Other Radiometric Dating Methods

[RocksInMyHead]

It's not "lying", either.

It is if he pretends to be an expert (he does) and speaks from "authority" (he does). You may say that he's doing the best he can, but Ken Ham doesn't say anything of the sort. Furthermore, his misrepresentation of data is flat-out lying.

He said it gave the numbers evolutionists look for. Do you disagree?

Sure, and it's been giving them since before they were looking for them. We don't throw out methods that don't agree. We do always make sure to use the right tool for the job (i.e. carbon-14 can't be used on anything older than ~50,000 years old, so if we suspect that it's older, we use something else - you wouldn't use a 12-inch ruler to measure miles, would you?), and sometimes individual measurements don't agree, but they aren't simply thrown out. Examination of the sample almost always provides an explanation (cracks act as conduits for fluids/gases, grains can have inherited cores, etc).

 

[AV1611VET]

It is if he pretends to be an expert (he does) and speaks from "authority" (he does). You may say that he's doing the best he can, but Ken Ham doesn't say anything of the sort. Furthermore, his misrepresentation of data is flat-out lying.

I believe Jesus walked on water, irregardless of what science says.

Am I lying?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Yes, I knew what he meant; but given that a real scientist wouldn't use the p-word, I felt it okay to ... well ... obfuscate.

The first time I would ever say "prove it" to someone, I would get a lecture on how science doesn't work that way, and/or how ignorant I am to expect science to prove anything.

Ok, if you want to take the pedantic route, provide evidence for your position that scientists reject most dates because they don't give the numbers they want.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, if you want to take the pedantic route, provide evidence for your position that scientists reject most dates because they don't give the numbers they want.

He's not here.

 

[46AND2]

He's not here.

LOL.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I believe Jesus walked on water, irregardless of what science says.

Am I lying?

Some might say yes, I wouldn't agree. It's difficult to pick out lies in matters of belief.

However, this example is irrelevant to the reasons I gave for Ken Ham being a liar. I consider him a liar because he misrepresents (i.e. lies of omission) published data. He also writes from a position of authority on subjects he is not an expert on, including geology (his degrees are in applied science with a focus on evolutionary biology and education). By misrepresenting himself as an expert, he is again lying.

He may lie because of his beliefs, but his beliefs are not necessarily lies in and of themselves.

 

[AV1611VET]

He may lie because of his beliefs, but his beliefs are not necessarily lies in and of themselves.

I'm not a Philadelphia lawyer, so I'm not going to respond here.

 

[Split Rock]

I'm not a Philadelphia lawyer, so I'm not going to respond here.

And you will continue to tacitly approve his deceitful behavior, just like so many other creationists do. And Ham will continue to deceive (but its OK to look the other way because he is a brother "fighting the good fight.").

 

[AV1611VET]

And you will continue to tacitly approve his deceitful behavior, just like so many other creationists do. And Ham will continue to deceive (but its OK to look the other way because he is a brother "fighting the good fight.").

I've already said what I believe about Mr. Ham's, et. al. attempts at defending creationism with science.

I do not, however, believe he is being "deceitful" ... unless you mean 'deceitful' in the way Jesus was 'deceitful,' in which case I wish we were all 'deceitful.'

 

[Radagast]

As my pastor says, of the eighty-some methods of dating the earth, evolutionists only pick the ones that give them the answers they're looking for, and discard the rest.

Your pastor may say it, but it's still false.

Many Christians believe in an Old Earth, in fact. This book points out that pretty much all dating methods give similar numbers.

 

[ReverendDG]

As my pastor says, of the eighty-some methods of dating the earth, evolutionists only pick the ones that give them the answers they're looking for, and discard the rest.

then he is completely wrong and ignorant of how dating methods work.
he needs to stick to the bible and keep out of trying to tell people what scientists do.

 

[ReverendDG]

It's not "lying", either.

considering he has had both scientists and laymen correct him, and not only that, corrected in debates, yes he is lying.

He said it gave the numbers evolutionists look for. Do you disagree?

i do, the claim is false based on ignorance.
the date is certainly expected just from induction, but no one honest manipulates the data like that claim says, i would call that slander not just a lie.

wheres the evidence? or right it is just a made up anti-science attack by people who have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[CabVet]

I happen to have been there when he said it; along with about a couple hundred others.

He was wrong.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I do not, however, believe he is being "deceitful" ... unless you mean 'deceitful' in the way Jesus was 'deceitful,' in which case I wish we were all 'deceitful.'

There's a great example of his deceitfulness in your "Earlier Ice Ages?" thread from a few days ago. I'll quote it again for reference:

Turbidity currents can deposit varve-like laminated sediments very quickly. These sediments are more accurately called rhythmites. A varve is defined as a rhythmite deposited in one year. Lambert and Hsu have presented evidence from a Swiss lake that such varve-like rhythmites form rapidly by catastrophic, turbid water underflows.

As I said in my response to this point, Ham misuses the data from the Lambert and Hsu paper. While it's true that the paper does say that a type of rhythmite is formed by underwater debris flows, it goes on to state that the deposits of those debris flows are still easily distinguishable from varved rhythmites, which directly contradicts the statement that Ham was trying to make.

This is called a lie of omission - deliberately leaving out part of the information that doesn't support your conclusions without any mention that it was left out or why. There are many other examples of this in creationist literature, and every single one is deceitful. You need to take your head out of the sand.

 

[CabVet]

I believe Jesus walked on water, irregardless of what science says.

Am I lying?

I assume you also accept gravity as a valid scientific theory, correct?

Making an analogy with evolution, what Ken (and many other creationists) do would be the equivalent to try to "prove" that Jesus walked on water by using false information to discredit the theory of gravity.

 

[RickG]

From the Answers Book, by Ken Ham, pp. 81-82, by Jonathan Sarfati and Carl Wieland:

There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to give ages of millions or billions of years for rocks. These techniques, unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains. For example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. These techniques are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the time since solidification.

That is an excellent example of creationists lies, thank you for bringing it forward. All radiometric dating techniques have the same process of determining the ratio of parent to daughter isotopes. The only difference is that C14 is a cosmogenic radionuclide absorbed by living things while the others listed above are associated with igneous or metamorphic materials. BTW, U238 does not decay directly into 206 lead, nor U235 into Pb207. The Uranium series makes itself available to a number of dating methods and techniques. Here's what the series looks like:

The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates.

Radionuclides decay at very specific rates. By knowing the specific decay rate of an unstable isotope (which are well known) the origin of the specimen can be determined in years before present. No geochronologist says radiometric dating gives exact dates as Ham seems to indicate. There is always a margin of error which is always reported in the data presented in the peer review literature.

To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:

True they are assumptions. However, Hams again implies that scientific assumptions come with great error. Nothing could be further from the truth.

1. The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there)

   In the early beginnings of radiometric dating in the early 20th century that would be true, but that is not the case now. There are many ways in which excess daughter isotope can be determined. Additionally, with the isochron method, it doesn't matter if any excess daughter existed or not.

2. Decay rates have always been constant.

   There are only two or three isotopes that are known to have an oscillating decay rate. First, none of those isotopes are used in radiometric dating and second, even if they were they those variations are so small that they are still within statistical significance.

3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

   Again, this reverts back to the first assumption. There are many ways for determining such problems and with the isochron method it doesn't matter.

When a "date" differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain "bad" dates.

Researchers invent nothing, creationists such as Ken Ham and Woodmorappe, do invent misleading information and out right lies. The exclusion of some results is due to either contamination or process error. As in any scientific study involving the analysis of data, statistical methods are used, such as linear regression analysis. Included in those analysis is the determination of statistical reliability. Statistical reliability at the 95% level is what is called statistically significant in all areas of science and non science. In radiometric dating, most results are generally within the 98% reliability range or better. For creationists to state that scientists through out the data they don't like and keep what they like is ridiculous and quite frankly, a very dishonest statement.

What astonishes me is that his and many other creationists lies and deceptions concerning radiometric dating and other dating methods can and are easily exposed, and people like you and other Christians are willing to ignore the deliberate deception. Really why?

 

[RickG]

The most charitable explanation is that Ken Ham misunderstood the material quoted above.

Ken Ham has been shown his "misunderstanding" many many times over the years and he still continues to expound the same misrepresentations in his lectures, literature and website. I can understand the first few times, but continuing to do so over years only demonstrates his misuse of science and God's 9th commandment.

 

[RickG]

Thank you! but I find that hard to believe, since I believe Mr. Ham is doing the best he knows how.

Do you really approve of the deliberate misrepresentation of radiometric dating by Ham and others? Honestly AV, please give a simple yes or no answer.

 

[RickG]

As my pastor says, of the eighty-some methods of dating the earth, evolutionists only pick the ones that give them the answers they're looking for, and discard the rest.

This is not the first time you have shared that with us. This is also not the first time I have pointed out that your pastor is uninformed. You may tell him I said so, In fact I encourage you to do so.

 

[RickG]

He said it gave the numbers evolutionists look for. Do you disagree?

Again, he is uninformed, what he is suggesting is academic dishonesty.