Welcome, Guest. Please Login
YaBB - Yet another Bulletin Board
  We've upgraded to YaBB 2!
  HomeHelpSearchLogin  
 
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print
Radiometric Dating of fossils (Read 26802 times)
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Radiometric Dating of fossils
Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am
 
There are a few scientists, like me who agree that radiometric dating is not real science.  Using ancient rocks (mostly uranium) and the decay of those is really an unknown, because the original bones are not there.  There is no carbon no c-14 to date which is a bit more accurate.
But using radio metric dating on the minerals around an old fossil is a very poor use of assumptions.  There is no way that the minerals around a fossil are the same age as the fossil.  This is not real science.   Real science does not rely on assumptions of a hypothesis on atomic theory.

Basically the dating of fossils that have no remaining organic materials at all is a worthless pursuit.  It is an utter logical fallacy to think that the "dirt" around a replacement fossil is the same age as the original bones.
Keep in mind that I came to my own conclusions long before I read any of these other people's works.
It is just a total logical fallacy that 1/ the methods are 100% accurate and 2/ dating the minerals around a petrified (replacement or recrystallization fossil) fossil is even logical at all.  What does the dirt have in common with the original bone?
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: Radiometric Dating of fossils
Reply #1 - Nov 6th, 2009 at 10:36am
 
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: Radiometric Dating of fossils
Reply #2 - Nov 6th, 2009 at 10:42am
 
http://tasc-creationscience.org/other/plaisted/www.cs.unc.edu/_plaisted/ce/dating2.html
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: Radiometric Dating of fossils
Reply #3 - Nov 6th, 2009 at 10:48am
 
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20The%20Age%20of%20the%20Earth.htm
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: Radiometric Dating of fossils
Reply #4 - Nov 6th, 2009 at 10:49am
 
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/basics/sld024.htm
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: Radiometric Dating of fossils
Reply #5 - Nov 6th, 2009 at 11:00am
 
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
prolescum
Junior Member
**
Offline


LoLtering for the sake
of it

Posts: 93
Re: Radiometric Dating of fossils
Reply #6 - Nov 7th, 2009 at 5:57am
 
I haven't had the time to check out your links, but from my understanding, radiometric dating is not just dating carbon-14 (radiocarbon dating), but encompasses a gamut of methods including Uranium-lead dating, Samarium-neodymium dating, Potassium-argon dating methods amongst many others. I also understand that the further back in time you wish to date, the harder it is due to the length of time isotopes are available (ie they degrade), but the by-products of the decay are then used.
Administrator, is this the correct understanding of the methodology you dispute?
Without having checked your links, can you please articulate why you think this method is faulty, and on what basis you dispute the methods used?
Thanks.
Back to top
 

http://dictionary.reference.com/

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

http://www.merriam-webster.com/
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: Radiometric Dating of fossils
Reply #7 - Nov 7th, 2009 at 4:56pm
 
Radiometric dating is based on the assumptions of:  1/ that all these things were created on earth. 2/ that the age of a fossil is the same age as the "dirt" around it. (That is just ridiculous!)
3/ That time is a constant and decay is constant. There is no way to know this.
4/ That the conditions that affect these radioactive materials is constant. High heat, salt water, and separation of the daughter materials is very plausible.
6/ There is absolutely (that mean not possible under any circumstance) to verify that this method is of any value.  Can't produce a single experiment to prove this method is viable.  It has never passed a single scientific methodology to verify it at all, because it can't be done.  It is based on assumptions.  Assume =  Makes and ASS our of U and ME.
In other words without a time machine to verify this data, it is worthless.

Only people who are easily duped in to false beliefs, easily brainwashed, could believe in radiometric dating.   It is another religious belief that has no testing and NO way to test.
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
prolescum
Junior Member
**
Offline


LoLtering for the sake
of it

Posts: 93
Re: Radiometric Dating of fossils
Reply #8 - Nov 8th, 2009 at 10:09am
 
I see. Then I shall study the subject in some detail. Thanks Smiley
Back to top
 

http://dictionary.reference.com/

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

http://www.merriam-webster.com/
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: Radiometric Dating of fossils
Reply #9 - Nov 8th, 2009 at 10:30am
 
prolescum wrote on Nov 8th, 2009 at 10:09am:
I see. Then I shall study the subject in some detail. Thanks Smiley


As an example.  If you were to fall into a watering hole today and die, you would be petrified in some amount of time and all your organic matter would be destroyed and replaced with the minerals that surround your bones.  This is "replacement" fossilization. The method used on most all of the "hominids" and any fossil that has no carbon.

Because the minerals in the watering hole were 5 million years old, it would be determined at the time if excavation of your fossil that you were over 5 million years old, because the ground you fell in was that old.
This is the most ridiculous method of dating anything I have ever come across. How can people be that stupid to be conned into something that is based on the assumption that the earth you fell in is the same age as you!
Damn! That is total ignorance!

This method of dating actually destroys most of the fossil record and in particular "hominids".



Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: Radiometric Dating of fossils
Reply #10 - Nov 11th, 2009 at 2:59pm
 
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Squawk
Ex Member


Re: Radiometric Dating of fossils
Reply #11 - Nov 22nd, 2009 at 6:47am
 
Well it's time to highlight some more bs I think.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am:
There are a few scientists, like me who agree that radiometric dating is not real science.

Interesting. How do you define yourself as a scientist? I'd suggest that the minimum required to do so would be to have an article published in a scientific journal.  Peer review is one of the foundations of science so it's seems to be a pretty basic criteria.

I would probably stretch it slightly further though and suggest that to be given credibility the work must be cited by at least one other study also published in the peer reviewed literature.

We can discuss the merits of various scientific publications based on impact factor should you wish.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am:
  Using ancient rocks (mostly uranium) and the decay of those is really an unknown, because the original bones are not there.

Mostly uranium? What about pottasium/argon and rubidium/strontium? How about thorium/lead?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am:
  There is no carbon no c-14 to date which is a bit more accurate.


More accurate? Howso? C14 has a half life, if memory serves, of around 6000 years. I could go and look up the figure. Infact, I will. Turns out to be 5730 years.

This means that C14 dating is unlikely to be useful beyond 60 thousand years simply because the quantity of C14 in the sample will have reduced to levels that are too low.

Compare this to the other dating methods I mentioned, with half lives measured up to billions of years. A 1% error over a billion years is still going to leave an error of 10 Million years, a 2% error over 100K years is going to give a margin for error of 2000 yeras?

So which is more accurate? In absolute terms it's clearly C14. In relative terms, C14 dating would be twice as inaccurate. Now I picked those figures out of thin air to make a point. The point being that you never mentioned relative or absolute accuracy and so your statement is worthless. Dates given by dating methods are given a margin for error based on confidence levels.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am:
But using radio metric dating on the minerals around an old fossil is a very poor use of assumptions.  There is no way that the minerals around a fossil are the same age as the fossil.

So you have no understanding of sedimentary vs igneous or metamorphic rock?  Dating sedimentary rock is of course worthless for determining the age of the deposition, since all you do is find the age of the particular matter.

However, when rock is molten its "radiometric clock" is reset, meaning that it is entirely possible to date those rocks. So, find a layer of sedimentary rock containing a fossil, date the igneous rock above and below it, and you set both an upper and lower bound for the age of the depostion sandwiched in between. Does it get you an absolute date of deposition? Of course not, but then nobody claimed it did. It does set upper and lower bounds though, which is all that is really needed.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am:
  This is not real science.   Real science does no rely on assumptions of a hypothesis on atomic theory.

Hypothesis on atomic theory? You mean, err, atomic theory? Why mention hypothesis at all? On what grounds to you describe it as not real science?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am:
Basically the dating of fossils that have no remaining organic materials at all is a worthless pursuit.  It is an utter logical fallacy to think that the "dirt" around a replacement fossil is the same age as the original bones.

Which is why the "dirt" around the fossils is not dated to determine the age of the fossil. Lucky that, ain't it.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am:
Keep in mind that I came to my own conclusions long before I read any of these other people's works.

I get the distinct impression that you came to your own conclusions long before you were educated about any aspect of science and have since put up the shutters.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am:
It is just a total logical fallacy that 1/ the methods are 100% accurate and 2/ dating the minerals around a petrified (replacement or recrystallization fossil) fossil is even logical at all.  What does the dirt have in common with the original bone?


A fallacy that dating methods are 100% accurate? I agree. Good that this is only your straw man and not what the science actually says, isn't it.

I'm noticing a pattern, you love to argue against straw men. Why don't you dissect one of those papers. Indeed I have one here for you, no need to go and find one.

"Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired 230Th/234U/238U and 14C dates on pristine corals"

Article published by "Richard G. Fairbanksa, b, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Richard A. Mortlocka, Tzu-Chien Chiua, b, Li Caoa, b, Alexey Kaplana, Thomas P. Guildersonc, d, Todd W. Fairbankse, Arthur L. Bloomf, Pieter M. Grootesg and Marie-Josée Nadeaug"

This particular paper can be found at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-4GFV5WR-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1104303442&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0efac926fae0c5e855e0d0997f253dab

Now you need a subscription to be able to read this, but I'm sure that a man such as yourself, a real scientist, will have access to scientific journals. Indeed if you have read 200,000 papers it is a reasonable conclusion that you have access to essentially all science journals currently available.

of course if you don't I can find you another article that does not require a subscription. This one seems perfect though, since it covers calibration curves, multiple independent means of calibrating radiometric dating.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: Radiometric Dating of fossils
Reply #12 - Nov 22nd, 2009 at 5:43pm
 
Quote:
Well it's time to highlight some more bs I think.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am:
There are a few scientists, like me who agree that radiometric dating is not real science.

Interesting. How do you define yourself as a scientist? I'd suggest that the minimum required to do so would be to have an article published in a scientific journal.  Peer review is one of the foundations of science so it's seems to be a pretty basic criteria.

I would probably stretch it slightly further though and suggest that to be given credibility the work must be cited by at least one other study also published in the peer reviewed literature.

We can discuss the merits of various scientific publications based on impact factor should you wish.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am:
  Using ancient rocks (mostly uranium) and the decay of those is really an unknown, because the original bones are not there.

Mostly uranium? What about pottasium/argon and rubidium/strontium? How about thorium/lead?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am:
  There is no carbon no c-14 to date which is a bit more accurate.


More accurate? Howso? C14 has a half life, if memory serves, of around 6000 years. I could go and look up the figure. Infact, I will. Turns out to be 5730 years.

This means that C14 dating is unlikely to be useful beyond 60 thousand years simply because the quantity of C14 in the sample will have reduced to levels that are too low.

Compare this to the other dating methods I mentioned, with half lives measured up to billions of years. A 1% error over a billion years is still going to leave an error of 10 Million years, a 2% error over 100K years is going to give a margin for error of 2000 yeras?

So which is more accurate? In absolute terms it's clearly C14. In relative terms, C14 dating would be twice as inaccurate. Now I picked those figures out of thin air to make a point. The point being that you never mentioned relative or absolute accuracy and so your statement is worthless. Dates given by dating methods are given a margin for error based on confidence levels.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am:
But using radio metric dating on the minerals around an old fossil is a very poor use of assumptions.  There is no way that the minerals around a fossil are the same age as the fossil.

So you have no understanding of sedimentary vs igneous or metamorphic rock?  Dating sedimentary rock is of course worthless for determining the age of the deposition, since all you do is find the age of the particular matter.

However, when rock is molten its "radiometric clock" is reset, meaning that it is entirely possible to date those rocks. So, find a layer of sedimentary rock containing a fossil, date the igneous rock above and below it, and you set both an upper and lower bound for the age of the depostion sandwiched in between. Does it get you an absolute date of deposition? Of course not, but then nobody claimed it did. It does set upper and lower bounds though, which is all that is really needed.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am:
  This is not real science.   Real science does no rely on assumptions of a hypothesis on atomic theory.

Hypothesis on atomic theory? You mean, err, atomic theory? Why mention hypothesis at all? On what grounds to you describe it as not real science?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am:
Basically the dating of fossils that have no remaining organic materials at all is a worthless pursuit.  It is an utter logical fallacy to think that the "dirt" around a replacement fossil is the same age as the original bones.

Which is why the "dirt" around the fossils is not dated to determine the age of the fossil. Lucky that, ain't it.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am:
Keep in mind that I came to my own conclusions long before I read any of these other people's works.

I get the distinct impression that you came to your own conclusions long before you were educated about any aspect of science and have since put up the shutters.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am:
It is just a total logical fallacy that 1/ the methods are 100% accurate and 2/ dating the minerals around a petrified (replacement or recrystallization fossil) fossil is even logical at all.  What does the dirt have in common with the original bone?


A fallacy that dating methods are 100% accurate? I agree. Good that this is only your straw man and not what the science actually says, isn't it.

I'm noticing a pattern, you love to argue against straw men. Why don't you dissect one of those papers. Indeed I have one here for you, no need to go and find one.

"Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired 230Th/234U/238U and 14C dates on pristine corals"

Article published by "Richard G. Fairbanksa, b, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Richard A. Mortlocka, Tzu-Chien Chiua, b, Li Caoa, b, Alexey Kaplana, Thomas P. Guildersonc, d, Todd W. Fairbankse, Arthur L. Bloomf, Pieter M. Grootesg and Marie-Josée Nadeaug"

This particular paper can be found at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-4GFV5WR-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1104303442&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0efac926fae0c5e855e0d0997f253dab

Now you need a subscription to be able to read this, but I'm sure that a man such as yourself, a real scientist, will have access to scientific journals. Indeed if you have read 200,000 papers it is a reasonable conclusion that you have access to essentially all science journals currently available.

of course if you don't I can find you another article that does not require a subscription. This one seems perfect though, since it covers calibration curves, multiple independent means of calibrating radiometric dating.



Apparenty you did not read anything I wrote. You repeat the crap that has been taught to you, wich is full of logical fallacies.

Read it again, and wake the F up.

How can people be so stupid as to accept assumptions as if they were real?
Just because they use the same assumptions on argon potassium and uranium does not make the assumptions have any validity in the first place.
This is a very good example of "sideways logic".  What you said has nothing to do with the question.
There is NO WAY to validate this unless you have a time machine.  PERIOD.
Dating a fossil by the assumed age of the "dirt" it fell in, is ridiculous and makes a mockery of science and objective reasoning. 
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: Radiometric Dating of fossils
Reply #13 - Dec 16th, 2009 at 1:12am
 
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20The%20Age%...

I find it interesting that this fellow says a lot of what I teach and we are totally independent of each other.

Look at those charts of the use of the dating methods and how inaccurate they are.   Off by millions and up to hundreds of millions of years.
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: Radiometric Dating of fossils
Reply #14 - Dec 16th, 2009 at 1:16am
 
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print