The Truth About Dating Methods

[Daffaforce]

Using a bigger font doesn't make what you're writing more clever, y'know...

 

[FishFace]

tl;dr.

Also tstupidlyformatted;dr.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Let me warn you, knowitall: If you come back here crowing about how this or that point has gone unchallenged I will report your OP for violation of copyright, excessive length, and just all-around flaunting of discussion board ethics.

Let it die.

 

[RealityCheck]

Let me warn you, knowitall: If you come back here crowing about how this or that point has gone unchallenged I will report your OP for violation of copyright, excessive length, and just all-around flaunting of discussion board ethics.

Let it die.

I say report it anyway, Teddy.

 

[speakout]

http://evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-6a.htm

No it is painful because it messes your mind up.

 

[speakout]

Great post, you see these cats like to act wise and pooh pooh everyhing but they cannot look at their fallcies.

 

[Molal]

Great post, you see these cats like to act wise and pooh pooh everyhing but they cannot look at their fallcies.

To speakout and knowitless - The problem is we look up your fallacies all day long and day after day you come back with the same-old, tired PRATTs. It is abundantly clear that you have no idea what you talking about concerning science.

So why do it? Are you looking for validation for your faith? Are you goading posters to not like you so you feel persecuted? Are you looking for attention? Because no matter how many times you post something it doesn't mean it's right.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Using a bigger font doesn't make what you're writing more clever, y'know...

You know they are releasing a version of the KING JAMES BIBLE, ALL IN CAPS, TO MAKE IT EVEN MORE TRUE?????!!!!!one1!!1!

 

[[serious]]

closed for review

 

[Abongil]

Lay off the huge font.

 

[Soul Searcher]

I skimmed over some of the web page and couldn't help but notice the portion where it talks about a piece of iron that has became inactive placed next to one that is active would cause the inactive one to become active again and the active one to degrade by 3%. Effectively reseting the clock on the previously inactive piece.

I do not know if this is true or not [I doubt that it is] but if true then it actually has the opposite effect of what the young earth group would like to hear. The implication would be that those iron fragments could be potentially many times older than we think.

Example. A rock on earth is billions of years old and has became totally inactive then a iron metorite strikes nearby recharging the iron speciment. The now billions of year old rock may appear to be realitively young, so when we see these rocks that measure as billions of years old it is possible that they could be trillions of years old but extremely unlikely that they are younger that the dating tells us.

The indication seems to be meant to show that the rock which is newer would appear older than it really is but the problem is that it could only happen in the presence of a much older object so worst case is that the earth is much older than we think.

 

[Gracchus]

"The Evolution Handbook" is a Chick book. They are not just comic books anymore.

http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/1254.asp



Maybe the Big font is found in the original.

 

[thaumaturgy]

...

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

If scientists are so wrong about dating methods why are they so consistent? Why are members of any given species found only in a certain range and never outside it? Why are there no non-avian dinosaurs found after 65 million years? Why dont members of the same species date 5 mya, 50 mya, 500 mya, and 5 bya? Why arent rabbits dated to the cambrian and trilobites dated to the miocene?

Consider this: if the dating methods are consistent then even if the dates themselves are wrong we still have an accurate chronology of life and we can still claim things like humans and dinosaurs never coexisted.

creationists need to explain the consistency of the fossil record BEFORE trashing it.

 

[mpok1519]

I'm sorry, but, I read it all, and it still doesn't refute modern day dating techniques.

if it refute modern dating techniques, I'm sure the entire scientific community would be changing their methods as we speak.

if you get a PhD in chemistry, yeah sure, I'm sure the scientific community would consider revamping their methods.

 

[NailsII]

I'd like to actually tackle one of these claims actually.

(7) A basic assumption of all radioactive dating methods is that the clock had to start at the beginning; that is, no daughter products were present, only those elements at the top of the radioactive chain were in existence. For example, all the uranium 238 in the world originally had no lead 206 in it, and no lead 206 existed anywhere else. But if either Creation—or a major worldwide catastrophe (such as the Flood) occurred, everything would begin thereafter with, what scientists call, an "appearance of age."
By this we mean "appearance of maturity." The world would be seen as mature the moment after Creation. Spread before us would be a scene of fully grown plants and flowers. Most trees would have their full height. We would not, instead, see a barren landscape of seeds littering the ground. We would see full-grown chickens, not unhatched eggs. Radioactive minerals would be partially through their cycle of half-lives on the very first day. This factor of initial apparent age would strongly affect our present reading of the radioactive clocks in uranium, thorium, etc.

Now the tree bit I understand. God wanted to create the earth 'as is' and didn't want to wait 30/40 years for each forest to grow up. Fair enough.
But why imbed 4.5 billion years worth of embedded age into the rocks? surely that must have taken more work than it is possibly worth!!!!
So why are there stars 400 million light years away then?
Ludicrous.

(5) A fifth problem deals with the origin of the rocks containing these radioactive minerals. According to evolutionary theory, the earth was originally molten. But, if true, molten rocks would produce a wild variation in clock settings in radioactive materials.

(emphasis mine).
Evolutionary theory is biological in nature, it makes no claims about rocks.
Bored.
This is really stupid.
Are there any links which are less than 30 years old in there? Basically 50 years ago this article woul dmake some valid points, but is soooooo out of date it really is unbearable.
Next.

 

[Ryal Kane]

 

[mpok1519]

lol hilarious

 

[BrainHertz]

just a friendly suggestion, but if you just quit shouting for a minute, you could have fit all of your copy-and-paste into a single post.

Before I start, can I assume that you stand behind everything you copied and pasted?

SEVEN INITIAL ASSUMPTIONS—At the very beginning of this analysis, we need to clearly understand a basic fact: Each of these special dating methods can only have accuracy IF (if!) certain assumptions ALWAYS (always!) apply to EACH specimen that is tested.
Here are seven of these fragile assumptions:
(1) Each system has to be a closed system; that is, nothing can contaminate any of the parents or the daughter products while they are going through their decay process—or the dating will be thrown off. Ideally, in order to do this, each specimen tested needs to have been sealed in a jar with thick lead walls for all its previous existence, supposedly millions of years!
But in actual field conditions, there is no such thing as a closed system. One piece of rock cannot for millions of years be sealed off from other rocks, as well as from water, chemicals, and changing radiations from outer space.

Yes, that's right. But in place of "sealed in a jar with thick lead walls" I'll take "buried in rock". Will that do? If it won't, please explain why it isn't, and show your working.

(2) Each system must initially have contained none of its daughter products. A piece of uranium 238 must originally have had no lead or other daughter products in it. If it did, this would give a false date reading.
But this assumption can in no way be confirmed. It is impossible to know what was initially in a given piece of radioactive mineral. Was it all of this particular radioactive substance or were some other indeterminate or final daughter products mixed in? We do not know; we cannot know. Men can guess; they can apply their assumptions, come up with some dates, announce the consistent ones, and hide the rest, which is exactly what evolutionist scientists do!

This is just false. Multi-factor radiometric systems do not need to know what the chemical or isotopic composition of the system was at the time the clock started running. It is only necessary for the rock predecessor to have been isotopically homogeneous.

What's an "evolutionist scientist", by the way?

 

[NailsII]

Great pic & fantastic humour Ryal.

What's an "evolutionist scientist", by the way?

Before I started on here I always assumed it refered to zoologists or biochemists - that sort of area at least.
But it would appear to bandies around towards anyone vaguely associated with science who doesn't read their bible before they go to work in a morning....