Geological dating techniques

[pshun2404]

No, the "assumption" is that those rates are not significantly affected under conditions found on the Earth and near the Earth's surface. By the way, anything that is not in the mantle or deeper is "near the Earth's surface". And that has been shown to be true.

No particular value to Creationists (especially YECs), but it might demonstrate that determinations of dates formerly assigned could be off. But this is not unusual that more research should uncover the falsehood earlier possibly questionable conclusions. Take the Petralona Skull for example. Initial excavation of the geological environment yielded a date of around 700,000 years old, but ESR could only confirm 160,000 to 240,000 years, and now EB paleontologists have claimed no older then 70,000 years (still 30,000 years earlier than the originally accepted out of Africa theory). Now since so many finds have reduced the original 40,000 year migration date to ashes and wishful hypothesis based fiction, I see no reason to outright reject any possibility that what we accept today could also be w-r-o-n-g.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No particular value to Creationists (especially YECs), but it might demonstrate that determinations of dates formerly assigned could be off. But this is not unusual that more research should uncover the falsehood earlier possibly questionable conclusions. Take the Petralona Skull for example. Initial excavation of the geological environment yielded a date of around 700,000 years old, but ESR could only confirm 160,000 to 240,000 years, and now EB paleontologists have claimed no older then 70,000 years (still 30,000 years earlier than the originally accepted out of Africa theory). Now since so many finds have reduced the original 40,000 year migration date to ashes and wishful hypothesis based fiction, I see no reason to outright reject any possibility that what we accept today could also be w-r-o-n-g.

Now you are merely nitpicking and grasping at straws.

 

[Loudmouth]

One example they cited showed that a certain element when surrounded by copper at 12 degrees Kelvin demonstrated a 6% variance in the rate of decay. Over 1,000,000 years this would indicate a variance in the "constant rate" conclusion of possibly 60,000 years either way. Now say this occurred 30 times in a 50,000,000 year alleged time frame? Think about it? That would mean the conclusion of an age could be off by 1.8 million years!

Is this isotope used for radiometric dating?

Of the rocks we have used for dating geologic formations, how many have been chilled down to that temperature?

How do you explain the correlation between different isotopes?

 

[pshun2404]

Of the rocks we have used for dating geologic formations, how many have been chilled down to that temperature?

During which Ice Age period? We know it is not C-14 which has a 1/2 life of about 5,730 years. As a result carbon-14 dating is only effective up to about 50,000 years. Now though uranium-238, uranium-235, and potassium-40, each can be measured back to slightly over a million years, our fossilized bones do not contain these elements! So that one is no good either. These items are only found in igneous rocks and these contain no fossils. Finally ESR is only reliable for quite modern samples. So in effect NONE of these can provide accurate dates for fossils however many of the dates claimed for decades were reported allegedly relying on the first mentioned techniques.

So how does this dating thing work? It is assessed in a two method approach...relative dating and absolute dating...relative dating attempts to date the find by dating the surrounding geological environment....but how does one date the surrounding environment? This is done by what we call index fossils found elsewhere (but in allegedly the same layers) thus the layers allegedly proving the fossil's dates but the alleged dates of the layers being determined by other layers (totally circular).

A third option by which we can derive approximate dates is when we find a layer full of fossils in between two volcanic layers (thus igneous, thus having Uranium and Potassium isotopes).

But the possible self deception comes in when we actually cannot prove that the decay rates were indeed constant and that they may have varied during different periods.

Now I am not saying dating techniques are no good. On the contrary they are profound and necessary...but as one poster said, it is really only when a number of tests are done and in some cases we find a close correlation that we can make more sound assumptions but sadly in many cases (like the Boxgrove example as well as nutcracker man), the problem of widely varying determinations is resolved by averaging or assuming a mean (which conveniently agrees with the hypothesis based presupposition).

 

[time]

This forum is not about whether God exists. It is not about theists versus atheists. It is about a cranky Protestant religious minority with a political agenda versus everybody else, theists and atheists alike.

A believing people is always a minority. No matter how many professors of the faith side with those pushing the lie of evolution, the truth will march over them all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A believing people is always a minority. No matter how many professors of the faith side with those pushing the lie of evolution, the truth will march over them all.

Why do you think that evolution is s lie? You have failed miserably at supporting that claim.

 

[time]

Why do you think that evolution is s lie? You have failed miserably at supporting that claim.

It has no basis in fact, and flies directly in the face of any reasoned honest reading about creation in the bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It has no basis in fact, and flies directly in the face of any reasoned honest reading about creation in the bible.

Wow! You are amazingly wrong.

Well except for the fact that it tells you that the Genesis story is a myth. But we knew that even before the theory of evolution came along.

Since you have no science education would you like to start? How about learning the scientific method and what is and what is not evidence. You won't make such embarrassing mistakes if you do that. I will be more than happy to help.

 

[time]

Wow! You are amazingly wrong.

Well except for the fact that it tells you that the Genesis story is a myth. But we knew that even before the theory of evolution came along.

Since you have no science education would you like to start? How about learning the scientific method and what is and what is not evidence. You won't make such embarrassing mistakes if you do that. I will be more than happy to help.

Trying to speak into existence some credibility? You need more. You say Genesis is not true, God says creation is true. You offer nothing in the way of evidence. God has offered innumerable proofs that ring through history. You offer depraved doubts, God offers life and hope. Any particular reason you have locked yourself out of the reason dept?

 

[time]

No doubt the earth is NOT 10,000 years old.

6000. Do you think that there is radioactive decay in the millennium? Why would you try to extend today's realities of death and decay to other times you know nothing about?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Trying to speak into existence some credibility? You need more. You say Genesis is not true, God says creation is true. You offer nothing in the way of evidence. God has offered innumerable proofs that ring through history. You offer depraved doubts, God offers life and hope. Any particular reason you have locked yourself out of the reason dept?

Wrong, God says no such thing. Genesis is a work of man. Nowhere in the Bible does it even say that the Bible is the "word of God". You have to use an interpretation of the Bible that ignores the history of the Bible to make that mistaken claim. The Bible is filled with errors and calling it "the word of God" is the same as saying that your God is full of errors. That is why most Christians do not take certain parts of the Bible literally.

Show me where God specifically says "Genesis is true". You can't and you know it. All you can do is to find verses on the rather vague and undefined "word of God". You do realize that different sects of Christianity have different books that they consider part of the Bible, don't you? How do you decide what parts are "the word of God" or not? What makes you right and other sects wrong?

You do not have to deny reality to be a Christian. Why is reality so frightening to you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

6000. Do you think that there is radioactive decay in the millennium? Why would you try to extend today's realities of death and decay to other times you know nothing about?

And once again you call God a liar, whether you realize it or not. The evidence out there from multiple sources all tell us that the Earth is much much older than that. If God made this Earth then he would have had to have planted false evidence by your beliefs that made the Earth look old.

You see we do know about the past. You do not seem to know or want to know because reality tells you that your beliefs are false.

 

[time]

The evidence out there from multiple sources all tell us that the Earth is much much older than that. .

False. The magic genie of great time is a completely circular concept invoked to explain things science does not know.

Looking at an example of plate tectonics, it is unknown how this works. In all cases, the explanations involve waving the magic wand of great time as needed, to crystallize some explanation.


"-scientists can neither precisely describe nor fully understand the forces, most believe that--"
Some unanswered questions [This Dynamic Earth, USGS]

 

[time]

Wrong, God says no such thing. Genesis is a work of man.

Show us where Jesus disavowed Moses and Scripture and creation, and the flood? Why talk?

 

[Subduction Zone]

False. The magic genie of great time is a completely circular concept invoked to explain things science does not know.

Looking at an example of plate tectonics, it is unknown how this works. In all cases, the explanations involve waving the magic wand of great time as needed, to crystallize some explanation.


"-scientists can neither precisely describe nor fully understand the forces, most believe that--"
Some unanswered questions [This Dynamic Earth, USGS]

You can't win an argument based upon your bluster and ignorance. And quoting out of context is not an honest technique. It proves nothing. We know that the plates move. We can and have directly measured them. We can "see" the plates subducting again using earthquakes. We cannot observe the movement of the mantle since it is too even and slow, but it fits everything observed to date. An unanswered question is never evidence for your side. We can date rocks quite accurately using radiometric dating, assuming that the person using the technique is not incompetent.


You have nothing but myth and a fear of reality on your side.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Show us where Jesus disavowed Moses and Scripture and creation, and the flood? Why talk?

I never claimed that he did. You are the one that says that he did.

And you are only making it worse for you. If you claim that Jesus supported the flood then since there was no flood you are claiming that Jesus was not divine. It is much better for you if you take his one Noah reference as being the equivalent of saying that someone is as "old as the hills".

 

[time]

You can't win an argument based upon your bluster and ignorance. And quoting out of context is not an honest technique. It proves nothing. We know that the plates move.

The context was that they don't know why and how. Deal with it.

We can and have directly measured them. We can "see" the plates subducting again using earthquakes.

I know what we can see. That changes nothing of your ignorance to what is not known does it?

We cannot observe the movement of the mantle since it is too even and slow,

You can guess though and invoke magic genies.

but it fits everything observed to date.

The unknown always fits strong beliefs.

An unanswered question is never evidence for your side.

Side? Either we know, or like the article said, don't know. What side can there be to not knowing?

We can date rocks quite accurately using radiometric dating,

You can date purple unicorns too if you like. Make sure you invoke that tooth fairy eh? (the great ages no one ever saw)

assuming that the person using the technique is not incompetent.

The unknown has no competency.

 

[TBDude65]

In the documentary "Is Genesis History", they mention that all geological dating techniques are wrong, or misleading if you will. The narrator states a few times during the documentary that geological dating is a fundamental question, but unfortunately, no arguments are given to support the idea.

After all, there are a dozen dating techniques out there. Some based on radioactive elements half-lives, some on chemical reactions, some on light, some on biochronology, some on dendrochronology, some on paleomagnetism.

Could all of these techniques be totally misleading in assessing the age of the Earth and fossils?

No, but that hasn't stopped creationists from making that claim

 

[Loudmouth]

Of the rocks we have used for dating geologic formations, how many have been chilled down to that temperature?

Notice that you never answered this question. Which of the rocks used for dating geologic layers was chilled down to 12 Kelvin during its history? If these rocks were never that cold, then your objections mean nothing. You have also not shown that any of the isotopes used for dating have that variance at that temperature to begin with.

Now though uranium-238, uranium-235, and potassium-40, each can be measured back to slightly over a million years, our fossilized bones do not contain these elements! So that one is no good either. These items are only found in igneous rocks and these contain no fossils.

Fossils are older than the layers found below them and younger than the layers found above them. By finding the age of the rocks above and below a fossil you can determine the age range during which the fossil was buried.

So how does this dating thing work? It is assessed in a two method approach...relative dating and absolute dating...relative dating attempts to date the find by dating the surrounding geological environment....but how does one date the surrounding environment? This is done by what we call index fossils found elsewhere (but in allegedly the same layers) thus the layers allegedly proving the fossil's dates but the alleged dates of the layers being determined by other layers (totally circular).

The age of index fossils in other geologic layers is determined by radiometric dating, so it isn't circular.

But the possible self deception comes in when we actually cannot prove that the decay rates were indeed constant and that they may have varied during different periods.

If your only objection is that the laws of physics changed in the past by some unknown amount for some unknown reason, then you are tacitly admitting that the evidence is strongly against you.

We already have evidence that decay rates were the same in the past, by the way.

CF210: Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates

 

[Subduction Zone]

The context was that they don't know why and how. Deal with it.

Wrong, try again. Bluster and ignorance is a losing technique.

I know what we can see. That changes nothing of your ignorance to what is not known does it?

No, you only know what YOU can see with your eyes. You really have no clue about what observation is. And please. Making false claims about others is breaking the Ninth Commandment. When it comes to the world you are the ignorant one here. I am merely trying to help.

You can guess though and invoke magic genies.

Wrong again, that is your sin, not mine.

The unknown always fits strong beliefs.

Once again you demonstrate your ignorance. Science has testable models. That is how we learn. That is how we can see if an idea is correct or not.

Side? Either we know, or like the article said, don't know. What side can there be to not knowing?

But it did not say that we don't know. You quoted out of context. Is your memory that bad? I already pointed out that error to you.

You can date purple unicorns too if you like. Make sure you invoke that tooth fairy eh? (the great ages no one ever saw)
The unknown has no competency.

Once again, you are the one that believes in magic. That you attempt to project your sins on others indicates that you know that you are wrong. All you have shown to date is your own incompetence.

If you would like to learn I will gladly help you. If you are here just to shoot holes in your feet I will paint a target on them for you.