Why I'm not a young earth creationist...

[Hans Blaster]

How do geologists use carbon dating to find the age of rocks?

Do you even read your sources?

The first line was:

Geologists do not use carbon-based radiometric dating to determine the age of rocks.

(emphasis mine)

 

[The Righterzpen]

@Hans Blaster - Well here you go; apparently argon gas dating has more problems than carbon 14 dating.

Argon Geochronology Methods

 

[VirOptimus]

@Hans Blaster - Well here you go; apparently argon gas dating has more problems than carbon 14 dating.

Argon Geochronology Methods

You really really should learn the basics of science.

Optimistic, I know.

 

[Hans Blaster]

@Hans Blaster - Well here you go; apparently argon gas dating has more problems than carbon 14 dating.

Argon Geochronology Methods

Could you detail how Argon methods have more problems than C-14 dating?

What I see in that article is people who understand the limitations of the method they are using.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You really really should learn the basics of science.

Optimistic, I know.

Maybe he's a nihilist since he doesn't believe in any aspect of scientifically determined reality.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Do you even read your sources?

The first line was:

(emphasis mine)

You want another article about "carbon 14 dating" - well here you go.

Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods | Learn Science at Scitable

 

[The Righterzpen]

Could you detail how Argon methods have more problems than C-14 dating?

What I see in that article is people who understand the limitations of the method they are using.

LOL - you didn't read their conclusions did you?

 

[VirOptimus]

You want another article about "carbon 14 dating" - well here you go.

Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods | Learn Science at Scitable

Are you just spamming links you havent read or understood?

Please explain your (imagined) point(s).

 

[Hans Blaster]

You want another article about "carbon 14 dating" - well here you go.

Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods | Learn Science at Scitable

How long do you want to play this game:

However, if the bone is 70,000 years or older the amount of 14C left in the bone will be too small to measure accurately. Thus, radiocarbon dating is only useful for measuring things that were formed in the relatively recent geologic past. Luckily, there are methods, such as the commonly used potassium-argon (K-Ar) method, that allows dating of materials that are beyond the limit of radiocarbon dating (Table 1).

 

[The Righterzpen]

Are you just spamming links you havent read or understood?

Please explain your (imagined) point(s).

Why should I explain when you don't believe me anyways? That's why I post the articles. You can read them yourselves.

 

[VirOptimus]

Why should I explain when you don't believe me anyways? That's why I post the articles. You can read them yourselves.

I have. Now explain the points (with citations) you think they make that agree with you.

 

[Hans Blaster]

LOL - you didn't read their conclusions did you?

THere was no section labeled conclusions or similar in the Ar dating article.

In summary, this creationist is not a reasonable interlocutor. He is either badly misinformed, sloppy, or dishonest.

 

[VirOptimus]

THere was no section labeled conclusions or similar in the Ar dating article.

In summary, this creationist is not a reasonable interlocutor. He is either badly misinformed, sloppy, or dishonest.

And/or.

 

[The Righterzpen]

How long do you want to play this game:

LOL - and what game is that? All I'm doing is throwing you articles that refute your presupposition that the earth is billions of years old.

There's no reliable evidence for the methods of dating. Scientists admit this.

So.... don't get mad at me.

 

[The Righterzpen]

THere was no section labeled conclusions or similar in the Ar dating article.

In summary, this creationist is not a reasonable interlocutor. He is either badly misinformed, sloppy, or dishonest.

A creationist didn't write that article. Read it. It didn't take me long to find the information and I just skimmed it.

 

[VirOptimus]

LOL - and what game is that? All I'm doing is throwing you articles that refute your presupposition that the earth is billions of years old.

There's no reliable evidence for the methods of dating. Scientists admit this.

So.... don't get mad at me.

The age of the earth is very well supported by data and observations (i.e. science).

 

[VirOptimus]

A creationist didn't write that article. Read it. It didn't take me long to find the information and I just skimmed it.

Then quote it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

LOL - and what game is that? All I'm doing is throwing you articles that refute your presupposition that the earth is billions of years old.

There's no reliable evidence for the methods of dating. Scientists admit this.

So.... don't get mad at me.

Throwing articles, that part I believe. A sequence of articles about dating techniques do not refute those methods, they explain them. If you could understand them you might realize that. (I think you have demonstrated that you don't understand them and may be incapable of such.)

 

[The Righterzpen]

The age of the earth is very well supported by data and observations (i.e. science).

How do you "observe" something that allegedly happened billions of years ago?

At best; the only thing scientists can say is "We don't know." Seeing how they've already acknowledged that the dating methods used are inconsistent.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Then quote it.

"Because the K/Ar dating technique relies on the determining the absolute abundances of both 40Ar and potassium, there is not a reliable way to determine if the assumptions are valid. Argon loss and excess argon are two common problems that may cause erroneous ages to be determined."