Wheaton Christian College teaches evolution

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley
Plus, isochron advocates brush off the possibility that what you're testing is not a closed system -- only to resurrect the idea of open systems when they have to explain why you can find C14 in materials that are supposedly millions of years old.

Please provide a reference of C14 dating producing dates in the millions of years.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus


Please provide a reference of C14 dating producing dates in the millions of years.

Rufus - read him again, you were expecting the standard ignorance of what ranges of dates C14 can be used to determine. This is a sneaky new one.. Some coal deposits have trace amounts of C14 from in situ contamination (proabably from decay of other materials in neighboring rocks)... Nick already knows the answer, but he keeps throwing it out hoping he can catch someone who doesn't know it. And now that I've switched sides, I agree with him! You didn't expect a brand new, only recently debunked, creationist argument, so you lose!! Evolution is imaginary and you evolutionists are all liars!

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
One measures the current amount of isotopes in the material under test and then calculates a date based on the assumption that the material had a known amount of parent and daughter isotopes when the material was formed, cooled, buried, etc.

It has been explained to you repeatedly that this is incorrect. The initial ratio of the parent and daughter do NOT need to be known. Please read:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

and:

http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/classes/Geo656/656notes00.html

Plus, isochron advocates brush off the possibility that what you're testing is not a closed system

Radiochemists do no such thing. They are well aware of the closed system requirement and as such have developed a wide array of methods, in the field and lab, to cross check that the system has remained closed.

only to resurrect the idea of open systems when they have to explain why you can find C14 in materials that are supposedly millions of years old.

Since the possibility of an open system is never dismissed in the first place, there is no need to "resurrect" the idea to explain this.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie

The initial ratio of the parent and daughter do NOT need to be known.

You should take that up with "ardipithecus", who says:

This proof does depend on one assumption that I have not mentioned
so far. It assumes that every part of the rock when formed the radio [sic]
of the radioactive daughter to the non-radioactive isotope of the same
element as the daughter is the same.

http://www.christianforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12306

 

[Jerry Smith]

So ardipithecus says that the ratio needs to be homogeneous when the rock is formed, but it doesn't have to be known, then Live Free Or Die turns right around and says it doesn't have to be known...

Criminy, Nick, when are those evilutionists going to get their stories straight?

 

[Morat]

One does not measure the decay in order to date the material under test. One measures the current amount of isotopes in the material under test and then calculates a date based on the assumption that the material had a known amount of parent and daughter isotopes when the material was formed, cooled, buried, etc. Only then can you compare the current amounts with the assumed amounts and arrive at a suggested age

You have been told that it wasn't true already, in the case of isochron dating. Parent and daughter contamination are clearly seen.

Further, this is a nonsensical contention in the case of things dated in multiple ways.

Unless your contention is that method agreement is the lucky and amazing coincidence of each method having just the right mix of contaimination to come out with the same age.

So your objection is invalid. Isochron dating is not subject to the problem you mention, and in other methods simply dating it by two methods will show if there is any contamination of either, since the odds of both of them having the correct amount of contaimination so as to yield matching dates are astronomical.

Plus, isochron advocates brush off the possibility that what you're testing is not a closed system -- only to resurrect the idea of open systems when they have to explain why you can find C14 in materials that are supposedly millions of years old.

This is only a problem if the people taking the sample are, not to be blunt, massively ignorant of geology. Contaimination along those lines is clear based on geological context.

 

[Sauron]

It always amazes me how people who pose as christians seem to be able to lie without it bothering their consciences.

npetreley has been informed on multiple occasions precisely *why* such claims are wrong. Yet he still makes the claims.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Sauron
It always amazes me how people who pose as christians seem to be able to lie without it bothering their consciences.

npetreley has been informed on multiple occasions precisely *why* such claims are wrong. Yet he still makes the claims.

You've noticed that too? Appears to be NP's M.O. You'd think he'd change tactics now & again, just to keep us on our toes.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith


You've noticed that too? Appears to be NP's M.O. You'd think he'd change tactics now & again, just to keep us on our toes.

Either that, or he's practicing to be the next Duane Gish.

 

[randman]

Well, anyone that posts anything from the garbage site Talkorigins, I just pass over the post. That site is pure hype and propaganda. If I wanted to listen to someone like James Carville spin, I'd turn on Crossfire.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by randman
Well, anyone that posts anything from the garbage site Talkorigins, I just pass over the post. That site is pure hype and propaganda.

Except that, for all your noise and bluster, you have utterly failed to refute the arguments posted there. Nor have you been able to demonstrate "hype" or "propaganda".

Hint: not *liking* an argument is not the same as refuting it.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley


You should take that up with "ardipithecus", who says:

"This proof does depend on one assumption that I have not mentioned so far. It assumes that every part of the rock when formed the radio [sic] of the radioactive daughter to the non-radioactive isotope of the same element as the daughter is the same."

Duh Nick. The "parent" and the "non-radioactive isotope of the daughter" are not the same thing. There are three isotopes involved in radiometric dating: an unstable parent P, its decay product D, and a stable isotope of D we can call D'. For radiometric dating, none of the initial ratios needs to be known. The only assumption is that the ratio of D/D' was homogeneous throughout the rock. Given that there is no way to differentiate between the two chemically or physically outside of a particle accelerator, this is a reasonably sound assumption.