Geological dating techniques

[DogmaHunter]

Well it doesn't really matter what wording someone uses to try and get out of the argument (such as pointing out fallacies for example).

Wheter an argument is fallacious or not, kinda matters when one cares about being justified in ones beliefs.

Nothing will ever change me and my views.

Indeed. That makes discussion with you an exercise in futility. It also makes you intellectually dishonest.

You could easily change my views for example... all it takes is some rational evidence and non-fallacious argumentation.

Just as nothing may ever change your views.

False. I don't clinge to dogmatic beliefs. I go by the evidence. If evidence shows me wrong, I'll happily accept that. I'll even rejoice, because I would have just learned something. And learning, is a good thing.

Hence the normal atheist vs christian stalemate.

That stalemate, is entirely on your end.

 

[Herman Hedning]

I heared of living creatues being dated in thousands of years .

Maybe that's why radiometric dating is not used on living organisms?

 

[Amazing Horse]

Maybe that's why radiometric dating is not used on living organisms?

What if i amputee my horse's leg , is this leg still living ?
And then date the leg .

 

[Herman Hedning]

What if i amputee my horse's leg , is this leg still living ?
And then date the leg .

Well, since your horse is amazing, the leg will probably still be alive. For normal horses, the carbon excange with the atmosphere stops pretty much immediately after death. Maybe a little extra time is needed for the levels to stabilize - I'm no expert in these matters.

 

[Jimmy D]

Dunno maybe here

Sorry, I can't watch videos, I got no sound. Who's that dude?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello SZ.

How many techniques are available for the date of the earth?

For the whole Earth I can only think of radiometric dating, though there are several independent clocks. Creationists cannot explain why they would not work. All they can do is to deny. For example when they claim that rates were faster in the past, they cannot explain why two independent clocks give the same date.

To show that the Earth is "old" there are countless tests.

 

[klutedavid]

For the whole Earth I can only think of radiometric dating, though there are several independent clocks. Creationists cannot explain why they would not work. All they can do is to deny. For example when they claim that rates were faster in the past, they cannot explain why two independent clocks give the same date.

To show that the Earth is "old" there are countless tests.

Hello SZ.

The age of the Earth.

You mentioned that only one scientific technique was available, to date the time of the origin of the Earth. Whether or not these so called, 'independent clocks', are actually independent, will depend on the validity of this singular scientific technique.

I would prefer at least three different scientific techniques, to be used to determine the age of the Earth. To use just one scientific technique within this dating methodology, would it seems to me, to be putting your eggs in just one basket.

What I find more interesting, is any claim of a non corrupted sample source for the radio decay analysis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello SZ.

The age of the Earth.

You mentioned that only one scientific technique was available, to date the time of the origin of the Earth. Whether or not these so called, 'independent clocks', are actually independent, will depend on the validity of this singular scientific technique.

I would prefer at least three different scientific techniques, to be used to determine the age of the Earth. To use just one scientific technique within this dating methodology, would it seems to me, to be putting your eggs in just one basket.

What I find more interesting, is any claim of a non corrupted sample source for the radio decay analysis.

We have countless tests that show the Earth to be "old". But when you want to put a number on it the choices are limited.

By the way, when one source has evidence and the other side has none, you should always go with the side that has evidence. You are merely making excuses at this point.

 

[Astrophile]

Yes, it is theoretically possible that ALL of the techniques could be wrong.

But remember, if that is the case, then these entirely different techniques all give completely consistent results. We don't see one technique say the Earth is a billion trillion years old, while another technique says it is three weeks old. They all give the same results, within their known margins for error.

Kind of a big coincidence if they were all wrong.

Not only do different methods of radiometric dating give consistent results but there are non-radiometric methods that show that the Earth and the solar system are hundreds or thousands of millions of years old. There are varved sediments covering periods of up to 20 million years. Dating based on rates of sedimentation and denudation and on the movements of the tectonic plates yields ages of hundreds of millions of years for the beginning of the Cambrian period. The recession rate of the Moon, counts of craters on the Moon and the planets, the ages of asteroid families and the principal axis rotation of asteroids, all require an age of >1000 million years for the solar system. Finally, analysis of the frequency of solar vibrations has given an age for the Sun of 4.57±0.11 Gyr, in exact agreement with radiometric ages of meteorites - http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full/2002/30/aa2598/aa2598. right.html .

 

[Kylie]

Hello Kylie.

Probably the same dating technique on different isotopes returning the same expected results. We need more than one dating methodology.

And we have more than one.

This page mentions twenty-one different radiometric dating techniques. There is quite a degree of overlap with this, which allows for two different method (or more) to be used to cross check and verify results.

 

[Kylie]

I heared of living creatues being dated in thousands of years .

Yes, living creatures that are dated with radiocarbon dating have returned results indicating they are thousands of years old. There are two main reasons for this.

First, the technique is not designed to be used on living creatures. Living creatures are constantly taking carbon in from their environment, via breathing and eating. The technique needs the sample to be isolated from this, so it is not taking in carbon from the environment.

Secondly, there is a margin of error. It can't be used to date extremely short time spans. It would be like using a calendar to measure how long it takes you to drive to your local shops.

In short, it is only when used inappropriately that the technique gives inaccurate results. When used properly, the technique is quite reliable.

 

[Kylie]

Nothing will ever change me and my views.

"Nothing will ever change my mind!" says NothingIsImpossible, giving us an example of something that is impossible.

Just as nothing may ever change your views.

Evidence will change my views.

Why won't it change yours?

 

[Kylie]

Not only do different methods of radiometric dating give consistent results but there are non-radiometric methods that show that the Earth and the solar system are hundreds or thousands of millions of years old. There are varved sediments covering periods of up to 20 million years. Dating based on rates of sedimentation and denudation and on the movements of the tectonic plates yields ages of hundreds of millions of years for the beginning of the Cambrian period. The recession rate of the Moon, counts of craters on the Moon and the planets, the ages of asteroid families and the principal axis rotation of asteroids, all require an age of >1000 million years for the solar system. Finally, analysis of the frequency of solar vibrations has given an age for the Sun of 4.57±0.11 Gyr, in exact agreement with radiometric ages of meteorites - http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full/2002/30/aa2598/aa2598. right.html .

Agreed. Like I said, if the techniques are wrong, then an extraordinary number of amazingly unlikely coincidences need to take place in order form them to appear to be in agreement. Since such coincidences are so unlikely, we can dismiss them completely, and so conclude that the techniques are not wrong at all.

 

[klutedavid]

And we have more than one.

This page mentions twenty-one different radiometric dating techniques. There is quite a degree of overlap with this, which allows for two different method (or more) to be used to cross check and verify results.

Hello Kylie.

Do you have a scientific technique apart from radiometric dating?

What happens if radiometric dating is incorrect on samples in deep time, how would we know?

 

[klutedavid]

We have countless tests that show the Earth to be "old". But when you want to put a number on it the choices are limited.

By the way, when one source has evidence and the other side has none, you should always go with the side that has evidence. You are merely making excuses at this point.

Hello SZ.

I don't see a contest between two sides, I just see claims being made on both sides.
I am not making excuses SZ, because I have no allegiance to either side. The date of the Earth is irrelevant as far as I am concerned, much ado about nothing. I just like to examine the claims, have a look at the evidence, burn an alchemist, or even burn a heretic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Kylie.

Do you have a scientific technique apart from radiometric dating?

What happens if radiometric dating is incorrect on samples in deep time, how would we know?

There really is too much independent confirmation of radiometric dating to imply that it could be wrong. If you want to make such a claim the burden of proof is upon you. For example dating of ice cores is done with several independent methods. You can read more here:

Ice core basics

Why or how do you think that radiometric dating could be wrong? And since we know that the Earth is hundreds of millions of years old even without why the fixation on this one kind of dating?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello SZ.

I don't see a contest between two sides, I just see claims being made on both sides.
I am not making excuses SZ, because I have no allegiance to either side. The date of the Earth is irrelevant as far as I am concerned, much ado about nothing. I just like to examine the claims, have a look at the evidence, burn an alchemist, or even burn a heretic.

One side has evidence. One side does not. Perhaps you should try to get learn what is and what is not evidence.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello SZ.

Thanks for your reply and the link.

A solid example of confirmation of the dating claim, ice samples do indeed support the older radio dated Earth (1M years). Yet the claim of 3.5 billion years is not supported by any additional dating techniques.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello SZ.

Thanks for your reply and the link.

A solid example of confirmation of the dating claim, ice samples do indeed support the older radio dated Earth (1M years). Yet the claim of 3.5 billion years is not supported by any additional dating techniques.

I do believe that Hitch linked one for you.

And it is 4.5 billion years not 3.5 billion years.

ETA: My mistake, it was Astrophile, but his link did not work. Luckily he gave enough information so that it was easily found:

1999A&A...343..990D Page 990

 

[Kylie]

Hello Kylie.

Do you have a scientific technique apart from radiometric dating?

What happens if radiometric dating is incorrect on samples in deep time, how would we know?

*Sigh*

Once again I will point out that there are MANY DIFFERENT TYPES of radiometric dating.

If one or more types are incorrect, we would expect to see them give very different results. Like I said back in post 56, we don't see one technique say the Earth is a billion trillion years old, while another technique says it is three weeks old. They all give the same results, within their known margins for error.

Kind of a big coincidence if they were all wrong.