Radiometric Dating - Assumptions have critical impact ?

[Hal.]

It's in the perfect place it should be ! The see saw is falling over !

 

Somebody had a great one liner at the end of each of their posts .

 

In essence it went , It doesn't matter how many people agree with a false statement , it is still false .

Edited June 9, 2011 by Hal.

[swansont]

It's in the perfect place it should be ! The see saw is falling over !

 

Somebody had a great one liner at the end of each of their posts .

 

In essence it went , It doesn't matter how many people agree with a false statement , it is still false .

!

Moderator Note

True, it doesn't matter how many people agree that radiometric dating doesn't work, without evidence the statement is false. Do you have something to add on the topic at hand? I can't help but notice that you have yet to make a substantive contribution to the thread

[crazynutsx]

scientists pick and choose radiometric dates depending on what they want to fit with the geologic colum

 

There theory drives their research when it should be research that drives their theory

[mooeypoo]

scientists pick and choose radiometric dates depending on what they want to fit with the geologic colum

 

There theory drives their research when it should be research that drives their theory

 

So far you're the one who makes empty claims without a single ounce of documentation, evidence or proof. And we're the "picky and choosey" ?

 

Post evidence, and you might convince us.

[Hal.]

Swansont , I personally think Radio Carbon Dating does work . I have noted it's applicability in Archaeology in particular with interest . That is not the statement I am calling false .

 

Unfortunately , Post #22 from John Cuthber says , " As a chemist I object to this whole thread. It has nothing to do with organic chemistry. It should be somewhere else. ".

 

Post #23 from me then says , " The whole is the sum of the parts . Would we include or exclude op's op as organic chemistry ? "

 

Should the original posters original post be deemed having organic chemistry content , then , it's implied reference must be excluded from the statement , " It has nothing to do with organic chemistry. ". Thus , the objection to this part of the whole thread would be invalidated . Therefore , the suggestion it should be somewhere else would be baseless . By extension , the objection to the whole thread being here is also .

 

Am I substantive while being qualitative ? If substantiveness be based on quality , I'll assume I am . The OP see's how things work , who is who , knows why his posts are being chewed up and spit right back at him , has had time to realise that the advice he is being given is from a person well educated in the topic and I doubtless could not add anything to that intellect . If at any time , I would like to make a short statement or ask a short question , while watching from the sidelines as two people debate , then that is my prerogative . Do I have to choose between being an Evolutionist and a Creationist ? No ! I 'm just here to view the technical discussion of Radio Carbon Dating .

 

 

 

 

[markearthling]

Crazynutsx makes two good points above

 

Quote from crazynutsx

 

scientists pick and choose radiometric dates depending on what they want to fit with the geologic colum

 

There theory drives their research when it should be research that drives their theory

 

End Quote

 

Research should be the thing that drives theory, not the other way round.

 

The onus is on scientists to prove the above first statement is not reality.

 

Again Mooeypoo makes her vague statements when she isn't prepared to

present any evidence herself.

 

Don't just blather on about pseudo science mooeypoo do some work yourself

and present what evidence you have.

 

Go ahead and surprise me.

 

 

 

[Hal.]

P#32 Ref 1. : Radiometric dating : http://en.wikipedia....iometric_dating

P#32 Ref 2. : Isotopes of Carbon : http://en.wikipedia....topes_of_carbon

P#32 Ref 3. : Radioactive Decay : http://en.wikipedia....dioactive_decay

P#32 Ref 4. : Dendochronology : http://en.wikipedia....Dendochronology

P#32 Ref 5. : Creationist : http://en.wikipedia....iki/Creationist

P#32 Ref 6. : Evolutionism : http://en.wikipedia....ki/Evolutionism

P#32 Ref 7. : Evolution : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

P#32 Ref 8. : Charles Darwin : http://en.wikipedia..../Charles_darwin

P#32 Ref 9. : DNA : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

P#32 Ref 10. : Scientific Method : http://en.wikipedia....ientific_method

P#32 Ref 11. : Organic Chemistry : http://en.wikipedia....ganic_chemistry

P#32 Ref 12. : Periodic Table : http://en.wikipedia..../Periodic_table

P#32 Ref 13. : Scientist : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist

P#32 Ref 14. : Age of Earth : http://en.wikipedia....ki/Age_of_earth

P#32 Ref 15. : Time : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

P#32 Ref 16. : S.I. system : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_system

P#32 Ref 17. : Richard Dawkins : http://en.wikipedia....Richard_dawkins

Edited June 10, 2011 by Hal.

[Moontanman]

Crazynutsx makes two good points above

 

Quote from crazynutsx

 

scientists pick and choose radiometric dates depending on what they want to fit with the geologic colum

 

There theory drives their research when it should be research that drives their theory

 

End Quote

 

Research should be the thing that drives theory, not the other way round.

 

The onus is on scientists to prove the above first statement is not reality.

 

Again Mooeypoo makes her vague statements when she isn't prepared to

present any evidence herself.

 

Don't just blather on about pseudo science mooeypoo do some work yourself

and present what evidence you have.

 

Go ahead and surprise me.

 

 

In this thread you are going to have to show some sort of evidence that your assumption is true. Would it make a difference if we found that radioactive decay isn't constant, of course it would, it could conceivably make a huge difference but all evidence to date shows exactly the opposite, we all make assumptions about the universe every day, once you get past the idea of I think therefore I am, everything is an assumption. I choose to assume the universe is knowable, I see no other rational logical way to view the universe. Now, once you make the assumption that the universe is knowable and has knowable properties the idea then becomes is radioactive dating accurate. As for crazynutz, his name says it all and his assertions are pure unadulterated male bovine excrement... try this

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/20/APEpwkXatbY

Edited June 10, 2011 by Moontanman

[markearthling]

Thanks to HAL above for the links.

 

Moontanman

 

Should we really be using 9 letter words here ( excrement ) ?

Hmmmm evolution now that could be another 9 letter word .

 

I disagree about crazynutsx. We shouldn't judge him purely on his handle.

 

He did make a valid point above, "Research should drive theory and not the other way round".

 

If that is not logical and valid then I don't know what is.

 

Thanks for your valid and usefull input on the subject.

[Moontanman]

Thanks to HAL above for the links.

 

Moontanman

 

Should we really be using 9 letter words here ( excrement ) ?

Hmmmm evolution now that could be another 9 letter word .

 

I disagree about crazynutsx. We shouldn't judge him purely on his handle.

 

He did make a valid point above, "Research should drive theory and not the other way round".

 

If that is not logical and valid then I don't know what is.

 

Thanks for your valid and usefull input on the subject.

 

 

No, crazynytz does not have a point, his handle has nothing to do with it, it's the creationist crap he keeps asserting.

 

"Research should drive theory and not the other way round".

 

This makes no sense in the way it is being used. Like saying gasoline should run my car not the engine.

 

scientists pick and choose radiometric dates depending on what they want to fit with the geologic colum

 

This is simply a lie, a creationist fabrication, nothing less, to make it worse he simply makes the claim but does not back it up, probably due the fact that it is a lie!

[markearthling]

Moontanman

 

Check the other thread on evolution of flight. I was actually responding to negative things mooeypoo had said about me there not you. You have been very helpfull. Thanx.

 

On what craztnutsx said above I think it is logical to say research can drive theory and

theory can drive research. What we find/discover will either support or disprove our theories

and if there is enough corroborated evidence this will eventually change our theories.

[Moontanman]

On what craztnutsx said above I think it is logical to say research can drive theory and

theory can drive research.

 

Lets make sure we are talking about the same thing, how do you define theory? And why is that statement any less nonsensical than gasoline should run my car not the engine?

 

What we find/discover will either support or disprove our theories

and if there is enough corroborated evidence this will eventually change our theories.

 

Yes, what would be your point? Theories do change as new research reveals new evidence, did you not know this?

Edited June 10, 2011 by Moontanman

[swansont]

Crazynutsx makes two good points above

 

Quote from crazynutsx

 

scientists pick and choose radiometric dates depending on what they want to fit with the geologic colum

 

There theory drives their research when it should be research that drives their theory

 

End Quote

 

Research should be the thing that drives theory, not the other way round.

 

The onus is on scientists to prove the above first statement is not reality.

 

!

Moderator Note

Which scientists have done. Given the tone of the OP, the onus is on the naysayers to show that their objections have merit. e.g. some examples of researchers "picking and choosing" their results (as opposed to rejecting a result based on scientific grounds)

 

Again Mooeypoo makes her vague statements when she isn't prepared to

present any evidence herself.

 

Don't just blather on about pseudo science mooeypoo do some work yourself

and present what evidence you have.

 

Go ahead and surprise me.

 

!

Moderator Note

Follow rule #1. Go ahead and surprise me.

[mooeypoo]

Again Mooeypoo makes her vague statements when she isn't prepared to

present any evidence herself.

 

Don't just blather on about pseudo science mooeypoo do some work yourself

and present what evidence you have.

 

Go ahead and surprise me.

 

Alright.

 

I am not quite sure how to prove it to you without going into quantum mechanics, so let me try by first setting up where our disagreement begins. We might have a few points we agree on and disagree only on some others.

 

So here are a few of my questions to you, so I know where to start. Sounds fair?

 

 

• Do you agree that particles decay at all?
• Do you agree that particles have a half-life or some sort of decay rate?
• Is your disagreement about how FAST particles decay? Or is it about how science can possibly know what the decay rate is, or is your disagreement that the decay isn't constant?

By the way, I just want to point out that while radio carbon dating is one of the more famous and used ways to date fossils (that were originally biological), it's by far NOT the only way we have to do the dating. We don't use just one method and call it quits, putting all our eggs in one basket; we have multiple dating methods, and we use many of them every time we make a dating observation.

 

Some methods of dating are summarized here: http://darwiniana.org/datingmethods.htm and they all work *together*.

 

If the different dating methods do not agree with one another, we declare this as a problem and check for contaminants or try to get a better sampling or try to see WHY the problem occurs. But if all methods used (more than one, and more than three or four in most cases) agree with one another, then we can have a much better confidence in the dating.

 

We can criticize carbon dating in particular, but some of the claims raised here are answered, quite simply, by the fact we (a) cross-reference dating and (b) use more than just one method.

 

Criticizing carbon dating as a method that only works for certain objects is like criticizing a car for only working on land. We *know* carbon dating isn't perfect for *all* samples, that's why it's used only for the particular samples it *is* good for. That's also why we use MORE than one method of dating.

 

~mooey

 

Very useful read, right here:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page 19

 

Snippet:

Can We Really Believe the Dating Systems?

 

• There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.
• All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some Christians make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!
• Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
• Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.
• Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
• The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple.

Edited June 10, 2011 by mooeypoo
sorry, I meant to add that link to begin with..

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Evolution/theory discussion moved http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/57780-theory-of-evolution/

Please don't bring it up again in this thread

[Hal.]

Swansont , my post that was moved applies just as much to this thread about radiometric dating , for which it was intended , as it does about the thread it was moved to , for which it was never intended .

[swansont]

Swansont , my post that was moved applies just as much to this thread about radiometric dating , for which it was intended , as it does about the thread it was moved to , for which it was never intended .

!

Moderator Note

It was commentary on the definition of "theory" which does not belong in this thread. Please stay on topic