Home > FreeHovind > Content > Creation and Evolution > Discussion: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
The fallacies of radio metric dating
Submitted By bigdog on 09/05/13
FreeHovind, bigdog, Creation and Evolution
This Discussion originally posted in the "FreeHovind" Group

"SOMEWHAT LESS THAN HALF OF ALL (RM) DATES AGREE WITH 10% OF ACCEPTED VALUES FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE BIOSTRATIGAPHIC POSITIONS."

This avereged equation was evaluated by scientist John Woodmorappe. It reveals about a 95% error rate for radio metric dating. Many have critisized John Woodmorappe's study, but no one has given any other figures from the literature for the exact percentage of anomalies.

Thanks for the spelling corrections on the earlier posts. I appreciate correct grammar.

» Reply to Discussion (Too Many Replies for Fancy Display) 105 Replies
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/05/13 - 4:22 GMT
Short biography of Scientist John Woodmorappe

http://www.rae.org/johnw.htm

John Woodmorappe is the author of three acclaimed books:
Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study

Studies in Flood Geology

The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods

Noah's Ark worked! It is possible for 8 people to manage 16,000 animals. Learn about animal keeping methods, global catastrophes, ancient menageries, etc.

The global Flood and geologic catastrophism are seen as unconventional science. To others, the work of this pro-Biblical scholar as a key to understanding Bible mysteries and other secrets of antiquity.

Biography and Testimony of John Woodmorappe:

Life was a challenge for John Woodmorappe from the very beginning. Born in the USA to Polish immigrant parents who had lost everything in World War II, he had to adapt to a new language and culture. In addition, John has a neurological disorder called Tourette's syndrome, which causes him to have spells of torso rocking and finger wiggling. But the grace of God has given him an extraordinary ability in the area of scientific research.

John has had an insatiable curiosity in scientific matters ever since he was a toddler. At age 10-11, he could identify tens of trees in the neighborhood, and even knew the Latin names of most of them. His friends said he sounded like a priest. An 80-year old retired botanist would visit him, and they would go on walks together to talk about and examine different trees. By junior high, he was going to the state fairs with his science projects. Next, he went to one of the most academically demanding high schools in the whole nation.

Far from being a fundamentalist, John Woodmorappe had not been raised to believe in Scriptural inerrancy in any way. Nothing drove him to unconventional science. He attended a college-preparatory Jesuit school, which was liberal theologically as well as politically. There he was taught that Genesis was myth and that organic evolution was a proven fact of science. Not knowing any better, he accepted it.

In his sophomore year, he took an advanced biology course. After organic evolution, John studied ecology, and was taught all the scare-stories of radical environmentalists as proven fact. Having learned that DDT and other organic chlorocarbons accumulate in the biosphere because they do not break down, John Woodmorappe wrote his teacher a paper. He suggested that scientists breed bacteria, after subjecting them to radiogenic mutations generation after generation, in progressively greater concentrations of DDT. Finally, we would have a strain of bacteria that not only breaks down DDT but also is dependent on it. When released into the biosphere, these bacteria would consume all the accumulated DDT. The teacher replied that this would probably not work, unless perhaps millions of years were available. This planted the first seed of doubt towards organic evolution in John's mind, because it showed that the notion of natural selection culminating in unlimited variation is something less than factual.

While a freshman in college, a member of Campus Crusade for Christ won John to the Lord. He eagerly went for follow-up. During one of these sessions, he asked some offhand questions about organic evolution, the global Flood, etc. The Crusade staff man lent him a copy of the GENESIS FLOOD (Whitcomb and Morris 1961). John studied this, and more. John became fascinated at what he saw. When he was first exposed to Creationist research, he went into "creation shock." This leads to such thoughts as: "Why did no one ever show me this before? I never realized that evolution was so full of holes! I never imagined that there are qualified scientists who question or reject organic evolution. And to think that the global Flood actually took place."

As earlier in life, John Woodmorappe was intensely curious. He wanted to go deeper. He decided to major in both geology and biology because of the pivotal role of these two disciplines in the study of origins. Then again, he had geology in his blood, as his grandfather had been a geologist who had owned an oil well (at Boryslaw, now in the western Ukraine). He ended up with a BA in Biology, a BA in Geology, and an MA in Geology. Woodmorappe is constantly learning new things on his own, and conducting scientific research. He now has numerous publications, including the following three books:

http://www.rae.org/johnw.htm
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/13 - 7:26 GMT
"
Noah's Ark worked! It is possible for 8 people to manage 16,000 animals."

an so by that. you claim that ALL the modern species of land animals diverged form the origninal 8000 species.

NO DICE>

oh and JUST REPEATING A QUOTE BY A GUY WHO HAS IS UNACCREDITED AND IS CLEARLY out on an ultirior motive. DOESN'T make your claim any less false.

I cannot believe this is his ENTIRE biography...i mean...SRLY there's so little of it and it's more of a conversion story then an actual biogprahpy.
EG;
WHERE'S HIS RESEARCH PAPERS?
and WHY can't i find any picture of the man?
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/13 - 10:02 GMT
"SOMEWHAT LESS THAN HALF OF ALL (RM) DATES AGREE WITH 10% OF ACCEPTED VALUES FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE BIOSTRATIGAPHIC POSITIONS."
- FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME! >_<
If this was even remotely true it wouldn't have been used as a scientific method. The fact that it is says that this statement isn't true.

EDIT: To strengthening my claim of my statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics
It explains the standard value of the dispertion of data in a statistic study. The same mathematics is used for genetic-, biologic-, radiometric-studies.
"Statistical methods can be used to summarize or describe a collection of data; this is called descriptive statistics. In addition, patterns in the data may be modeled in a way that accounts for randomness and uncertainty in the observations, and are then used to draw inferences about the process or population being studied; this is called inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics and inferential statistics (a.k.a., predictive statistics) together comprise applied statistics."
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/13 - 10:16 GMT
oh btw, there are roughly 1,250,000 species of animals in the entire world. So much for the flood hypothesis, unless you had some serious macro evolution over 4000 years.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/05/13 - 12:01 GMT
Excellent post bigdog.

It has always been a common practice for evolutionary biologists to document only the coorperative values of radiometric dating,
and potassium argon dating and carbon dating.

These methodologies are used because the values given can be easily tammpered and easily dismissed And certainly easily contaminated.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/13 - 12:32 GMT
"
It has always been a common practice for evolutionary biologists to document only the coorperative values of radiometric dating,
and potassium argon dating and carbon dating."

/facepalm.
ur accusing 99.9% of scientist of making very serious offenses.
and what about the other dating methods ay? you know the ones for which you have no well documented, known and UNDERSTOOD cases of deviation.

""These methodologies are used because the values given can be easily tammpered and easily dismissed And certainly easily contaminated.'"

go learn what the actual procedures are, THEN COME BACK AND POST.

Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/05/13 - 13:03 GMT
"ur accusing 99.9% of scientist of making very serious offenses."

Proof or support?

"what about the other dating methods"

What dating methods?

"you know the ones for which you have no well documented, known and UNDERSTOOD cases of deviation."

'hmph' eh?

"go learn what the actual procedures are, THEN COME BACK AND POST."

Done. They ASSUME the decay rate has been constant. Go figure. They ASSUME there are no contaminants or alien materials involved. You wouldn't take my word for it, so try this.

This is the part where you assume we are wrong, close minded and uneducated and start spewing diarrhea out your mouth.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 weeks - 32,767v
Posted 2009/05/13 - 13:27 GMT
How about you show us proof or support for what you two are claiming?
I thought you two were christians, as you have both insulted fellow humans
No, I'm not insulting, I'm just letting you both know
Is this what Jesus would do?
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/13 - 15:21 GMT
"
"ur accusing 99.9% of scientist of making very serious offenses."

Proof or support?""

i believe the poll you love to use said 95% of all US scientists. now that all scientists. if you only take the biologists.
and you take into account that nearly all biology makes no sense without evolution.and that the only real crationist support is in the US
i can safely come to the estimte of 99.9% of all scientist around the world accept evolution.

but hey, i don't have the figures of the middle east. so i might be wrong there.

"""what about the other dating methods"

What dating methods?""

...you really think we only have K-Ar and C14 dating ?

how about Pb-Pb? or just about any other isotope that decays with a long halftime.

"
"go learn what the actual procedures are, THEN COME BACK AND POST."

Done. They ASSUME the decay rate has been constant. Go figure. They ASSUME there are no contaminants or alien materials involved. You wouldn't take my word for it, so try this.""

....lawl....when has radioactive decay NOT been constant? (I'M not COUNTINAG a 1% measurement deviation...that would be silly..)

""
This is the part where you assume we are wrong, close minded and uneducated and start spewing diarrhea out your mouth.""

XD because people who don't know the principles behind the methods argue against it??

translation : EVOLUTIONIST conspiricy!!!!
srly, i read it, but i can't bother to debate this, kevin will probably do a better job at this then me, since he knows more on the subject.

oh and this in no way "proves" YEC, ur stil gonna have to show that the layers are less then 6000 years old.or why they are in that place in the colum.
and no, simply stating "flood dunnit"" isn't enough.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/13 - 15:30 GMT
from creation wiki

""

Many atoms (or elements) exist as numerous varieties called isotopes, some of which are radioactive, meaning they decay over time by losing particles. Radiometric dating is based on the decay rate of these isotopes into stable nonradioactive isotopes. To date an object, scientists measure the quantity of parent and daughter isotope in a sample, and use the atomic decay rate to determine its possible age.

For example, in the 238U-206Pb series, 238U is the parent isotope and the others are daughter isotopes. 206Pb is the final daughter isotope and the one assayed in radiometric dating.

In order to calculate the age of the rock, geologists follow this procedure:

1. Measure the ratio of isotopes in the rock.
2. Observe the rate of radioactive decay from the mother to the daughter isotope.
3. Calculate the time required for the mother isotope to produce all the observed daughter isotope, according to this formula:

$t = frac{1}{lambda} ln left ( 1 + frac{D}{P} right )$

where:

• t is the age of the specimen;
• D and P are the numbers of daughter and parent isotope today;
• λ is the decay constant for the parent atom.

The decay constant has dimensions of reciprocal seconds. In the special case in which parent and daughter atoms are present in equal quantities, the age of the specimen is the half-life of the parent isotope:

$t^{1/2} = frac{ln 2}{lambda}$[1]

Assumptions

The various isotope dating methods rely upon several assumptions. They are:

1. Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.
2. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
3. A constant decay rate.[2]
Challenging the assumption of original composition

The first assumption, that the amount of the daughter isotope in the original rock is known, is the weakest assumption. For example, K-Ar dating assumes that there was no argon in the original rock. But if there was argon in the rock when it originally formed, then the age calculated will be millions of years too high.

To understand this, recall the above formula. The greater the amount of daughter isotope, the greater the apparent age.

The proportion of argon to radioactive potassium in the sample today is observable, and the decay constant of potassium is readily calculable by measuring the amount of argon produced from the decay of 40K after a specified time. But the age of the rock and the proportion of argon to radio-potassium in the sample originally are not observable. As any first-year student of algebra soon learns, a single equation with two unknown variables cannot be solved. In fact, the above formula is far too simple, because it assumes that the amount of daughter isotope was zero at start. The formula below is a proper model that admits the possibility that some daughter isotope was present when the rock formed:

$t = frac{1}{lambda} ln left ( 1 + frac{D - D_0}{P} right )$

where D0 is the amount of daughter isotope present at start. In order to simplify the formula, scientists generally assume that igneous rock contains no argon when it forms, because the argon, being a noble gas, would escape from the cooling lava.

This assumption has been repeatedly falsified. Fresh volcanic rock is routinely found to have argon in it when it first cools.[3][4] In these cases, lava of a known age of no more than several thousand years (and in one case, no more than ten years) had argon in it when it formed, so that the rock was calculated by K-Ar dating to be millions of years old, even though it was known to be only thousands of years old.

"Calibration" and disregarding "Out of Place Fossils"

Numerous fossils have been found in strata inconsistent with the evolutionary model of Earth's history.[5] These out of place fossils would seem to pose a problem for radiometric dating methods which are still calibrated based on the position of fossils (relative dates) in the geologic column. However, these fossils are not problematic if one simply disregards their existence.

If the date generated by isotope dating analysis agrees with the conventional interpretation of the geological column, paleontologists will accept it as valid. A date that disagrees with that interpretation is dismissed as an anomaly. This is not an example of malfeasance, but rather the result of assuming that the theory of evolution has been proved reliable, and therefore these seeming anomalies are due to contamination or other causes of analytical error. These out of place fossils or rocks are not considered a reason to question the theory. This makes independent testing of these dating methods impossible, since published discrepant dates are rare.[6]

Types of Radiometric Dating * Carbon-14 dating: Uses the ratio of 14C to 12C to determine the age of biological remains. Contrary to popular belief, Carbon-14 dating gives solid evidence for a young Earth.[7] * Helium diffusion: This dating method, developed by creationists, is based on the rate of Helium diffusion from zircons, which gives many rocks a maximum age of 6,000 +/- 2,000 years.[8] * Potassium-argon dating: K-Ar dating was used for a long time despite being challenged by creationists for its faulty assumptions and data. It is no longer defended as reliable, even by uniformitarian geologists, because it is entirely dependent on the assumption that igneous rocks never have any argon when they initially cool, and that assumption has been repeatedly demonstrated to be false as igneous rock of known age has been "dating" to ages far older than its actual age, because there was Argon in it when it formed.[3][4] * Concordia dating: Concordia dating rests on the same assumptions as K-Ar, namely that there was none of the daughter isotope (in this case Lead) in the sample when it originally cooled. Like the assumption in K-Ar, however, this assumption is also unfalsifiable, making this method equally unreliable.[9] * Isochron dating: Isochron dating was introduced as an attempted substitute for K-Ar dating, after K-Ar's faulty assumptions were exposed. However, isochron dating bears faulty assumptions of its own. It assumes the homogeneity of the sample when it originally formed, an assumption which is always false in whole rocks, and unfalsifiable in minerals.[10] ""

w8..WHAT???  WHY is there no mention of reservoir effects?

""
• Helium diffusion: This dating method, developed by creationists, is based on the rate of Helium diffusion from zircons, which gives many rocks a maximum age of 6,000 +/- 2,000 years.[8]""

Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/13 - 17:25 GMT
"It has always been a common practice for evolutionary biologists to document only the coorperative values of radiometric dating,
and potassium argon dating and carbon dating.

These methodologies are used because the values given can be easily tammpered and easily dismissed And certainly easily contaminated."
- That is so much bullcrap it's unbelievable. WE DO NOT USE ANY DATING METHODS AT ALL!!!
Why the hell would we use it?! We don't even wanna know how old a rock is! Do you even know what biologists do????
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/13 - 17:49 GMT
"""It has always been a common practice for evolutionary biologists to document only the coorperative values of radiometric dating,
and potassium argon dating and carbon dating.

These methodologies are used because the values given can be easily tammpered and easily dismissed And certainly easily contaminated."
- That is so much bullcrap it's unbelievable. WE DO NOT USE ANY DATING METHODS AT ALL!!!
Why the hell would we use it?! We don't even wanna know how old a rock is! Do you even know what biologists do????""

damm....im getting dull... didn't even notice that the creationwiki page specifically mentioned evolutionary BIOLOGISTS....

which indeed is true,  biologists wouldn't really care if the earth is old, the data (distribution of similarities) is still there and evolution will still happen (descent with modification being abserved in each new geneation and natural selection still being there...)

rly...it's GEOLOGISTS they're really bashing now.....NOT biologists....
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/13 - 18:54 GMT
It's the most fubar, idiotic, retarded and stupid claim ever recorded in this forum. I MEAN COME ON! that is like me saying "I'm an expert in theology". FOR FUCK SAKE! WHEN DOES THE STUPIDITY EVER END?!
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/05/13 - 20:29 GMT

I was wondering what the heck you guys were talking about biologists for. Geologists are the ones that use RMD. But they only use the 5% of dates that they like. the other 95% they ignore. HAHAHAHAHAH! Had to add that in there.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/13 - 20:58 GMT
9tails don't know the difference between what a biologist and a geologist does. NOW THAT IS FUCKING EMBARESSING!
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/13 - 21:33 GMT
"I was wondering what the heck you guys were talking about biologists for. Geologists are the ones that use RMD. But they only use the 5% of dates that they like. the other 95% they ignore. HAHAHAHAHAH! Had to add that in there.'

and AGAIN i'll point out that that point comes froma  man who isn not respected in the scientific sommunity, he's not rly respected in the scientific community. NOT because he disagrees with us, but because his arguments can easily be refuted and are not fully coherent. hell he writes books but doesn't post in peer reviewed journals.

and lastly, again, YOU"RE ACCUSING LOTS OF GEOLOSISTS OF A SERIOUS OFFENCE, not to mention that they undermine the very method they use....which makes no sense that A SCIENTIST WOULD DO THAT??!

either SHOW US ALL THE DAM PAPERS WOODR. BASED HS CLAIM ON (NOT HIS CHERRY PICKINGS).
or STFU when you accuse geologists of such a serious offence against science.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/13 - 21:34 GMT
"9tails don't know the difference between what a biologist and a geologist does. NOW THAT IS FUCKING EMBARESSING!"

i think he does.
but it appears creationiwiki doesn't
(that's where i got the info from)
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/05/13 - 23:40 GMT
Oh come now, This very modest degree of contempt is long merited.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/05/13 - 23:46 GMT
"....lawl....when has radioactive decay NOT been constant?"

Therein lies the issue.

""flood dunnit"""

Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/05/13 - 23:48 GMT
Language! gentlemen try to remember this is an open forum. Keep stern language to a minimum.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/05/13 - 23:56 GMT
To note, It is geologists that use radiometric dating. It was a misrepresentation of terms. An accident, lets move on.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/05/14 - 0:05 GMT
I also reiterate that making the base assumption, alone, that isotope decay is always constant is a pretty solid case against the reliability of such a procedure.

The ratio of radioactive and stable isotopes in the sample are determined and the measured rate at which the isotopes decay is used as an indicator of the age of the sample. However, it is typically unknown and simply assumed whether these ratios of elements are the result of radioactive decay over time or other processes that have taken place in the rock.

Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
3 days - 3,596v
Posted 2009/05/14 - 3:24 GMT
So you are saying that God made a young Earth and did so in a manner so that everything would look old?

God the deceiver. No wonder the YEC crowd on here lie so much. They are trying to be like God.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
3 days - 3,596v
Posted 2009/05/14 - 3:27 GMT
I know it hurts you if you can't lie. You know they don't throw out 95% of the data. You are not insane.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
3 days - 3,596v
Posted 2009/05/14 - 3:29 GMT
Why don't you start listing those other procedures? Why don't you give a good reason for high levels of daughter elements and then we can test that?
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/14 - 12:36 GMT
open forum + free internet = i can say what the hell i want.

But if you want me to speak a better language for the children ( NOTE: bigdog) here i can do that.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/14 - 12:37 GMT
dude it's not even close. how can you make such a fundamental fault?! I don't wanna stomp this shit 2 much, i'm just amazed of how it could ever happen.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/14 - 12:42 GMT
The reason we KNOW that those assumptions creationsist claim is false is because of this:
"... directly compared with known year-by-year data from tree-ring data (dendrochronology) to 10,000 years ago, or from cave deposits (speleothems), to about 45,000 years of age. A calculation or (more accurately) a direct comparison with tree ring or cave-deposit carbon-14 levels, gives the wood or animal sample age-from-formation."

Math+natural observations = disproven creation myth. You can't debate that.END OF STORY!
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/05/14 - 17:50 GMT
Wrong.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/14 - 18:00 GMT
"Wrong."

care to elaborate?
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/14 - 19:25 GMT
"wrong" is neither an answer nor an argument.

Sometime you must let the fact in 9tails. You can't ignore it just because it doesn't follow your point of view on the world.

You should try some mindfullness, they teach you to accept the reality for what it is.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/05/15 - 3:48 GMT

We talked about this a looooooong time ago. Trees can grow a few rings a year in a good rain year. So a 4,000 year old tree can look much older. Look it up.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/15 - 9:12 GMT
"
We talked about this a looooooong time ago. Trees can grow a few rings a year in a good rain year."

back that up.

and no it can't in a seasonal environment.
what causes the rings is the SLOWDOWN of growing in winter.
so as long as you have winter, ur gonna get tree rings.
and since we all agree that the earth is slanted and spins around the sun......

Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/15 - 9:53 GMT
bigdog u liar.

"...tree-ring dating is the method of scientific dating based on the analysis of tree-ring growth patterns. This technique was developed during the first half of the 20th century originally by the astronomer A. E. Douglass, the founder of the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at the University of Arizona. Douglass sought to better understand cycles of sunspot activity and reasoned (correctly) that changes in solar activity would affect climate patterns on earth which would subsequently be recorded by tree-ring growth patterns (i.e., sunspots → climate → tree rings)."

stop spewing lies. You world view is a lie. Accept it for what it is.

And you couldn't reject the cave deposits.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/05/16 - 21:21 GMT

Your the one who needs to face that evolution is SCIENCE FICTION and everybody is finding out.

More than one ring can grow a year. Check it out
http://creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)Dendrochronology_is_suspect_because_2_or_more_rings_can_grow_per_year
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/16 - 21:56 GMT
"Your the one who needs to face that evolution is SCIENCE FICTION and everybody is finding out."

just repeating this doesn't make it any less silly.
or untrue.

from bigdogs source:

"The problem is that comparisons between trees are somewhat subjective, since even trees of the same species growing side by side do not produce absolutely identical ring patterns. Therefore finding errors is also subjective, adding to the overall subjectiveness of dendrochronology."

WHAT?
HOW is this subjective, either the rigns are there or they aren't.
no subjectivity in this.

"1. For some trees, including bristlecone pine, ponderosa pine, and douglass fir, double rings are rare and easy to spot with a little practice. A bigger problem is missing rings; a bristlecone pine can have up to 5 percent of its rings missing. Thus, dates derived from dendrochronology, if they are suspect at all, should indicate ages too young.

What Talk Origins does not tell you is that the extra rings make up at least 20% of the total, this leaves an error of at least 15% too old."

and somehow the people who do the datign wouldn't be aware of the missing or extra rings....riiiigth..

you accuse these scientists of gross incompitence bigdog....

"Not surprising since dendrochronology is used to to calibrate carbon-14 dating. Not only that but carbon - 14 dating is used in tree ring matching. As a result the two are not independent dating methods, but are actually mutually dependent."

no they aren', there are more ways to calibrate C14 dating man.

"The raw radiocarbon dates, in BP years, are calibrated to give calendar dates. Standard calibration curves are available, based on comparison of radiocarbon dates of samples that can be dated independently by other methods such as examination of tree growth rings (dendrochronology), deep ocean sediment cores, lake sediment varves, coral samples, and speleothems (cave deposits)."

you sir didn't do your homework.

"What Talk Origins does not tell you is that the extra rings make up at least 20% of the total, this leaves an error of at least 15% too old."

i did not see that claim based and i did not see an explination as to HOW 20% of the rings are extra.

this is where the idea comes from i believe...

whatcha know....it's Woodmorappe! now why don't i find the suprising....

"Could the genetics of BCPs, nowadays so strongly resistant to multiple ring growth per year, have allowed for such growth in the early post-Flood period? It would not be easy to test this hypotheses, if only because BCP generation times are so long."

the moment you read that any tree expert will do a facepalm.

"The challenge is not simply to reduce 8,000 years of rings to 4,000 years of actual time. In order to march in step with C-14 dates, which themselves were inflated at first, there must have been over 5,000 BCP rings generated in under 1,000 years after the Flood, followed by the remaining 3,000 rings generated in the expected 3,000 years. This would have required 5 rings consistently per year for the first post-Diluvian millennium, which, on a sustained basis, is almost impossible. However, if the more-realistic 1–2 rings per year had deployed in higher-order sequences that allowed the BCPs to crossmatch in an artificially-compressed format, then there could be a 5,000 tree-ring chronology generated in 1,000 years of real time. After about 1,000 B.C., the BCPs must have turned to the one-ring/one-year growth that characterizes the present. Otherwise, the recent part of the BCP chronology would be out of step with C-14 dates, which it is not."

translation: "the challange is to conjur op some system so the facts agree with my beliefs"

"It has long been known that individual tree rings can be changed, during growth, from the climate-signal-dictated size to a different size as a result of some disturbance. This disturbance (for example, insect attack, earthquake, release of gas, etc.) can make the ring either smaller or larger. If these disturbances occurred at sufficient frequency, and reappeared in sequence in other trees at later times, the actually-contemporaneous trees would crossmatch in an age-staggered manner, thus creating an artificial chronology."

so lets propose these things accured really frequently and in large number, so that the entire BCP cronology is distorted...

no dice. any1 with half a brain regarding ecology will know why.

"The 8,000-year-long BCP chronology appears to be correctly crossmatched, and there is no evidence that bristlecone pines can put on more than one ring per year. The best approach for collapsing this chronology, one that takes into the account the evidence from C-14 dates, is one that factors the existence of migrating ring-disturbing events. Much more must be learned about this phenomenon before this hypothesis can be developed further."

at least he's honest about his claim being most likely BS and that it should NOT BE BLINDLY COPIED.

but i still need to find a "20% of the rings are double's" cliam...better keep searching.

Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/05/17 - 1:13 GMT

Trees would appear too old if they grew more than one ring per year. Most dendrochronologists, drawing on an influential study by LaMarche and Harlan (1973), believe that bristlecone pines do indeed add only one ring per year. Yet not all scientists accept this study. According to Harold Gladwin (1978), the growth patterns of the bristlecone trees are too erratic for dating. Lammerts (1983) found extra rings after studying the development of bristlecone saplings. He suggested that the existing chronology should be compressed from 7,100 to 5,600 years.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2019

I looked up Harold Gladwin and he seems to be a pretty well respected scientist even according to the creation hating site "Wiki." The above site also gives more reasons why Radio metric dating doesn't prove an old earth. And you do know that C-14 dating and tree ring dating contradict each other sometimes right?
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/17 - 8:07 GMT
"http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2019"

WHY is this from the same sort of source?.....

" creation hating site "Wiki.""
way to go.....

"And you do know that C-14 dating and tree ring dating contradict each other sometimes right?"

y, i know. SOMEtimes...but we know WHY.
and we can CHECK WITH MORE TESTS to give more accurate data....
THATS the way we do whit in science.
there's always something that can go wrong...we try to minimize the impact.

"Lammerts (1983) found extra rings after studying the development of bristlecone saplings."
lammerts being one of the founders of CRS and havign a clear ulterior motive at claiming "should be compressed from 7,100 to 5,600 years."

about lammarts btw (Walter E. Lammerts)

Walter E. Lammerts (1904-1996) graduated from Riverside Polytechnic High School in 1922. He earned both his undergraduate degree and and doctorate in horticulture from the University of California, Berkeley. In 1935, he contracted with Armstrong Nurseries and established the company's plant research facility. He was a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles from 1940-1945 and during that time he helped Knott's Berry Farm establish its berry program.

Working with Los Angeles newspaper owner Manchester Boddy, Lammerts developed a plant research program at Descanso Gardens in La Canada, California. He later continued plant research in Livermore, working for Germains/Amling DeVor.

Lammerts passed away on June 4, 1996.

http://content.cdlib.org/view?docId=kt0m3nd5k5&chunk.id=bioghist-1.2.2&brand=oac

so THIS "Dr. Walter E. Lammerts has a doctorate in genetics,"

is a downright lie. un understanding og genetics is handy when studying horticulture, BUT HORTICULTURE=/= GENTICS.

http://creationwiki.org/Walter_Lammerts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horticulture

Lammerts, Walter E., "Are the Bristlecone Pine Trees Really So Old?" Creation Research Society Quarterly, volume 20, September 1983, pp. 108-115.

this is the article that cliams a large percentage is double rings, which would compress the chronology to 5600 (STILL before the flood)

if someone could find the the article that would be nice.

all that is mentioned is "extra rings" not mentioning the amount. and the tests where done in a lab by someone with an ulterior motive, so i would like a peer reviewed scientist to also do those tests (so link me a peer reviewed paper of someone who did the same tests)

Dendrochronology

The discipline of deriving age by studying annual rings in trees has posed a different problem for creationists, as this dating method does not make use directly of accelerated decay. By using dendrochronology scientists have dated certain living trees to having ages of around 4600 years.( 8) This finding showed the current model for C-14 dating to be incorrect, so scientists recalibrated their C-14 model based on this tree.

"The existence of this tree is not a significant problem for creationists, since such a dating would correspond to the dating they give for the flood. However, the further work, where dead trees in the same region were compared to paste together a chronology dating back approximately 10000 years is more a significant challenge.

A certain degree of wiggle-room was found when Aardsma first found that trees can produce multiple rings in a wet year ( 9). In the lab Lanmerts was able to show that trees can also show extra rings in short drought periods ( 10). Even with this wiggle-room, creation scientists accept that this puts the minimum age for life just barely within a range they are comfortable with [10].""

i have STILL to see the "20% claim"  corroborated somewhere....
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/17 - 8:10 GMT
"I looked up Harold Gladwin and he seems to be a pretty well respected scientist even according to the creation hating site "Wiki." "
interestinlgy enough

Harold Gladwin was NOT A YEC

and the
"The above site also gives more reasons why Radio metric dating doesn't prove an old earth."
claim is simply the same chewed out crap.
that's been debunked man...
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/17 - 12:55 GMT
"The oldest single living organisms known are bristlecone pines, though some plants such as creosote bush or aspen form clonal colonies that may be many times older. Recently, Swedish researchers discovered a self-cloning spruce in Dalarna that has been dated to just under 10,000 years old[1] [2]. The existing growth in clonal colonies sprang as shoots from older growth so there is an unbroken chain of life that sometimes dates back several tens of thousands of years. However, the original ancient growth in these colonies is long dead. The oldest bristlecone pines are single plants that have been alive for a little less than 5,000 years. These very old trees are of great importance in dendrochronology or tree-ring dating."

"Your the one who needs to face that evolution is SCIENCE FICTION and everybody is finding out. "
- Just the right person that will come from. A guy who believes in a fairytale as if it was completely true. STFU!

"And you do know that C-14 dating and tree ring dating contradict each other sometimes right?"
- You are talking of the mollusk and seel right? still debunked. The carbon that get's in to the water enviroment is already degraded so that it appears older than it is. And as for the dendrochronology, it's like fingerprints for a number of years so all the trees who have been planted at the same time got the same tree-rings.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/05/17 - 17:06 GMT

You didn't even give a reference site for this, but it's pretty good if it's true. Let's see in the end of your quote it says, "The oldest bristlecone pines are single plants that have been alive for a little less than 5,000 years. These very old trees are of great importance in dendrochronology or tree-ring dating."

Right on! So the oldest living bristlecone pine is about 5,000 years old. That's probably because Noah's HISTORICAL flood happened about 5,000 years ago or so and then all the ecological life on earth began to grow again. Thanks!
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/05/17 - 17:10 GMT

Can you give me that site by the way? I appreciate it.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/17 - 18:23 GMT
"Right on! So the oldest living bristlecone pine is about 5,000 years old. That's probably because Noah's HISTORICAL flood happened about 5,000 years ago or so and then all the ecological life on earth began to grow again."

first of all, the flood happened about 4300 years ago. if i remember creationits sayign it correcty. so you're off by about SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS to prove your point.

"According to the Biblical chronology it was around 2300 BC, that is around 1700 years after Creation in around 4000 BC. Many of the patriarchs listed above were living at the same time.

Thankfully the presupposition of the questioner is correct, which is why there is so much evidence, even without the Bible, that this event happened. The Bible merely gives a workable chronology from which various dates have been deduced. Even Stephen Jay Gould, the atheist gave credit to Bishop Usher for his scholarship for working out a date similar to the one given above. This was the year 2349BC which Usher arrived at through his study of the Biblical chronology. So, even though Gould most certainly did not share Ushers belief in the Bible as being true, he respected and gave credit to his scholarship."

second of all, the BPC records still goes back 10 000+ years. something that you have yet to deal with. the arguments brought up by woodmorappe are weak when examined by experts in the field, as what woordmorappe proposes is 2 things.

1) a large percentage of the rings is double.
2) the tree rings vary so much from tree to tree on the same year that you cannot create an chronology. (he attreibutes this to very local occurances which harasses specific trees every few years or so.)

now say this to any person who did study on this field. and chances are they'll laugh in your face.
as these questions have been asked and dealt with by any repsectable scientist who makes such a chronology like the BPC. it's foolish to accuse scientist of not doing their homework if their paper got through peer review. and the literature and it's still held.

"Thanks!",
for taking something that in no way give hard evidence for massive flood 4300+- years ago and claiming it did.

and
"Thanks!",
for again flaunting your intellectual shallowness.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/17 - 18:31 GMT

"Can you give me that site by the way? I appreciate it."

that would be:

ooooh look....it's wiki....

the irony (you probably won't understand this one bigdog)....
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/05/17 - 21:34 GMT

No one knows the exact date of the flood. But the oldest bristlecone pine tree being 5,000 years is an estimate. Scientists from secular universities disagree that tree ring dating is accurate. It's a heck of a lot closer than radio metric dating. Dendrochronology is still a good science, but other scientists have pointed out that more rings have grown within a year. But 5,000 years sounds like your getting a little closer to the reality of a young earth. Why is it so hard for you to accept new findings that contradict your belief? Like I said before, it would be fine if the world was millions of years old, but we're finding out it's not. I don't have anything to lose if the Bible is wrong. We're all going to die anyway. But if there is an after life and the Bible is right you need to face it.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/05/17 - 21:43 GMT

Oh I looked up that site. It says, "up to NEARLY 5,000 years."
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/17 - 21:44 GMT
"Scientists from secular universities disagree that tree ring dating is accurate."
all you got to back that up is one referecne from Harold, who was critical of nearly everything.

"Dendrochronology is still a good science, but other scientists have pointed out that more rings have grown within a year"

and what lead you to beleive that 20%! are extra rings? nothing. execpt that the flood "must have happened".

"But 5,000 years sounds like your getting a little closer to the reality of a young earth." and the trees started growing when the earth was just formed because????

do i have to point out the absurdity of your statement?
do you REALLY not see how claiming " tree 5000- yeard old, therefore earth 6000 years old" IS JUST ASININE!?

"Why is it so hard for you to accept new findings that contradict your belief?"

BECAUSE THEY DON'T!!
A TREE THAT IS 5000 YEARS OLD DOESN'T MEAN THE EARTH IS 6000 YEARS OLD. ALL IT SETS IS THAT WE HAVE A CLIMITOLOGICAL RECORD OF THE LAST 5000 YEARS! and that the earth has existed for at least 5000 years in the shape we can determine form the climate record in the tree rings.

an billions of years old earth IS STILL SUPPORTED BY MORE THEN JUST TREES!

"Like I said before, it would be fine if the world was millions of years old, but we're finding out it's not."

!!!!!!!!!

"I don't have anything to lose if the Bible is wrong."

translation :"convert or burn"h

and YES you do, it's called reversed pascals wager.
you practically have EVERY OTHER RELIGION TO WORRY ABOUT.

"We're all going to die anyway. But if there is an after life and the Bible is right you need to face it."

Islam, hinduism, reincarnation, hades.....do i HAVE to continue?
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/17 - 21:48 GMT
"Oh I looked up that site. It says, "up to NEARLY 5,000 years.""

read a little lower and you see

"In the Snake Range of eastern Nevada Donald R. Currey, a student of the University of North Carolina, was taking core samples of bristlecones in 1964. He discovered that "Prometheus" in a cirque below Wheeler Peak was over 4,000 years old. His coring tool broke, so the U.S. Forest service granted permission to cut down "Prometheus". 4,844 rings were counted on a cross-section of the tree, making "Prometheus" at least 4,844 years old, the oldest non-clonal living thing known to man.[2]"

still that's not 4 300 years ago, or to be exact.
"2349BC"
as calculated and claimed by creationists.

do you REALLY not understand hjow your logic is so monsterously flawed?
1) it strongly speaks against the biblical flood date.
2) all it provides is a minimum age of the earth and climate of 5000 years. NOT a 6000 year old earth, or divine creation.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/17 - 22:01 GMT
wait... what? did you just quotemine me! :O
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/17 - 22:14 GMT
"But the oldest bristlecone pine tree being 5,000 years is an estimate."
- We can test and prove it works, so it's not an estimate.

"Scientists from secular universities disagree that tree ring dating is accurate."
- Ehm, there are no such thing as secular universities. There are diploma mills and there's accredited universities. You can't say that scientists disagree that the tree ring dating is accurate! It's like me saying "all americans are stupid", just cuz i said so doesn't make it more true unless i got a study that shows my claim. (no offence americans, just did an example)

"It's a heck of a lot closer than radio metric dating."
- So one science area using math is better than another scientific field that uses math aswell? How logical is that?

"But 5,000 years sounds like your getting a little closer to the reality of a young earth."
- No, trying to see how old a tree is doesn't make it as old as the techniques maximum. If the tree can't survive for 5000 years we can't count the rings to get it to be older even if it were. What we can do is use it as a reference for other dating methods to se if it's accurate and RADIOMETRIC DATING HAS BEEN SHOWN TO WORK!

"Why is it so hard for you to accept new findings that contradict your belief?"
- What findings? The papers of a guy who suck at math and science?

"Like I said before, it would be fine if the world was millions of years old, but we're finding out it's not. I don't have anything to lose if the Bible is wrong. We're all going to die anyway. But if there is an after life and the Bible is right you need to face it."
- Oh that is just such a lie and we know it!
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/05/17 - 23:38 GMT

Research by Walter Lammerts, a plant scientist, has disclosed that the bristlecone pine routinely stops growth during the dry summer and when both spring and fall are rainy (which is common) it produces two rings a year. This would fit the time of the flood. All you guys are left with is trying to discredit him. Dendrochronlogy proves a young earth. Why don't we find older trees? Oh, I get it. They just die after 5,000 years. Sure.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/05/18 - 4:18 GMT
You didn't know trees disappear after about 5,000 years? LOL, you must not know anything about evolution!
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/18 - 5:15 GMT
"You didn't know trees disappear after about 5,000 years? LOL, you must not know anything about evolution!"

what?

dude....BCP CHRONOLOGY GOES BACK 10000 YEARS (and that's not the only one)
NOT TO MENTION YOUR PRECIOUS "polystrat fossils"!!!!

HOW STUPID DO YOU WANT TO BE?!
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/18 - 5:27 GMT

"Research by Walter Lammerts, a plant scientist, has disclosed that the bristlecone pine routinely stops growth during the dry summer and when both spring and fall are rainy (which is common) it produces two rings a year."

1) he did that in a lab, so we know he could have tweaked the parameters (in accorbance with point 2)
2) he did that with an ulterior motive.
3) i want to see a secular scientist running the same tests.
4) woormorappe actually sais IN HIS OWN ARTICLE that double rings will NOT account for all the difference, instead he attacks the rings used for comparison, claiming that they vary to much and can therefore not be used to set up a chronology further back then the last living tree.

"This would fit the time of the flood"

for the last bloody time
no it wouldn't. the tree is several thousands of year to old for that.
unless you want to go up against your own bible....

"ll you guys are left with is trying to discredit him."

"Dendrochronlogy proves a young earth."
10 000=/= 6000
and a 5000 year old tree doesn't prove a 6000 year old earth. just like a 2 month old boil doesn't prove a 3 month old senior citizen.

"Why don't we find older trees?"
becasue there are limits to cell division. look up aging.
that and natural selection becomes a bitch to one generation after 4700 years.

"Oh, I get it. They just die after 5,000 years. Sure."

clonal trees, you lose.
creosote bushes, you lose
ect..

Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2009/05/18 - 6:54 GMT
Dude. i havnt been here in a while but this stuf has intrested me ever since i saw Hovind at berkley college. I just spent an hour reading all the comments on this thread. Thank God for the internet that we can find out all this stuff. I already new about the mistakes of radio metric dating but 95% errors is pretty damming. I hadn't really looked into tree ring dating. 365 why do you still trust these dating methods? It's good to use them but even that wiki site said the oldest tree is only almost 5,000 years old. I just watched on the christian channel that the flood happened about 5000 years ago. so it's true like bigdog said that it fits the flood timing even though nobody knows the exact time of Noah's flood. Can't you just believe your beliefs and a young world? So what if the world is not millions of years old.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/05/18 - 7:02 GMT
There belief is sacred to them, ronnie.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/18 - 10:58 GMT
"365 why do you still trust these dating methods?"

and you'll understand WHY.

"It's good to use them but even that wiki site said the oldest tree is only almost 5,000 years old. I just watched on the christian channel that the flood happened about 5000 years ago."

it gives a completely different date.
the date that is calculated with THE BIBLE no less, would seen the appropriate date to use for a YEC, inless they want to go against what people have calculated form the bible....mmm perhaps it's should be take that literal at all....

"so it's true like bigdog said that it fits the flood timing even though nobody knows the exact time of Noah's flood."

DUDE!! you;re usign an estimate and then claim it "fits"
if there REALLY was a global flood, we wouldn't have been albe to create dendrochronologies in an excess of 6000 years. but we are able of doing that. so no, there was no global flood.
and this is just one of the many reasons why a global flood 4000-5000 years ago IS IMPOSSIBLE. the evidence just doesn't show it.

do yourself a favor, go look at the "debunks on teh internets" thread and watch the actual debunks...hovind knows no science and a 14 year old with a basic understanding of logic and science can bust his claims whide open.....

"Can't you just believe your beliefs and a young world?"
no, i believe what the evidence indicates.
the evidence indicated a 4.5 bil year old earth.

beleiveing the earth is 6000 on evidenc emean you have to SCREEN OUT MASSIVE amoutn of evidence.

"the oldest living tree is about 5000 years old, therefore the flood happened 5000 years ago and the bible is CORRECT!"

really...any nonfundimentalist can understand how that is an extremely poor set of reasoning...

"So what if the world is not millions of years old."

but it is. so why believe otherwise. or in toehr words. why beleive a lie? why stay ignorant?

what? do you think we just conjure up a number and say "that's how old the earth is!"
if you do, then you better stop posting right now and start learning how science works and how we came up with these dates.

Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/18 - 10:59 GMT
"There belief is sacred to them, ronnie."

pot.kettle.black.

i don;t have a holy book reality must conform with.

PS: it's "their"
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 weeks - 32,767v
Posted 2009/05/18 - 11:20 GMT
To Creationist who believe in a young earth and that radio metric dating has 95% errors, I have a challenge for you

Find a non-creationist website that says there are 95% errors in radio metric dating

Good luck :-)
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/18 - 17:26 GMT
- No proof at all for this claim. The scientific method does not accept a standard deviation over 2 % and if it was above that the method would not be used. And if you think it's when they dated fossils from dinosours with carbon-14 then you haven't watched potholers video about carbon-14. He read all the articles that Hovind state as sources and he quotemined everything or misinterpreted.

"It's good to use them but even that wiki site said the oldest tree is only almost 5,000 years old."
- it doesn't really matter, we can use it as reference as it's reliable. We can test that and try different methods to see if they match up. And it has, otherwise they would have discarded it. And they havent!

"so it's true like bigdog said that it fits the flood timing even though nobody knows the exact time of Noah's flood."
- Just because bigdog says something doesn't mean it's true. His only source he ever linked is a site that looks like it was made by a 12 year old. I quote his site: "This material does not necessarily represent any organization, including the University of North Carolina and the State of North Carolina."
I could do a site that looks way more professional and it would have the same credability.

"Can't you just believe your beliefs and a young world? So what if the world is not millions of years old. "
- No evidence, and those "evidence" that creationists say they have is debunked over and over again or they deliberatly keep info out, like quotemining. Watch this playlist http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=DB23537556D7AADB
For what is wrong with what bigdog says.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/05/18 - 22:05 GMT

That is the problem "thedude." Once someone points this out they become an outcast. Just look at Ben Stein's film 'EXPELLED.' A scientist mentions the letters "ID" and he's labeled basically a heretic by evolution believers. Woodmorrape points out "but no one has given any other figures from the literature for the exact percentage of anomalies." Of course not! They don't want to point out the flaws. But people are finding out anyway.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/18 - 22:15 GMT
"Woodmorrape points out "but no one has given any other figures from the literature for the exact percentage of anomalies." Of course not! They don't want to point out the flaws."
- For the last fucking time! If the method does not get good results it's discarded since it's useless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation
That explains how anomalies are taken into account with the results.

"A scientist mentions the letters "ID" and he's labeled basically a heretic by evolution believers."
- That's because he's either a moron or he's breaking the scientific method. His research would be bias and he would try to get the results that show his belief. They didn't made up the theory of evolution, they drew that conclution from what they observed and tested. ID is no way near science and that is why they are excluded from the scientific community. The only thing he can do is spread lies and try to destroy the proven science. Oh and we don't believe in evolution, but we have faith in science. big difference.

"But people are finding out anyway."
- Nope, they think they know already, but they are just ignorant and stupid. =)

Woodmorrape is not a scientist, it's a penname of whom we don't know. The creation wiki claims that he's a scientist, but no sources at all is present. I might have written that he got a Ph.D in astrophysics and geology and biology and it would be equally true.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/18 - 22:22 GMT
"That is the problem "thedude." Once someone points this out they become an outcast. Just look at Ben Stein's film 'EXPELLED.'"

stein is horribly disingenuis in that film.
he does the much needed fact checks.

"A scientist mentions the letters "ID" and he's labeled basically a heretic by evolution believers"

because ID has been disproven by the scientific community as a hypothesis. behe's IRC claism have all been refuted by other biologists and chemists. and anyone who still holds to ID is willingy ignorant of these facts, thus has no place in science.

" Of course not! They don't want to point out the flaws."

did you just.....accuse scientists of fudging and ignoring data?
you DO know that ANY scientist who is found doing that will lose his job and probably will not be able to find a new one soon.
it's on of the most severe accusations you can make to a scientist.
so BACK IT UP, or STFU.
and not woodmorappe's claim "the bible is true, so they MUST be withholding and fudging evidence" is hardly convincing.

Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/05/20 - 3:31 GMT

I see how you guys are now. Just because a scientist does an independent study and exposes the lies of an old earth, you just call him a liar. No scientific rebuttal eh? Just "he's a liar." That's all I thought I would get out of you both. You're in denial.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/20 - 6:08 GMT
"Just because a scientist does an independent study and exposes the lies of an old earth, you just call him a liar."

nooo, because the articles he writes aren't published in peer reviewed journals and when they ARE adressed it's discovered THEY ARE FULL OF FALLACIOUS REASONING.

"No scientific rebuttal eh?"
did you even READ the assesment of woodmorappes works?

"You're in denial."

coming form someone who argues out of gross ignorance on subjects he doesn't even understand the basics of....your statement loses all value.

Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/20 - 13:42 GMT
He's a liar because he thinks he got the answer BEFORE he gets any results. That is not scientific method! If he would have proved the young earth idea then he have to use the scientific method or it's not valid of anything. I could write a book about how stupid americans are based on my assumption that they are and that book would have as much credability and validity as his "research". Catch my drift?
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/05/20 - 15:20 GMT

Grand canyon rocks: another devasting failure for the long age geology myth.

Sorry, keep using billions of tax money grants to study them and find out how they could possibly be billions of years old, call it a rebuttal, then go back to bashing the creationists.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/20 - 15:36 GMT
i got 2 evidence for why this is no to be trusted.
1. Not peer-reviewed.
2. Not from the scientific method

The conclusion was written BEFORE the results was found. Translation: They used only the data that was working with the conclusion and the "scientists" had any chance to tamper with the data.

Oh and this:
"The isochron "ages" yielded by the different parent radioisotopes for the Brahma amphibolites plotted against the present half-lifes (decay rates) of those radioisotopes according to their mode of decay. (Note that there is total disagreement between the "dates," and the alpha-decay "dates" are much older than the beta-decay "date.")"
- This was found under a picture that was not even close to being readable. Even if i zoomed in i could not read anything from the graph, i wonder... why?

"...and the K-Ar model "ages" are so widely divergent from one another (ranging from 405.1±10 Ma to 2574.2±73 Ma)..."
- This only shows they don't know what they are doing. Not even showing the standard deviation nor their calculations.

= not working.

A real geologist peer-reviewed his articles and this was the result.

The article you posted is not made by a Ph.D in geology. There's 2 of the same and one showes definitly that he's a real geologist and the other is lacking fundamental scientific knowledge. the site i linked got the facts about it.

quote from the site:
"The problem is obvious - the two Drs A A Snelling BSc (Hons), PhD (with the same address as the Creation Science Foundation) publish articles in separate journals and never cite each other's papers. Their views on earth history are diametrically opposed and quite incompatible.

One Dr Snelling is a young-earth creationist missionary who follows the CSF's Statement of Faith to the letter. The other Dr Snelling writes scientific articles on rocks at least hundreds or thousand of millions of years old and openly contradicting the Statement of Faith. The CSF clearly has a credibility problem. Are they aware they have an apostate in their midst and have they informed their members?"

Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/05/25 - 2:56 GMT

Here's some recent research by ICR. They have found that the most sophisticated dating methods give bad dates. Superior strata is actually being dated older than the lower strata. But here's what they are finding on lava flows.

Old "Ages" for Young Lava Flows

The observation that obviously recent lava flows from the north rim of Grand Canyon give ages even older than the deeply buried lava flows, challenges the basic assumptions upon which the isochron dating method is based. The discovery of an "old age" in an obviously "young" series of lava flows has encouraged further research at ICR. Has the Cardenas Basalt been successfully dated? An intense isotope, trace element, and rare earth element analysis is now underway at ICR. 7 Some extraordinary relationships are becoming apparent. These recent lava flows are being tested by the most sophisticated analytical techniques, to determine the best explanation for the excessively old "age." The same methods are also being applied to the deeply buried lava flows of Grand Canyon. We might ask, "Has anyone successfully dated a Grand Canyon rock?"

This research is being conducted by Dr. Steven A. Austin, at the Institute for Creation Research. A brochure describing the "Grand Canyon Dating Project" is available upon request. This ongoing research is being supported by donations from private individuals. These gifts are tax-deductible, and should be designated for the "Grand Canyon Dating Project." This project has been funded without grants from taxpayer-supported government agencies.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=353

Oh, here are some of Dr. Steven Austin's credentials.
B.S. (Geology), University of Washington, Seattle, WA,1970

M.S. (Geology), San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, 1971

Ph.D. (Geology), Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979
(As a geologist, I'm sure he knows what he's doing with the scientific method, but go ahead and call him a liar as that is all you are left with.)
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/25 - 5:41 GMT
"Old "Ages" for Young Lava Flows"

that's just the same repeated crap....
this isn't new....

"(As a geologist, I'm sure he knows what he's doing with the scientific method, but go ahead and call him a liar as that is all you are left with.)"

i'll decide that when i see the paper.

"The same methods are also being applied to the deeply buried lava flows of Grand Canyon. We might ask, "Has anyone successfully dated a Grand Canyon rock?""

riight, and ets just ignore the formation porcess of the river or the sedementary layers...and say it was crafted 4400 years ago by a flood.
something we could easily conclude from a direct observation...but we don't conclude that...i wonder why?
is it perhaps because the shape of the canyon doesn't allow for it?
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/25 - 10:27 GMT
DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEBUNKED

Scientific sources and peer-reviewed.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/05/25 - 22:03 GMT

This didn't show anything except trying to discredit them for believing the BIble. They don't show anything to prove that the world is millions of years old.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/25 - 22:23 GMT
Bigdog, your article that you linked does not contain any calculations at all. If they wanted it to prove god made the earth they could easily have changed the calculations so that htey got that answer since any other number would be considered as wrong. The graphs is impossible to read and you cannot get anything out of it. All the sources are crappy ones from either people who does not understand science or turns out to be a fraud.

"This didn't show anything except trying to discredit them for believing the BIble."
- For thinking the bible is more accurate than science and the scientific method. Claiming that radio metric dating is not working at all is pure bullshit and this document shows it.

"They don't show anything to prove that the world is millions of years old. "
- They never claimed to show that, just to show that the article is pure bullshit. If you want anything that proves the world is billions of years old then you have to look at other sources.

like this:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
http://sp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/content/abstract/190/1/205

Bigdog you got nothing. No knowledge, no argument that hasn't already been debunked a million times. Your ignorance just makes these false claims stay like a rusty nail in the hand of a scientist.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/05/25 - 22:37 GMT

I'm trying to help the cause of science. All you got is calling creationists liars. It is no secret to geologists that K-Ar dates are older on the top layers than the lower layers at times. If the world is millions of years old I can still believe the BIble like many Catholics do, but for you and many others it would destroy your faith in evolution because evolution can't happen within 10,000 years. Your rediculous theory is a hindurance to advancing science, and you want to ignore the fallacies of RMD and the G. column.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/26 - 6:34 GMT
"I'm trying to help the cause of science."

no you are not. creation "science" is pure apologetics.
all you're tryign to prove is the bible. you're not trying to further our understanding of the natural world BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WORKING THEORIES.

Hovind himself actualy ADMITS that he's just out there to convert you.

"All you got is calling creationists liars."

you apparently NEVER read the articles in which we called them that.
you just skipped ahead to the conclusion so you can say "we're being opressed!"

" but for you and many others it would destroy your faith in evolution because evolution can't happen within 10,000 years."

not on the way it is observed from the fossil record no. the irony is that you seem to think it does when you talk about super speciation AFTER NOAH'S FLOOD....

and that is why it works and it has brought us so many usefull application?

"and you want to ignore the fallacies of RMD and the G. column."

and if you don't want to learn science before you debate science, you shouldn't debate science.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/05/26 - 6:57 GMT

I'm not debating science. I'm showing you that science is finding out that radio metric dating is proving to have huge errors.

Quote: "Situations for which we have both the carbon-14 and potassium-argon ages for the same event usually indicate that the potassium-argon `clock' did not get set back to zero. Trees buried in an eruption of Mount Rangotito in the Auckland Bay area of New Zealand provide a prime example. The carbon-14 age of the buried trees is only 225 years, but some of the overlying volcanic material has a 465,000-year potassium-argon age."

[Harold Coffin, Origin by Design, page 400.]

Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/26 - 7:35 GMT
"I'm not debating science. I'm showing you that science is finding out that radio metric dating is proving to have huge errors."

...there are errors. WE KNEW THAT ALREADY. but we know WHAT CAUSES THEM. but the few error DO NO INVALIDATE THE METHOD. and even if radiometric dating didn't exist, IT DOESN"T INDICATE A 6000 YEAR OLD EARTH AT ALL.

"Situations for which we have both the carbon-14 and potassium-argon ages for the same event usually indicate that the potassium-argon `clock' did not get set back to zero. Trees buried in an eruption of Mount Rangotito in the Auckland Bay area of New Zealand provide a prime example. The carbon-14 age of the buried trees is only 225 years, but some of the overlying volcanic material has a 465,000-year potassium-argon age.""

and this invalidates Pb-Pb because?

"[Harold Coffin, Origin by Design, page 400.]"

ooh look, a quote from a book that looks suspiciously much like creationist propogannda...real convincing.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/26 - 10:03 GMT
No, you don't. Only that people who tries to be scientists can't make any calculations at all.
1. Where is the calculations for the experiments that ICR have done?
2. Give me a study that shows scientists agree that radiometric dating has a lot of errors. ( And don't get me anything from ICR or from hovind)
3. Do you have any mathmatical or gelogical or physics education?
If you don't then you cannot be sure what they tell you is right, hence the reason why i want the calculations that support this claim. If there are no calculations on this, well then it has no scientific support at all. Radio metric dating is well supported by physics and math and I have more education in those areas than mr. Hovind.

"I'm trying to help the cause of science."
- You are NOT a scientist and therefore you have no right to say that. Leave the science to the real scientists.

"All you got is calling creationists liars."
- No i gave you facts that disprove your claims and if you still say anything that is not true according to what we just gave you, that makes you a liar. I quote wikipedia on this one: "To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one has not reasonably ascertained to be true with the intention that it be taken for the truth by oneself or someone else."

"If the world is millions of years old I can still believe the BIble like many Catholics do, but for you and many others it would destroy your faith in evolution because evolution can't happen within 10,000 years."
- Hahaha, no. You don't want to know because that will disrupt your worldview. We have tested the theory of evolution for 150 years and it still hasen't been disproven. Doesn't that tell you something? And btw evolution doesn't have anything to do with how old the earth is. Man it's amazing how disillusioned someone can get by being ignorant and closeminded and listening to the jackass mr. Hovind to much. Yet hovind thinks that micro evolution happened after the great flood... This statement i quoted is also a lie.

"Your rediculous theory is a hindurance to advancing science, and you want to ignore the fallacies of RMD and the G. column. "
- Wait are we talking about creation? Cuz this would be an awesome quotemine. Creation "science" has done nothing but taking time from the real scientist to do some real work. If we spent half the time we had to debunk your bogus claims we could have cured cancer by now... I also quote this from creationwiki: "Using this methodology, the hypothesis may become a theory when substantiated by experimentation and supporting data. This theory is then a framework to which future observations, hypotheses, experiments, and predictions can be compared. Once an hypothesis is elevated to the status of theory it is not easily discarded; only when new data cannot be explained within the framework of an existing theory do scientists consider modifying or abandoning that theory." The last part has not yet happened with the theory of evolution.

This is how a real graph showing the results of dating the age of the earth:
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/05/26 - 19:04 GMT

Basically you guys are telling me that I can only use evidence against RMD from scientists that claim RMD works? That's like me telling you that you can only present evidence against the Bible from people who believe the Bible. Most people with common sense can see right through you guys.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/26 - 19:47 GMT
"Basically you guys are telling me that I can only use evidence against RMD from scientists that claim RMD works?"

no.
we're telling you that if you want to refute RMD, you better use science to do that and put up some good arguments. instead of what your camp has beeign doing now, which was shallow reasoning, quotemining, lying and bleating "the bible is true" out of ignorance.

"Most people with common sense can see right through you guys."

most people with commen sense would have gotten the points of our posts. and they qould have actualy learend soemthign new if they were ignorant on the subject, instead of just repeatign the same falacious reasoning over and oer again.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/26 - 20:09 GMT
Non of my questions was answered... I am so disappointed. You missed the point of my thread. What i said in that post is exactly what i meant and not anything else. I never wanted them to be pro RMD cuz there would not be any neutrality, but on the other hand i don't want a creationist since that would also discard neutrality. That is why i don't want anything from ICR. If you can find a real scientist that does not have any connections with ICR that support your claims, then that is what i'm looking for. That does not say that i want a proRMD scientist! And he better have good arguments for it.

1. Where is the calculations for the experiments that ICR have done?
2. Give me a study that shows scientists agree that radiometric dating has a lot of errors. ( And don't get me anything from ICR or from hovind)
3. Do you have any mathmatical or gelogical or physics education?
If you don't then you cannot be sure what they tell you is right, hence the reason why i want the calculations that support this claim. If there are no calculations on this, well then it has no scientific support at all. Radio metric dating is well supported by physics and math and I have more education in those areas than mr. Hovind.

The proof that woodmorappe is a liar and quoteminer and that RMD only have about 1% error rate. http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/hiding_the_numbers_woody_henke.htm
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/05/27 - 6:05 GMT

You say: "2. Give me a study that shows scientists agree that radiometric dating has a lot of errors. ( And don't get me anything from ICR or from hovind."

Do you realize how rediculous that sounds? Do you know how many scientists contribute to ICR? Over 1,000 I've read.

Wait what about Ken Ham? Oh I know. "No nobody from AIG either."

What a joke.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/27 - 7:24 GMT
"Do you know how many scientists contribute to ICR? Over 1,000 I've read."

how many hold degrees in biology or geology?

and how many publish in the peer reviewed scientific journals?
that's right, 0.

no science there

"Do you realize how rediculous that sounds?"
not that much, essentially he wants you to look through the scientific journals and find us an article that bashes radiometric dating.

i don't think you understand bigdog.
if RMD didn't work, WHY THE HELL WOULD WE USE IT AS SCIENTISTS?
we'd only be lying to ourselves and gettign useless data...
we wouldn't be able to make ANY science of it...
but we DO, so how is that possible?

"Wait what about Ken Ham? Oh I know."
the man who said :"now we put on our set of bible glasses...and.."

DO YOU NOT SEE THE PROBLEM THERE?

"What a joke."

bashing science as a scientific illiterate....indeed that's a joke.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/27 - 11:32 GMT
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/05/28 - 0:06 GMT

1. Where is the calculations for the experiments that ICR have done?

They are experimenting as we speak and we will find out more. So far they have demonstrated that high layers can give older ages than deeper layers. And these are trained geologists.

2. Give me a study that shows scientists agree that radiometric dating has a lot of errors. ( And don't get me anything from ICR or from hovind)

I've read them before, but I'm not going to look for them now. Scientists are pressured to keep quiet about anything that hurts the evolution theory so they don't say anything to avoid being disciplined. Listen to the scientists in there own words in Ben Stien's movie EXPELLED. They mention the letters ID and they lose their jobs. So, many of them stay quiet.

3. Do you have any mathmatical or gelogical or physics education?

My background is in biology. But I like to read and study other sciences on my own time.

And I don't care if you are a geologist. Radio metric dating and the geologic column are proving to be fallible and not perfect just like the makers. No bodys perfect. When these methods are tested against history they have a high error rate. Some geologists say it's because there was too much argon in the sample. Apparently a little too much argon throws the the whole thing off by millions of years. That is not solid science and sounds like a bad excuse.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/28 - 8:32 GMT
" Listen to the scientists in there own words in Ben Stien's movie EXPELLED.'

ben stein lied to get interviews with dawkins.
Expelled was a ID propoganda film, i can pull it apart in 2 seconds.
ben stein was ever carefull to quotemine.
Stein was ever carefull of omitting certain facts.
Ben Stein did the "hitler evolutionist" claim, which is just rediculus.
why? "GOTT MIT UNS" and a swatsika on a cross do NOT LIE.

bloody watch this for once.

"They mention the letters ID and they lose their jobs."
NOOOoooo. that's not what happened.
Stein implies that, but that's not what happened.
look at the vid bifdog. they where fact checks.

"My background is in biology. But I like to read and study other sciences on my own time."

oh rly?
and what field?
and what degrees?

"When these methods are tested against history they have a high error rate."

"Some geologists say it's because there was too much argon in the sample."

ok, and this is a problem for Pb-Pb because....?

"That is not solid science and sounds like a bad excuse."

only attacking K-Ar isnt goin to invalidate all radio metric dating.

and no bigdog. there is not conspiricy.
why? because animals evolve regardless of how old the earth is.
will you quit bashing K-Ar for once and just move on to the OTHER radiometric dating methods, like Pb-Pb or I-Xe or U-U.

" So far they have demonstrated that high layers can give older ages than deeper layers."

and with what methods?
and which layer.

"
And I don't care if you are a geologist. Radio metric dating and the geologic column are proving to be fallible and not perfect just like the makers"

and someone with no background in geology can say this with any sort of certainty because.....?
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/28 - 9:10 GMT
"They are experimenting as we speak and we will find out more. So far they have demonstrated that high layers can give older ages than deeper layers. And these are trained geologists."
- Meaning that there is no calculatinos of any find and the articles by ICR is just made up since there is nothing proving their numbers.

"I've read them before, but I'm not going to look for them now. Scientists are pressured to keep quiet about anything that hurts the evolution theory so they don't say anything to avoid being disciplined. Listen to the scientists in there own words in Ben Stien's movie EXPELLED. They mention the letters ID and they lose their jobs. So, many of them stay quiet."
- No study given. Expelled is a movie. Not fact or anything scientific. The reason why they were "expelled" wasn't because they "threatened" ToE, but because they didn't use the scientific method. ID is not derived from the scientific method and therefore they cannot continue to work in science when they haven't used the founding methodology. If it where as you said there would be articles about it in a large number of scientific magazines and studies. That is not the case.

"My background is in biology. But I like to read and study other sciences on my own time."
- Still avoiding the question. If i would say i have a background in anything that i've read a lot about i would be a jack of all trades by now.

"And I don't care if you are a geologist. Radio metric dating and the geologic column are proving to be fallible and not perfect just like the makers. No bodys perfect. When these methods are tested against history they have a high error rate. Some geologists say it's because there was too much argon in the sample. Apparently a little too much argon throws the the whole thing off by millions of years. That is not solid science and sounds like a bad excuse."
- Still no study. And you missed the fact that we use lead-lead dating to calculate the age of the earth and not any other method you claim to be inaccurate. Even without RMD we can get the earths age to be atleast 100 million years old. And that calculations was made BEFORE we discovered RMD. Look it up.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/05/28 - 22:47 GMT

"And that calculations was made BEFORE we discovered RMD. Look it up."

These beliefs have been made on assumptions. Scientists that believe in evolution say the best way to date the earth is radio-metric dating. Look it up.

Quote: "Situations for which we have both the carbon-14 and potassium-argon ages for the same event usually indicate that the potassium-argon `clock' did not get set back to zero. Trees buried in an eruption of Mount Rangotito in the Auckland Bay area of New Zealand provide a prime example. The carbon-14 age of the buried trees is only 225 years, but some of the overlying volcanic material has a 465,000-year potassium-argon age."

[Harold Coffin, Origin by Design, page 400.]

You say on this quote that it is suspicious. You are the one accusing creationists of conspiracy and lying. There is no conspiracy against evolution.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/28 - 23:10 GMT
"These beliefs have been made on assumptions. Scientists that believe in evolution say the best way to date the earth is radio-metric dating. Look it up."

actually even if we went purely on thermodynamics (like lord kelvin did in the 1800s) we still end up with a 50+ million year old earth.
which was one of the thing ellman was referrign to, and what your response should have been adressing.

(little old, but still interesting account of Kelvins idea's)

" You are the one accusing creationists of conspiracy and lying."
nooooo sir, we merely accuse them of lying, intelectual dishonesty and quotemining, we NEVER said there was a conspiricy. that's what you people said when you claimed "all the evolution rejecting scientist have to keep quit or they lose their jobs." (which is redisulus to say because over 55% of all CHRISTIAN scientis would then be keepign quit.....which doesn't makes sense when a majority is opressed by a minority (33% non christian, presuming the poll is accurate)

but still....how does quotign C14 and K-Ar, we only apply C14 to specific things , we know it's limitations...yet you claim otherwise...
AND we KNO, hell, we even ADMITTED K-Ar has certain issues. how do these two specific methods INVALIDAT Pb-Pb?
or U-U or I-Xe, or ANY of the other RMD tecniques.

it's not just about the source of teh quote bigdog, ITS ABOUT THE SHALLOW CONCLUSION YOU DRAW FROM IT!
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/05/29 - 1:54 GMT

Shallow conclusion? What is so hard to understand that if the trees dated in the experiment are dated at 225 years old, but the lava above it has dates of 465,000 years? We know it's wrong because what's under it is only 225 years old. It doesn't take much education to figure that out.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/05/29 - 4:33 GMT
LOL, oooh! That will fix their little red wagon.

Bigdog, if it's common sense, you won't find it in their theory. remember, it has to be "science".
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/29 - 8:16 GMT
"These beliefs have been made on assumptions. Scientists that believe in evolution say the best way to date the earth is radio-metric dating. Look it up."
- Sigh... OFC it is! The methods for getting how old the earth was before RMD was showed that the earth was ATLEAST 50+ million years. With RMD we can define the age a lot better. You can't calculate how old the earth is with carbon dating and that is why we use pb-pb. It's been around for 50 years and still nothing to disprove it.

"You say on this quote that it is suspicious. You are the one accusing creationists of conspiracy and lying. There is no conspiracy against evolution. "
- Yet that is what you claim. I'm not a geologist and cannot give a good answer to why those readings are like they are. But my scientifical thinking tell me that the fact that volcanic material comes up from the underground has something to do with it. And does your little book contain any calculations at all?

"Bigdog, if it's common sense, you won't find it in their theory. remember, it has to be "science"."
- Because "common sense" is a key word in pseudoscience. if it wasn't science it wouldn't be a theory and that is why creation and ID is never gonna be science as it depends on what you call "common sense" and not "science".
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/29 - 9:01 GMT
"but the lava above it has dates of 465,000 years? We know it's wrong because what's under it is only 225 years old. It doesn't take much education to figure that out."

2 YOU FAIL AT GETTIGN THE POINT. did you gloss over THE REST OF THE REPLY?

"We know it's wrong because what's under it is only 225 years old."
"why is this wrong? lets have a lok at the paper and see if they made mistakes, or lets look at the sample and see if there might be something of with this. soemthign you do not do....shalllloooow

"It doesn't take much education to figure that out."

how much education does it take to figure out these questions?

Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/29 - 11:57 GMT
K-Ar for idiots.
and debunk  most of the lava claims.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/05/31 - 4:55 GMT

The point still stands. If we know that excuses like "excess of argon" can create exaggerated dates like millions of years out of 50 year old lava flows then why should we trust the dating method as absolute for rocks of an unknown historical age?

Here's a pro evolution site that says the best evidence that scientists have for an old earth is radio metric dating.

If this is the best evidence there is for an old earth would you bet your life on it against historically aged fossils? I sure hope not.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/05/31 - 5:36 GMT
Don't forget assuming the uniformitarian rate of decay & partisan date recording.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/31 - 8:55 GMT
"The point still stands. If we know that excuses like "excess of argon" can create exaggerated dates like millions of years out of 50 year old lava flows then why should we trust the dating method as absolute for rocks of an unknown historical age?"

BECASUE WE DOn'T USE k-Ar FOR EVERYTHIGN WE FIND YOU JACKASS.
how can you still not get it?
WE HAVE PLENTY MORE ISOTOPES TO MEASURE. Pb-Pb U-U or those are all solids to soldis. so the escaping gas problem isn't there.

"If this is the best evidence there is for an old earth would you bet your life on it against historically aged fossils? I sure hope not."

a methaforical story in a "holy" book? which was conjured up by bronze age tribesmen?

even if RMD didnt work, the earth will still be much older, because we can use certain things to minimalize the age...like THERMODYNAMIC WHICH KELVIN CALCULATED (back in 1850s) which showed at least 50mil, of he had no idea of radioactive decay back then, so he didn't put that into the equation.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/31 - 8:58 GMT
"Don't forget assuming the uniformitarian rate of decay & partisan date recording."

1) decay is constant.
2) do you know how hard it is to add isotopes to a cooled rock?
only near places wich liquid rock can u even consider that issue, once the rock has cooled. the movemetn of isotopes stops.
3) you're ignoring the fact that we took butloads of measurements and the all seem to agree on the average of 4.5 bil
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/31 - 9:01 GMT
btw bigdog, do you know HOW YEC came to that 6000 year old age?
and how do you thinks we date historical writign before we had calanders?
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/31 - 13:10 GMT
so many misses...
Still the RMD method for mesuring the age of the earth is Pb-Pb. You haven't got anything on that one. The different methods are good for mesuring certain specific things. For example, we cannot use carbon dating on fossils and water creatures for obvious reasons. As long as we know what conditions make our method fail and what makes it right it's really usefull tool.

PS. You can't carbon date fossils because there's no carbon in them at all and the only carbon you will be able to date is that of the preservatory. Water creatures doesn't get carbon from the air and so it will be a much higher nr.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/06/06 - 3:17 GMT

I think that we already knew the difference between K-Ar dating and C-14 dating. That's why I pointed out how trees were carbon dated at 200 years old while the K-Ar dated lava above and covering the trees were dated at millions of years old. It's obvious bunk that the lava was millions of years old.

But sorry, Pb-Pb dating is already proving to be on a bad foot. Check this out.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_as_uthpbdating
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/06/06 - 14:10 GMT

There are a number of errors with this text by A.A Snelling.
1. He tries to write like a scientific article, BUT he refuse to give ANY results or data! Only a few anomolies that furhters his agenda (and not even them in a graph or table). NO CALCULATIONS AT ALL!
There is no research (or scientific work) being done, it's basically a composition of quotemines and listing anomolies from other works.

This is an example of how it should look like: http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/classes/Geo656/656notes03/656%2003Lecture04.pdf

Yes it's not an article, but much of the content (you could have it as theory at the beginning of an article) can be used. If you think this info is wrong, go ahead and make the real calculations and show them to the world.

2. Like half of his sources are from an UNPUBLISHED Ph. D thesis! And some of them are from A.A Snelling, but who exactly that is is unknown...
3.  A.A Snelling is not who you think he is. This is from http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/snelling.htm

"It's surprising that a geologist who obtained his qualifications writing about billion year old rocks and later accepting " ... work in the exploration and mining industries in Tasmania, New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory variously as a field, mine and research geologist.", continues to tout his qualifications and prostitute his learning in order to convince the gullible that mainstream geology is wrong and only geology as practised by Andrew Snelling B.Sc.(Hons), Ph.D is valid. "

Also this Dr Alex Ritchie, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp 12-15
He maintains that there are 2 Snellings and one is a REAL geologist and the other's just using the REAL geologists credentials. The works of the REAL geologist contradict those of the creationist geologist even though they have the same credentials...

4.
"As with other isochron methods, the U-Pb isochron method has been questioned in the open literature, because often an excellent line of best fit between ratios obtained from a set of good cogenetic samples gives a resultant ï¿½isochronï¿½ and yields a derived ï¿½ageï¿½ that has no distinct geological meaning."
- He claims something like it was common sense without any source.

I can go on forever with this but i don't see the point. I hope i've made it clear Snelling is VERY dishonest.

bigdog ur so stupid it's unbelievable... /FACEPALM!
I TOLD YOU HE WAS A FUCKING FRAUD!
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/06/07 - 3:17 GMT

And I should trust your judgment on honesty when you're pretending to be two or three different people? You don't fool me. And no I am not allowed to give out addresses or contact your emails.
Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/06/07 - 6:09 GMT
why the hell would you even think that?! Me and 325 doesn't even use the same words. He makes a lot of errors that i don't AND we are not even from the same country. What should we do to convince you? take pictures with time and a handwritten sign saying "bigdog is stupid"?

Re: Radio Metric Dating: 95% ERRORS!
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/06/07 - 10:16 GMT
" take pictures with time and a handwritten sign saying "bigdog is stupid"?"

that would be cool.

btw bigdog,

the truth is this.....

well
now you know..

(yes this is a joke)

» Reply to Discussion (Too Many Replies for Fancy Display) 105 Replies

GenTime: 0.0411 seconds

Site Design and Graphics Copyright 2002 - 2019 by Aubrey
Use of this site constitutes agreement to our » Legal Stuff