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.
I think it is very telling that two of my recent topics have received very little opposition so far. I purposely chose them because they have very little creation apologist rebuttals on the net, so creationists are forced to actually understand the argument in order to reply, rather than cut/pasting rhetoric from YEC sources.
Every time ED or anya or anyone bring up the whole 'dating is based on assumptions' argument, I'm linking them back here. They probably still won't post here, but at least they'll be without excuse.
46AND2, I love the picture in your signature.
And I agree, where are all the creationists?
Where is Justatruthseeker, with that sort of user name he should be the first to ask questions.
Case specific problems, you claim...
An inherited flaw of the method, you claim...
Then you say "For example..."
And fail to give an example. You merely repeated the claim.
WHAT is the inherited flaw?
HOW is initial daughter a major source of problems?
And your readers have to live with the uncertainty of what it is you are claiming, as you refuse to be anything but vague. You do this because you know that if you are specific you are likely to be proven wrong. If you remain vague, you can still potentially talk your way out of it, by claiming that is not what you meant, and we are too ignorant/stupid to understand.
Man up. Give us specifics, so we can actually have an intellectual discussion.
The initial daughter content gives larger or large error bar to the data, in particular, on younger dates.
Is this specific enough?
Of course, you may ignore the size of the error bar and only take the number. You will not lose your job by doing that (not your fault). But the work would be classified as a junk research.
The initial daughter content gives larger or large error bar to the data, in particular, on younger dates.
Is this specific enough?
Of course, you may ignore the size of the error bar and only take the number. You will not lose your job by doing that (not your fault). But the work would be classified as a junk research.
The initial daughter content gives larger or large error bar to the data, in particular, on younger dates.
Of course, you may ignore the size of the error bar and only take the number. You will not lose your job by doing that (not your fault). But the work would be classified as a junk research.
That was the other reason I started this particular topic. I offered both of them the opportunity to learn why scientists don't assume initial daughter concentrations...twice each. They both ignored the offer the first time, and then each repeated the claim. I offered a second time, each, and they ignored me again. So I figured I would go ahead and start the topic, anyway...cause I was bored.
That would mean that any testing we do will come away with long age.
That no matter how it is tested, both initial premises will end up with the
exact same radiometric test results.
What would be the point to artificially advancing radioactive isotopes to the point where they seem old? And keep in mind, it's not just the isotopes we find on Earth that show old age. When we date rocks in space, they also bring back old ages.
And are you saying he also put artificial age into things like tree rings, varves, ice layers - things that match up with radiometric dating? He aged them, too? Even things like tumbling asteroids?
What would be the point?
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but since when do you subscribe to Apparent Age? I've never seen you bark up this particular tree before. If memory serves, you've always maintained that the rates were off.
Tree rings and ice cores match up only back to the end of the flood as far as they can count them.
The make many assumptions to make them appear to be older.
[I've always maintained that they MAKE ASSUMPTIONS about the starting
rate
Everything was made in a few days so of course everything they test in space
Tree rings and ice cores match up only back to the end of the flood as far as they can count them. The make many assumptions to make them appear to be older. After all, they have to match the other long age assumptions.
I've always maintained that they MAKE ASSUMPTIONS about the starting
rates. The dates of the rates are off because they think it took millions of years for them to decay to what we can test today.
Everything was made in a few days so of course everything they test in space or on earth should match up.
Tree rings and ice cores match up only back to the end of the flood as far as they can count them. The make many assumptions to make them appear to be older. After all, they have to match the other long age assumptions.
.
That goes with any sample. If a sample is too young the error bars will make it undateable. But all that tells us is that the sample is too young for the method chosen. For example basalt with xenoliths that is very young can give an incorrect date due to the xenoliths using the K/Ar method. Of course these days we can date the xenoliths or even avoid them in samples. There are all sorts of ways of using a tool incorrectly. In some cases the source of error is obvious. Yet those are the ways that I have seen creationists, perhaps purposefully, misuse radiometric dating to "prove" that it is unreliable.
All they ever end up "proving" is that a screwdriver makes a very poor hammer. In other words there is no point in dating fresh basalt with xenoliths. You know that you will get a false advanced age. Someone that does that regardless is definitely less than honest.
Of course they do. When you use methodologies at the edges of their useful ranges the smallest contaminations can have relatively large effects. However, these problems go away for older dates that fall within the useable range for a given methodology.
This is an effect that creationists often take advantage of. They use methodologies for age ranges that they are not meant to be used for, and fail to tell their readers why this is not proper science.
Why would we ignore the error bars?
I mean, I hate to rant on a bit, but look at this, for example.
The Lake Malawi Sediment Chronometer and the Toba Super Eruption â Naturalis Historia
Scientists date the eruption to be 74,000 years ago. When scientists go down and look at the sediments, they find ash...right where it should be if the explosion happened 74,000 years. It's not higher, it's not lower, it's where you would expect the ash to be if the sedimentation had been fairly uniform when the eruption happened.
So...what? God didn't just plant fake layers, he planted fake ash from an eruption that never actually happened? Why?
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?