YECs Explain Dating Methods

[Mocca]

A certain YEC who will remain unnamed stated this:

Dating methods aren't reliable. Start a new thread if you want to debate this further.

Would any YECs like to explain why current dating methods aren't reliable?

Now I'm going to leave this thread.

 

[Mocca]

Bump? Come on, any YECs going to explain dating methods and why they aren't reliable for a certain evolutionist?

 

[Evobio]

Bump? Come on, any YECs going to explain dating methods and why they aren't reliable for a certain evolutionist?

Don't you know? It's just those pesky scientists and their agenda at work again.

 

[Grengor]

Did you pm unnamed YEC about this thread?

 

[Mocca]

Good idea.

 

[dawiyd]

Is this just a bait for "Hovind-afied" answers?

 

[Mocca]

Lol, no, this is an honest "challenge," you might say, on behalf of another CF member.

 

[truth above all else]

who is the mystery YEC ist, I'd like to describe the a priori assumptions associated with radiometric procedure, but to him/her, not to others who accept the methodology irrespective of its subjectivity and its ordinariness with respect to its collaborative power

 

[Mocca]

Oh, TAAE, it's quite alright, share with us these flaws in the radiometric dating procedure.

 

[KerrMetric]

My God, just when you thought the bait cannot possibly be taken (due to this being the 333535th thread with this title) along comes someone who cannot resist a nibble.

Isn't there a Creationist "How not to get embarrassed on the internet" booklet that would teach against getting involved in a thread like this?

 

[truth above all else]

not now, its mothers day , i have to go and pay a visit very soon, perhaps later

 

[Mocca]

Oh, alright, TAAE. We'll be waiting.

 

[KerrMetric]

not now, its mothers day , i have to go and pay a visit very soon, perhaps later

When did Australia switch to the American Mothers Day date? They used to use the British date.

 

[Zed]

This'll be interesting. From my understanding one of the common problems that give way to a flaw in radiometric dating is in using the wrong method will give you the wrong answer. eg. Carbon dating is accurate to 40k years so if you use it to date something 100k years old it will give an incorrect answer. Clearly in this type of situation another method more accurate for that time period should be used. The problem is how to determine which methods have given you incorrect measurements and which one is accurate.

 

[TheBear]

A certain YEC who will remain unnamed stated this:


Would any YECs like to explain why current dating methods aren't reliable?

Good question.

I'd like to hear this too. I also want to know what dating methods YECs use.

 

[Mocca]

This'll be interesting. From my understanding one of the common problems that give way to a flaw in radiometric dating is in using the wrong method will give you the wrong answer. eg. Carbon dating is accurate to 40k years so if you use it to date something 100k years old it will give an incorrect answer. Clearly in this type of situation another method more accurate for that time period should be used. The problem is how to determine which methods have given you incorrect measurements and which one is accurate.

Yes, this is true. The sad thing is, some unscupulous YECs take advantage of this, and deliberately use certain radiometric dating methods on objects that the method wasn't meant for.

The good thing is, there's over 40 radiometric dating methods, so in most cases, you can use several dating methods on an object.

 

[Zed]

^^ True. And from my understanding some of the tests will actually come out as 'undateable' if it is the wrong test which makes narrowing down the correct method easier. But sometimes the choice, as to which method to say is accurate, comes down to an estimated guess by scientists using their assumptions on how old they think the object is. And this means the overall dating method is slightly fallible. No?

I'm sure that almost every time the results are correct but I can understand where the YEC's are coming from in saying the methods aren't infallible.

 

[shinbits]

What's up, bisnotches.

Radio-metric dating:

The parent/daughter ratios are unreliable since wether and erostion can effect. Rocks dated with this method erode, due to the elements. Any part of the rock that eroded which contained either the daughter or parent element will be incorrectly dated, either too young or too old.

There's also the fact that rocks naturally contain certain elements like Iron. That would also throw off the age of a fossil dated with this method.

Water can also wash elements into or out of rocks. Rocks dated which were found in places that at one time contained lakes or rivers which have now dried up, don't account for this when dated with radio-metric dating.

C-14:
C-14 uses the measuring the ratio of normal carbon (carbon-12) to carbon-14 in the air.

The problem is, first, that we must assume atmospheric conditions stayed relatively the same. We can't know for sure if it was the same even a thousand years ago, let alone ten, twenty or fifty thousand years ago.

Also, we know that every second, the sun is losing 4.5 millions tons of it's mass. This means that at one point, the sun had much more mass. This also means, that if the sun had more mass, it was able to put out more energy then it can now.

C-14 dating doesn't account for this at all.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

C-14:
C-14 uses the measuring the ratio of normal carbon (carbon-12) to carbon-14 in the air.

The problem is, first, that we must assume atmospheric conditions stayed relatively the same. We can't know for sure if it was the same even a thousand years ago, let alone ten, twenty or fifty thousand years ago.

Also, we know that every second, the sun is losing 4.5 millions tons of it's mass. This means that at one point, the sun had much more mass. This also means, that if the sun had more mass, it was able to put out more energy then it can now.

C-14 dating doesn't account for this at all.

this is not true. C-14 raw data is adjusted for C-14 ratios via dendrochronology, an excellent example of how science responds to problems.

 

[KerrMetric]

What's up, bisnotches.

Radio-metric dating:

The parent/daughter ratios are unreliable since wether and erostion can effect. Rocks dated with this method erode, due to the elements. Any part of the rock that eroded which contained either the daughter or parent element will be incorrectly dated, either too young or too old.

There's also the fact that rocks naturally contain certain elements like Iron. That would also throw off the age of a fossil dated with this method.

Water can also wash elements into or out of rocks. Rocks dated which were found in places that at one time contained lakes or rivers which have now dried up, don't account for this when dated with radio-metric dating.

C-14:
C-14 uses the measuring the ratio of normal carbon (carbon-12) to carbon-14 in the air.

The problem is, first, that we must assume atmospheric conditions stayed relatively the same. We can't know for sure if it was the same even a thousand years ago, let alone ten, twenty or fifty thousand years ago.

You are just the kind of rube they are looking for with this thread.

Also, we know that every second, the sun is losing 4.5 millions tons of it's mass. This means that at one point, the sun had much more mass. This also means, that if the sun had more mass, it was able to put out more energy then it can now.

C-14 dating doesn't account for this at all.

Complete unadulterated rubbish. You know the old saying "If you can't say anything good then don't say it at all" - please heed that.

The amount of mass the sun loses in a second is so insignificant to the total mass it is truly negligible. Do the math - if you can!!!!!