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.
The sources of contamination have been identified.
In general yes, samples are known to be prone to all sorts of contamination.
That is why geochronologists will feel justified in discarding the dating results that do not agree with their favored timeline.
Yes, and geochemists know how to identify those problems and avoid them.In general yes, samples are known to be prone to all sorts of contamination.
That is a completely false statement.That is why geochronologists will feel justified in discarding the dating results that do not agree with their favored timeline.
The only confirmation bias is by you. Now, what academically accredited institution was it that you studied geochmistry?That is why radiometric dating is ultimately governed by the confirmation bias of the geochronologist.
Good date? Credit dating method.
Bad date? Blame nature.
If you looked at 100 clocks in the same area and 99 of them said it was 10:05 am +/- 5 minutes, and then one clock said that it was 5:30 pm, would you discount the 5:30 pm? Would you use that one discordant time to argue that all clocks are untrustworthy?
Yes, geochronologists have admitted that "bad dates" are frequently rejected on the basis of simply not fitting into expected dating models. You are mistaken in assuming the actual source of contamination must be identified whenever a bad date appears.
"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)
Yeah, I can't do anything with "(Odin 1985 pp.42-43)". With Haq et al. 1988 I can at least find what I think is the right document, although given the complete dearth of information, I'm honestly not sure (I couldn't find the word "uncritical" in it, so probably not). Look, I'm sorry, but I'm gonna need more information than that. Where were these papers published? Do you have links to them? Is there anywhere I can read the quote in context? I'm sorry, I've just seen so many creationists blatantly quote-mine established scientists that I'm not going to take partial or broken quotes like this seriously, and I can't find your original sources to check them. So I'm gonna second Lasthero's request.
They are references taken from John Woodmorappes "The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods" where he scoured hundreds of journal articles from the Geochronology literature.
Woodmorappe's writings have been heavily scrutinized by old-earth proponents, so rest assured they would have easily caught him if he were fabricating quotes.
So, sorry, but you'll have to deal with the fact that geochronologists did write those things.
Nice misrepresentation of that paper. Yes, numerous samples were taken for dating. What your source deliberately leaves out is that what Kamo et al. 1996, are doing is establishing a minimum age for the Siberian flood-basalts, thus the other dates are irrelevant to the study, which doesn't mean they were bad dates.But why assume radiometric discordance is rare?
In their review of the geochronology of the Carboniferous, Permian, and Triassic Periods, Forster and Warrington (1985) accepted only forty-five dated items from five hundred separate articles... (Kamo et al. 1996, p.3505)
But why assume radiometric discordance is rare?
In their review of the geochronology of the Carboniferous, Permian, and Triassic Periods, Forster and Warrington (1985) accepted only forty-five dated items from five hundred separate articles... (Kamo et al. 1996, p.3505)
206Pb/238U, 207Pb/238U, 207Pb/206Pb, and 208Pb,232Th will agree, provided that there are no geologic complications such as xenocrystic material in the sample. However, rarely do all the calculated ages agree. (Stern et all. 1981, p.5)
Natural zircon typically displays an inconsistency (discordance) of age values obtained on the basis of the 206Pb/238U, 207Pb/235U, and 207Pb/206Pb isotopic ratios. (Levchenkov et all 1998, p. 1006)
The isotopic systematics of zircon populations from most Salinian composite terrane granitoids can be described with a single word: discordant. (Mattinson 1990, p. 244)
When determined by several methos (K-Ar, Rb-Sr and fission track) radiometric ages for coexisting minerals in a metamorphic or igneous rock generally differ because of different closure temperatures for retention of daughter products or tracks. (Itaya and Takasugi 1988, p. 281)
Sounds more like your "clocks" say all sorts of different things, and that you choose the ones that agree with your conclusions.
And since favorable "dates" are the ones that are more typically published, it creates the misconception that radiometric discordance is only very rare.
They are references taken from John Woodmorappes "The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods" where he scoured hundreds of journal articles from the Geochronology literature.
Woodmorappe's writings have been heavily scrutinized by old-earth proponents, so rest assured they would have easily caught him if he were fabricating quotes.
Amen!Err, not to burst your bubble, but are you for real?! Just googling gave me countless articles where real scientists pointed out how horrendous his quotemining is! He has been heavily scrutinized, but what you seem to imply is that people couldn't find the flaws in his work. They found more than flaws, they found outright lies.
This is why I ask for sources, because now that I know where you're getting this stuff from, it's a lot easier to find the papers in question (for some reason, real scientific sources find it a lot easier to directly link to the paper in question and provide the quote in context). And most of the time, it's a matter of creationists either not understanding or intentionally misquoting the scientific literature in the hopes of deceiving a gullible audience - in other words: you.
And just to expand on that, what's even the point? That scientists, who are overwhelmingly stating that this stuff works, "secretly" have huge doubts and are ignoring the data just because? And then they're publishing these huge doubts in the peer-reviewed literature where anyone can read it? It makes no sense.
Nice misrepresentation of that paper. Yes, numerous samples were taken for dating. What your source deliberately leaves out is that what Kamo et al. 1996, are doing is establishing a minimum age for the Siberian flood-basalts, thus the other dates are irrelevant to the study, which doesn't mean they were bad dates.
I mean the quote you provided is a quote mine. A misrepresentation of what you presented it to be. Your assertion is bogus. No dates were disregarded. If they were disregarded, then why were they reported in the paper?I'm not sure what you mean because the quote was concerning Forster and Warrington's 1985 work.
Geochronology of the Carboniferous, Permian and Triassic
"Criteria concerning sample and analytical data and stratigraphic control have been used in a critical assessment of the suitability, for use in construction of a Phancrozoic time-scale, of radiometric data relevant to the Carboniferous, Permian and Triassic periods. Few of the age determinations available in 1982 satisfy these criteria and many of those used previously as a basis for time-scales for this part of the Phanerozoic are considred unacceptable by present standards."
http://mem.lyellcollection.org/content/10/1/99.short
Dates that do not give preferred results are filtered out of consideration.
More nuggets from the quote mine. As Rick G shows above, you will go to great lengths to lie about what is in those papers.
I mean the quote you provided is a quote mine. A misrepresentation of what you presented it to be. Your assertion is bogus. No dates were disregarded. If they were disregarded, then why were they reported in the paper?
When researchers write that "few of the age determinations available" were suitable for construction of a geologic timeline, what does that mean to you?
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?