What's bad science? Read here

[Springer]

Well, if something's only two hundred years old, C14 works very well, so it'd be very easy to verify exactly how old the fossil is. From I've read most astralopithecines are now dated to about two or three million years old. Of course, I also read once that most species survive unchanged for about four million years before it either evolves or goes extinct, so I wouldn't be suprised if there's a bit of a range of dates rather than a single exact date. And I still don't believe that science is involved in a massive conspiracy to accept only evolution and destroy everything else.[/i]

I'm not suggesting any kind of conspiracy. The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.

You have not answered my complaint. Radiometric dating is labeled inaccurate for recent dates (less than 2 million years old), but is used to date australopicithin fossils of ~2 million years. You do you reconcile those two conflicting facts?

[MrMistery]

Where did you find the info that C14 works only over 2 milion years?

[Springer]

Where did you find the info that C14 works only over 2 milion years?

I'm not speaking of C14 dating but of K-Ar and other methods which evolutionists claim are only accurate for dates of over 2 million years.

[mith]

There is a big problem with the rebuttal of the Austin sample.

If the lab knew it couldn't determine the age of a sample if it were less than 2 million years old, why did the report read 340,000 to 2.8 million years? The conclusion that the test was invalid was retrospective and based not on any logical explanation, but on the observation that it didn't fit evolution. If the lab truely couldn't measure young samples, as stated in the talkorgins link, then the result would have stated "0 to 2.8 million years."

Another point: Given that radiometric dating cannot be relied upon for younger samples, it is therefore impossible to prove that the earth is billions of years old if the contention is that it is in reality only thousands of years old. This is because a "young sample" cannot be dated and would give an older-than-expected date.

Finally, if radiometric dating doesn't work on samples less than 2 million years, how are they dating fossils of supposed pre-human ancestors, i.e. australopithicus?

K-Ar isn't the only type of testing that can be done. If other isotopes such as Ar39 and Ar40 had been done, the results would not have coherered, and suggested something was wrong. In this case only one type of testing was done.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html

quote:
Argon may be incorporated with potassium at time of formation. This is a real problem, but it is easily overcome either by careful selection of the material being dated or by using 40Ar/39Ar dating instead of K-Ar dating.

Of course, there's also the careless selection of heterogeneous samples.

[Springer]

Well, if something's only two hundred years old, C14 works very well, so it'd be very easy to verify exactly how old the fossil is. From I've read most astralopithecines are now dated to about two or three million years old. Of course, I also read once that most species survive unchanged for about four million years before it either evolves or goes extinct, so I wouldn't be suprised if there's a bit of a range of dates rather than a single exact date. And I still don't believe that science is involved in a massive conspiracy to accept only evolution and destroy everything else.[/i]

No one uses C14 to date fossils. It can't be done. You've missed my point. You cannot insist that the K-Ar method is inaccurate for recent lava flows and at the same time use it to date Australopithecus.

There is no massive conspiracy. There is massive narrow-mindedness.

[alextemplet]

To clarify, I didn't suggest using C14 to date fossils; I merely brought it up because Springer mentioned dating something that was known to be 200 years old, and I meant to say that, for such a short time, C14 would work very well For longer dates, over 2 million years, as Springer has mentioned, K-Ar can work. I personally don't know much about geology so perhaps I'm not the best person to address this issue, but I'll try my best. My apologies if I goof it up.

As for Astralopithecus, I believe most current datings put it to around 3 million years old. I'll need to check my sources but I'm pretty sure. And I also know that there's many different methods of dating, involving many different elements. I remember once seeing a table that listed all the common elements used in dating, and it had elements that could be used for very recent times, such as C14, some for moderate ages, some for long periods, and some for really, really long periods. But again I don't remember all that in detail so again I'll have to check my sources, but perhaps that could explain the odd dates that Springer mentioned.

In conclusion, I'll get back to you on this one.

[Springer]

quote="alextemplet"

To clarify, I didn't suggest using C14 to date fossils; I merely brought it up because Springer mentioned dating something that was known to be 200 years old, and I meant to say that, for such a short time, C14 would work very well For longer dates, over 2 million years, as Springer has mentioned, K-Ar can work. I personally don't know much about geology so perhaps I'm not the best person to address this issue, but I'll try my best. My apologies if I goof it up.

I think you've missed my point. C14 can only date organic matter, not lava flows. The point was that samples of lava flows from known dates of 20 to 200 years have been submitted to radiometric dating labs and have been assigned dates of 300,000 to 2.3 million years. Retrospectively, the labs state that they cannot date anything younger than two million years. There are three huge problems with this:

1. If they couldn't date a specimen younger than 2,000,000 years, the report would have said: "0-2 million years".
2. If radiometric dating is unreliable for dates of less than 2,000,000 years, then there is no proof that the earth isn't more than 6,000 years old.
3. If radiometric dating can't be relied upon dates for less than 2,000,000 years, then why is it being used to date Australopithicine fossils?

In conclusion, radiometric dating is a worthless exercise that has no reliability in estimating the age of fossils. The dating of fossils is pure speculation, not based on science.

[mith]

Please read my post, usually more than one type of test is used to ameliorate the weakness of any one particular method.

[Springer]

Please read my post, usually more than one type of test is used to ameliorate the weakness of any one particular method.

Perhaps you could answer my concerns specificially rather than refer me to a post, which does not answer my questions.

[b_d_41501]

Or, perhaps, you could just read the post he is referring to, which contains your answer. You're the one wanting to know, so look for it.

[mith]

There is a big problem with the rebuttal of the Austin sample.

If the lab knew it couldn't determine the age of a sample if it were less than 2 million years old, why did the report read 340,000 to 2.8 million years? The conclusion that the test was invalid was retrospective and based not on any logical explanation, but on the observation that it didn't fit evolution. If the lab truely couldn't measure young samples, as stated in the talkorgins link, then the result would have stated "0 to 2.8 million years."

Another point: Given that radiometric dating cannot be relied upon for younger samples, it is therefore impossible to prove that the earth is billions of years old if the contention is that it is in reality only thousands of years old. This is because a "young sample" cannot be dated and would give an older-than-expected date.

Finally, if radiometric dating doesn't work on samples less than 2 million years, how are they dating fossils of supposed pre-human ancestors, i.e. australopithicus?

K-Ar isn't the only type of testing that can be done. If other isotopes such as Ar39 and Ar40 had been done, the results would not have coherered, and suggested something was wrong. In this case only one type of testing was done.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html

quote:
Argon may be incorporated with potassium at time of formation. This is a real problem, but it is easily overcome either by careful selection of the material being dated or by using 40Ar/39Ar dating instead of K-Ar dating.

Of course, there's also the careless selection of heterogeneous samples.

Happy? I thought I was quite specific.

[alextemplet]

Springer, my apologies for misunderstanding you. You do make some good points, however. You're right; if K-Ar can't be used reliably on anything younger than two million years, the report should've said 0-2,000,000, and it shouldn't be used to date anything that might be younger than two mil. However, K-Ar isn't the only method of radiometric dating. As I said before, there are several methods covering many different time spans. Mithril mentioned a good example. So, if K-Ar was the only method, I would agree with you that there's no proof the earth is as old as we say it is; however, it's not the only method, so I don't believe your point holds up upon inspection.

By the way, just out of curiosity, are you trying to argue that the entire universe is only 6000 years old, or just the earth?