Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Radiometric dating thread number 34,587,398
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="philadiddle" data-source="post: 23956448" data-attributes="member: 95344"><p>Some of you will remember that a few weeks ago i went to a creationist seminar and asked about his views on radiometric dating on this forum. I didn't have any references for the data so of course I couldn't be helped. I've emailed Dr. Jay Wile and he responded with many references. The text in italics is copied from that email.</p><p> </p><p><em>This is one on C-14 in things that are supposedly too old to have C-14. It contains a table of references to other peer-reviewed articles:</em></p><p> </p><p><a href="http://javascript<b></b>:ol('http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm');" target="_blank"><span style="color: #800080"><em>http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm</em></span></a></p><p> </p><p><em>This is a poster presented at the American Geophysical Union conference discussing the materials in the article above as well as the presence of C-14 in diamonds:</em></p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/AGUC-14_Poster_Baumgardner.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #800080"><em>http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/AGUC-14_Poster_Baumgardner.pdf</em></span></a></p><p> </p><p><em>Here is a list of peer-reviewed articles discussing the problem of argon in new igneous rock:</em></p><p> </p><p><em>Krummenacher, D., Isotopic Composition of Argon in Modern Surface Volcanic Rocks, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 8 (1970), pp. 109-117</em></p><p> </p><p><em>Fisher, D.E., Excess Rare Gases in a Subaerial Basalt from Nigeria, Nature, 232 (1971), pp. 60-61.</em></p><p> </p><p><em>Esser, R.P., McIntosh, W.C., Heizler, M.T. and Kyle, P.R., Excess Argon in Melt Inclusions in Zero-Age Anorthoclase Feldspar from Mt Erebus, Antarctica, as Revealed by the 40Ar/39Ar Method, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 61 (1997), pp. 3789-3801.</em></p><p> </p><p><em>McDougall, I., Polach, H.A. and Stipp, J.J., Excess Radiogenic Argon in Young Subaerial Basalts from the Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 33 (1969), pp. 1485-1520.</em></p><p> </p><p><em>Funkhouser, J.G., Barnes, I.L. and Naughton, J.J., Problems in the Dating of Volcanic Rocks by the Potassium-Argon Method, Bulletin of Volcanology, 29 (1966), pp. 709-717.</em></p><p> </p><p><em>Armstrong, R.L., K-Ar Dating: Late Cenozoic McMurdo Volcanic Group and Dry Valley Glacial History, Victoria Land, Antarctica, New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 21:6 (1978), pp. 685-</em><em>698.</em></p><p> </p><p> </p><p><em>This is one that discusses the evidence for radioactive decay rates being accelerated at one time:</em></p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0000ff"><em>http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf</em></span></a></p><p> </p><p><em>It is true that many samples are taken, but the result is based on the totality of the samples. Certainly, outliers are eliminated, but in the dating examples I discussed and those given by the references above, the outliers have already been removed. These are the results based on ALL samples AFTER outliers have been removed.</em></p><p> </p><p><em>...I am saying (as admitted in the literature) that the </em><em>layer from which the sample is taken is used as a way of eliminating outliers. This, of course, leads to the phenomenon of focusing. If you continually reject outliers that do not agree with your initial assumption, your results are going to end up being consistent with </em><em>your initial assumption. ALL areas of science are affected by focusing of results, but I think that radiometric dating is one of the more strongly affected endeavors.</em></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>So, any thoughts?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="philadiddle, post: 23956448, member: 95344"] Some of you will remember that a few weeks ago i went to a creationist seminar and asked about his views on radiometric dating on this forum. I didn't have any references for the data so of course I couldn't be helped. I've emailed Dr. Jay Wile and he responded with many references. The text in italics is copied from that email. [I]This is one on C-14 in things that are supposedly too old to have C-14. It contains a table of references to other peer-reviewed articles:[/I] [URL="http://javascript<b></b>:ol('http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm');"][COLOR=#800080][I]http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm[/I][/COLOR][/URL] [I]This is a poster presented at the American Geophysical Union conference discussing the materials in the article above as well as the presence of C-14 in diamonds:[/I] [URL="http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/AGUC-14_Poster_Baumgardner.pdf"][COLOR=#800080][I]http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/AGUC-14_Poster_Baumgardner.pdf[/I][/COLOR][/URL] [I]Here is a list of peer-reviewed articles discussing the problem of argon in new igneous rock:[/I] [I]Krummenacher, D., Isotopic Composition of Argon in Modern Surface Volcanic Rocks, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 8 (1970), pp. 109-117[/I] [I]Fisher, D.E., Excess Rare Gases in a Subaerial Basalt from Nigeria, Nature, 232 (1971), pp. 60-61.[/I] [I]Esser, R.P., McIntosh, W.C., Heizler, M.T. and Kyle, P.R., Excess Argon in Melt Inclusions in Zero-Age Anorthoclase Feldspar from Mt Erebus, Antarctica, as Revealed by the 40Ar/39Ar Method, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 61 (1997), pp. 3789-3801.[/I] [I]McDougall, I., Polach, H.A. and Stipp, J.J., Excess Radiogenic Argon in Young Subaerial Basalts from the Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 33 (1969), pp. 1485-1520.[/I] [I]Funkhouser, J.G., Barnes, I.L. and Naughton, J.J., Problems in the Dating of Volcanic Rocks by the Potassium-Argon Method, Bulletin of Volcanology, 29 (1966), pp. 709-717.[/I] [I]Armstrong, R.L., K-Ar Dating: Late Cenozoic McMurdo Volcanic Group and Dry Valley Glacial History, Victoria Land, Antarctica, New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 21:6 (1978), pp. 685-[/I][I]698.[/I] [I]This is one that discusses the evidence for radioactive decay rates being accelerated at one time:[/I] [URL="http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf"][COLOR=#0000ff][I]http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf[/I][/COLOR][/URL] [I]It is true that many samples are taken, but the result is based on the totality of the samples. Certainly, outliers are eliminated, but in the dating examples I discussed and those given by the references above, the outliers have already been removed. These are the results based on ALL samples AFTER outliers have been removed.[/I] [I]...I am saying (as admitted in the literature) that the [/I][I]layer from which the sample is taken is used as a way of eliminating outliers. This, of course, leads to the phenomenon of focusing. If you continually reject outliers that do not agree with your initial assumption, your results are going to end up being consistent with [/I][I]your initial assumption. ALL areas of science are affected by focusing of results, but I think that radiometric dating is one of the more strongly affected endeavors.[/I] So, any thoughts? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Radiometric dating thread number 34,587,398
Top
Bottom