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.