaterials have been identified in bones of multiple taxa from the Cretaceous to the Recent, with morphological and molecular characteristics consistent with an endogenous source...
...Multiple lines of evidence support the endogeneity of these recovered molecules in Cretaceous specimens, despite hypothesized temporal limits on molecular preservation..."
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1775/20132741.short
I already told you that the explanation will be contamination. Obviously if you believe a rock is a certain age, and you get a contradictory "dating" result, then you're going to infer that the sample was contaminated.
"Recently, still-soft biomaterials have been identified in bones of multiple taxa from the Cretaceous to the Recent, with morphological and molecular characteristics consistent with an endogenous source...
...Multiple lines of evidence support the endogeneity of these recovered molecules in Cretaceous specimens, despite hypothesized temporal limits on molecular preservation..."
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1775/20132741.short
No, you are confusing the process with the end result.Because that's where they were deposited in sediment. If they weren't deposited there, then they'd be deposited somewhere else.
My assumptions are based on falsifiable physical evidence that are as verifiable as night and day. Conversely, you are making an assumption based on zero evidence.For one thing, you are assuming "geologic time".
It's because carbon-dating a mineralized bone with no carbon in it is a misapplication of the method...
Boy, I hope you're not talking about Mary Schweitzer's paper, because she did not find non-mineralized organic material. Cite please?
.........
This says nothing about there still being carbon in them (is there? I have no idea), but even if there were, could it be carbon-dated? Well... No. Argon-Argon dating has placed these fossils at 65 million years ago; this is concordant both with the evolutionary timeline of life and the strata they are buried in. Carbon dating would most likely find that there is simply no measurable amount of C14 present, which means that it could be 100,000 years old or 100,000,000.
If you are referring to the dinosaur collogen, it was mineralized until it was put into a solvent for cleaning purposes.Are you now retracting your claim that non-mineralized original organic material is not found in dinosaur remains?
Only people with dishonest intentions would attempt to carbon date dinosaur remains. Any 14C in dinosaur remains would be either contaminated due to carelessness or deliberately done, unless it was in situ 14C which can be distinguished from cosmogenic 14C.Please clarify your position, because this was your initial argument against trying to carbon date dinosaur remains.
I pointed out the fossils while you were still showing cartoons. (Now you're showing a close-up of Neil Shubin's face for some reason)
Pointing to concordance does not make discordance go away.
Renowned astronomer, Halton Arp, compiled an entire catalog of discordant redshift data.
https://keychests.com/media/bigdisk/pdf/14855.pdf
When I say "evolutionists would accommodate the data like this", it is only following the natural ad-hoc pattern of reasoning and explanatory devices that evolutionists have displayed thus far so there is no reason why they wouldn't.
Unfavorable radiometric "dates" will always be blamed on something nature did, whether or not the source of contamination can be absolutely identified is not a problem.
Okay, got an example where the contamination in question wasn't obvious?
Here's the problem. Radiometric dating is based on our understanding of how radioactive decay works, and our understand of how radioactive decay works is pretty darn robust. It's like if you're using a method, and it gives bizarre, weird results, and your options are "the sample was contaminated" or "gravity doesn't work". Obviously, there's something wrong with the sample, because we know that gravity works, just like we know radiometric isotopes decay at certain rates. What's more, we've come to understand when we can and cannot use these methods.
Yes, geochronologists have admitted that "bad dates" are frequently rejected on the basis of simply not fitting into expected dating models.
Have you visited my thread yet titled, "Dating methods keep getting better and better"?I've already pointed out that a sample will be rejected if it returns unfavorable results. We both agree that a bad date will be assumed to be contaminated. You're not raising any new arguments here.
"Finally, it is rarely a good solution to eliminate many apparently inferior results just because on date or one formation appears to be highly reliable. These remarks would appear to be somewhat obvious, but experience shows that these rules are frequently rejected. (Odin 1985 pp.42-43)
The uncritical use of such dates is a good illustration of why one should not nail down chronostratigraphic schemes with singular dates, no matter how "excellent," while ignoring other, analytically sound, and equally acceptable data that may not agree with our preconceptions (Haq et al. 1988 p. 602)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?