What's bad science? Read here

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderators: Leonid, amiradm, BioTeam

Springer
Coral
Coral
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:20 am

Post by Springer » Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:16 am

mithrilhack wrote:
mithrilhack wrote:
Springer wrote: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? :P I thought I was quite specific.


My first contention remains unanswered. If the lab couldn't evaluate a young sample, why did the report read "0.3 to 2.8 million years"?

Second, if the sample is contaminated, as you contend was the case in the Mt. St. Helen's sample, then how can you determine if a sample of unknown age is or isn't contaminated?

Finally, how does radiometric dating disprove a 6,000 year old earth?

User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)
Contact:

Post by alextemplet » Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:29 am

Springer:

My first contention remains unanswered. If the lab couldn't evaluate a young sample, why did the report read "0.3 to 2.8 million years"?


I admit you're right on this one, Springer. Obviously the report was flawed.

Second, if the sample is contaminated, as you contend was the case in the Mt. St. Helen's sample, then how can you determine if a sample of unknown age is or isn't contaminated?

Finally, how does radiometric dating disprove a 6,000 year old earth?


I have two points:
1) I think there are ways to tell if a sample's contaminated, so a true age of the earth would simply depending on exercising care when selecting samples.
2) Contamination can only make a sample appear younger, not older. So if we get a date of 4.6b years for the earth, then we can only conclude that the earth is either that age or older. It is therefor impossible for earth to be only 6000 years old.

Kenneth Miller does a fine job of explaining radiometric dating, among other things, in his book Finding Darwin's God. It's one of my favorite books. I think you'd enjoy it.

Springer
Coral
Coral
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:20 am

Post by Springer » Fri Feb 03, 2006 4:38 am

quote="alextemplet"

My first contention remains unanswered. If the lab couldn't evaluate a young sample, why did the report read "0.3 to 2.8 million years"?


I admit you're right on this one, Springer. Obviously the report was flawed.


There is a significant problem here. The laboratory decided that it radiometric dating could not be relied upon for young dates only after it realized that the sample was ~20 years old.



I have two points:
1) I think there are ways to tell if a sample's contaminated, so a true age of the earth would simply depending on exercising care when selecting samples.
2) Contamination can only make a sample appear younger, not older. So if we get a date of 4.6b years for the earth, then we can only conclude that the earth is either that age or older. It is therefor impossible for earth to be only 6000 years old.


In the Mount Saint Helen's case referred to above, evolutionists contend that the reason it was dated from 300,000 to 2.8 million years is because the sample was contaminated.

User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Post by mith » Fri Feb 03, 2006 9:50 pm

My first contention remains unanswered. If the lab couldn't evaluate a young sample, why did the report read "0.3 to 2.8 million years"?

I don't know enough about it to answer that. Should it?

Second, if the sample is contaminated, as you contend was the case in the Mt. St. Helen's sample, then how can you determine if a sample of unknown age is or isn't contaminated?

Finally, how does radiometric dating disprove a 6,000 year old earth?

Well, when you see a stick underwater and it appears bent, how do you know it isn't? Well you try using your other sense, such as by touching it. In our specific case, we'd use the other types of dating(already described). Hopefully there will be some coherence. If they're very different, that means that our methods(and physics from where it's derived) is wrong. Almost all claims of young earth are answered here.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr

Springer
Coral
Coral
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:20 am

Post by Springer » Sat Feb 04, 2006 12:24 am

quote="mithrilhack"

quote]My first contention remains unanswered. If the lab couldn't evaluate a young sample, why did the report read "0.3 to 2.8 million years"?

I don't know enough about it to answer that. Should it?


The talk origins website that you referred me to claims that the lab couldn't measure dates of less than 2 million years. That doesn't make sense in view of the fact that it reported an age of at least 300,000 years.

Second, if the sample is contaminated, as you contend was the case in the Mt. St. Helen's sample, then how can you determine if a sample of unknown age is or isn't contaminated?

Finally, how does radiometric dating disprove a 6,000 year old earth?

Well, when you see a stick underwater and it appears bent, how do you know it isn't? Well you try using your other sense, such as by touching it. In our specific case, we'd use the other types of dating(already described). Hopefully there will be some coherence. If they're very different, that means that our methods(and physics from where it's derived) is wrong. Almost all claims of young earth are answered here.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html
[/quote]

I have no idea what a bent stick underwater has to do with this discussion.
Radiometric dating is completely unreliable. You apparently believe everything you're told about a billions-of-years old earth, but I'm getting the feeling that you don't know why. Responding to a question be referencing a website is not an argument... it's a concession that you don't know what you're talking about.