Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 46

Thread: The Beginning

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    37,081
    Now that we have established scientifically that it is possible to know the original amount in a sample, do you have any other evidence that radioactive dating is incorrect?

  2. #17
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    1,873
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Now that we have established scientifically that it is possible to know the original amount in a sample, do you have any other evidence that radioactive dating is incorrect?
    Sorry that it took so long to continue on with this. Unfortunately you have not established that scientifically.

    Let me know if you need quotes, but the below shows the issues that your premise assumes.

    https://www.icr.org/article/excess-a...m-argon-dating

    If you have something else that would show the calculation is possible without knowing the original amounts I'd be glad to review.
    My Ignore List: bklynny67, nastynice, OhSoSlick, spliff(TONE), zmaster52

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    37,081
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    Sorry that it took so long to continue on with this. Unfortunately you have not established that scientifically.

    Let me know if you need quotes, but the below shows the issues that your premise assumes.

    https://www.icr.org/article/excess-a...m-argon-dating

    If you have something else that would show the calculation is possible without knowing the original amounts I'd be glad to review.
    No worries on the delay. Unfortunately for you, your article does not call into question Argon dating. Let me know if you need the quotes, but here is how scientists are able to determine the original amount of Argon even accounting for the issues your source presents:

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/ageofro...-reliable/amp/

    Once you review this, please let me know if you have any actual evidence disproving such dating techniques.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    1,873
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    No worries on the delay. Unfortunately for you, your article does not call into question Argon dating. Let me know if you need the quotes, but here is how scientists are able to determine the original amount of Argon even accounting for the issues your source presents:

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/ageofro...-reliable/amp/

    Once you review this, please let me know if you have any actual evidence disproving such dating techniques.
    I appreciate your article that takes care of Potassium Argon dating being unreliable. I will look into the reliability of argon-argon dating in my next reply. So far we've got a no go on K-Ar and a searching on my part on Ar-Ar for the known amounts originally there.

    I do see a major flaw in the race analogy that the writer used. He has no idea if the runners all started at the same place prior to the observation of the race as he did in his example.
    My Ignore List: bklynny67, nastynice, OhSoSlick, spliff(TONE), zmaster52

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    37,081
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    I appreciate your article that takes care of Potassium Argon dating being unreliable. I will look into the reliability of argon-argon dating in my next reply. So far we've got a no go on K-Ar and a searching on my part on Ar-Ar for the known amounts originally there.

    I do see a major flaw in the race analogy that the writer used. He has no idea if the runners all started at the same place prior to the observation of the race as he did in his example.
    I have not conceded Potassium Argon dating is unreliable, to the contrary, your article did not refute its effectiveness, it only said it was ineffective because some volcanic rocks behave differently than other rocks in regards to potassium turning into argon gas, but that does not mean all other rocks behave in this way (indeed volcanic rocks are unique compared to other rocks in this regard). So all you’ve established is you could not use K-AAR dating for specific rocks but that says nothing about others.

    As for the race analogy, it is indeed accurate and actually is the same principle as middle school math where one can indeed measure how far a vehicle has gone and where it started using only the amount of gas used, the mpg of the vehicle, and the speed of the vehicle.
    Last edited by valade16; 11-23-2020 at 05:41 PM.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    37,081
    Here is an article that specifically mentions Potassium-Argon’s dating in regards to volcanic rock that exhibited the traits your article did:

    http://stsmith.faculty.anth.ucsb.edu...on_Dating.html

    Notice it still maintains reliability in all other cases.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    37,081
    But since each of us could go back and forth providing links forever, let me ask you:

    Do you think scientists are not aware of the “problems” your articles claim? Why do you think the vast majority of scientists in these fields of study maintain the effectiveness of this sort of dating despite your articles critiques? Why do you think the authors of your websites do not publish their critiques in actual scientific journals?

  8. #23
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    1,873
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I have not conceded Potassium Argon dating is unreliable, to the contrary, your article did not refute its effectiveness, it only said it was ineffective because some volcanic rocks behave differently than other rocks in regards to potassium turning into argon gas, but that does not mean all other rocks behave in this way (indeed volcanic rocks are unique compared to other rocks in this regard). So all you’ve established is you could not use K-AAR dating for specific rocks but that says nothing about others.

    As for the race analogy, it is indeed accurate and actually is the same principle as middle school math where one can indeed measure how far a vehicle has gone and where it started using only the amount of gas used, the mpg of the vehicle, and the speed of the vehicle.
    Your authors of your links concedes. The issue is one does not know the history of any of the rocks. And since at one time all of this planet was volcanic if you take the Old Universe theory well...no matter we can disagree.

    The middle school analogy fails with the race. You have no idea what the car was doing before hand, what environmental variables have happened nor if the car was refilled with gas. It's the hurdle that the race has as well. I wish I could explain it so you could understand.
    Last edited by brett05; 11-23-2020 at 07:55 PM.
    My Ignore List: bklynny67, nastynice, OhSoSlick, spliff(TONE), zmaster52

  9. #24
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    1,873
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    But since each of us could go back and forth providing links forever, let me ask you:

    Do you think scientists are not aware of the “problems” your articles claim? Why do you think the vast majority of scientists in these fields of study maintain the effectiveness of this sort of dating despite your articles critiques? Why do you think the authors of your websites do not publish their critiques in actual scientific journals?
    I'll repeat again for clarity, majority does not make right. The world can think 2+2=5 but if you are the only one that thinks 2+2=4 you are the only one that is correct no matter what others think. This example is used to disprove majority think makes right.

    The questions you asked work for you as well. Why do you think those scientists don't publish their articles in young earth publications?
    My Ignore List: bklynny67, nastynice, OhSoSlick, spliff(TONE), zmaster52

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    37,081
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    Your authors of your links concedes. The issue is one does not know the history of any of the rocks. And since at one time all of this planet was volcanic if you take the Old Universe theory well...no matter we can disagree.

    The middle school analogy fails with the race. You have no idea what the car was doing before hand, what environmental variables have happened nor if the car was refilled with gas. It's the hurdle that the race has as well. I wish I could explain it so you could understand.
    No they do not, and if you think so post the quotes from the article that makes you believe that.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    37,081
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    I'll repeat again for clarity, majority does not make right. The world can think 2+2=5 but if you are the only one that thinks 2+2=4 you are the only one that is correct no matter what others think. This example is used to disprove majority think makes right.

    The questions you asked work for you as well. Why do you think those scientists don't publish their articles in young earth publications?
    My argument isn’t that they are the majority, it’s that they are the experts. The people who are educated on this subject do not agree with you. So I’m asking why you believe the experts in this subject are wrong and whether they realize they are wrong and if not, why? Do you think of you walked into a lab and told them your concerns with potassium-argon dating they would go “wow, we NEVER thought of that!”, or do you think they would have considered that before?

    And why don’t I think scientists publish in young earth publications? Because those publications are not reviewed by actual scientists for accuracy, nor are the articles they publish subject to reproduction by other scientists to confirm their accuracy.

    They do publish in actual scientific journals that are subject to scrutiny, scrutiny which confirms the accuracy of such dating methods. If a young earth scientist truly had evidence dating methods are all incorrect they could publish in a scientific journal, at which point other scientists would test their proofs and verify or falsify the results. If it turns out all dating methods are faulty the young earth scientist who discovered it would likely win a Nobel prize. So if they have such irrefutable evidence, why do you suppose they do not publish in scientific journals?

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,817
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    Let's work with my question and finish it off. You say there are multiple, but I asked for the single best and you've provided radiometric dating. What's the error with radiometric dating?
    I think most cosmologists would point to observed expansion of the universe and the rate of expansion then back calculating to the point of the big bang. Most calculate this to be in the 13.8 billion year range which is also consistent with the cosmological model of the oldest star formation following the earliest coalescence of hydrogen mass. 13.77 billion is a case of overlaying a bunch of different pieces of evidence and coming up with an estimate as opposed to asserting the universe is 6000 years old because a supernatural being allegedly told a middle eastern peasant such..

  13. #28
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    1,873
    zookman65, your rudeness eliminates you from this conversation.
    My Ignore List: bklynny67, nastynice, OhSoSlick, spliff(TONE), zmaster52

  14. #29
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    55,491
    brett's favorite way to conveniently bow out of a conversation that isn't exactly going his way....

  15. #30
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    1,873
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    My argument isn’t that they are the majority, it’s that they are the experts. The people who are educated on this subject do not agree with you. So I’m asking why you believe the experts in this subject are wrong and whether they realize they are wrong and if not, why? Do you think of you walked into a lab and told them your concerns with potassium-argon dating they would go “wow, we NEVER thought of that!”, or do you think they would have considered that before?

    And why don’t I think scientists publish in young earth publications? Because those publications are not reviewed by actual scientists for accuracy, nor are the articles they publish subject to reproduction by other scientists to confirm their accuracy.

    They do publish in actual scientific journals that are subject to scrutiny, scrutiny which confirms the accuracy of such dating methods. If a young earth scientist truly had evidence dating methods are all incorrect they could publish in a scientific journal, at which point other scientists would test their proofs and verify or falsify the results. If it turns out all dating methods are faulty the young earth scientist who discovered it would likely win a Nobel prize. So if they have such irrefutable evidence, why do you suppose they do not publish in scientific journals?
    We are going to go round and round on this. You have experts, I shoot them down with my experts. You say my "scientists" have not had their work reviewed by old universe scientists, I say old universe scientists have not had their work reviewed by young universe scientists. Both sides have made and are prone to error. The only difference really is that I agree both sides are scientists and you only think old universe believers are scientists. Until you can give reasons why an expert that believes in a young universe can qualify as an expert this conversation with you is futile. I am sure you would agree to that. So what is needed to continue this is you need to give me the qualifications that one can be an expert and a young universe scientist.

    Other than that, you're going to show something from an old universe scientist and and it's going to get shot down by a young universe scientist.

    Finally from your last link:

    "Limitations on K-Ar Dating

    The Potassium-Argon dating method is an invaluable tool for those archaeologists and paleoanthropologists studying the earliest evidence for human evolution. As with any dating technique, there are some significant limitations. "

    Since all of the earth was believed to be hot molten in the initial stages well, that says it all really.
    My Ignore List: bklynny67, nastynice, OhSoSlick, spliff(TONE), zmaster52

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •