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.
I make my living practicing science in empirical ways. I do not need validation from people less educated and less intelligent than me. That is a human weakness to "belong" and is the cause of much ignorance being shared.
Quote: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?
This is another sidestepping sideways logic to throw the readers off the real issues. Not only are these dating methods based on assumptions, these idiots assume the bones are the same ages as the "dirt" that replaced these bones. Only an idiot accepts assumptions as being "reality" in science. [/quote]
Quote: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.
Carbon dating is more accurate, because it is only used tomeasuere actual remaining tissue. They do not need to date the "dirt" around a sample and can date the bones directly because there are still bones to date. This is very simple to understand, but then you are not capable of understanding, because you are a believer in things that have no scientific basis. [/quote]
Quote: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.
There have been footsteps of modern people walking that was dated at 3.4 million years, because someone walking with a child stepped in soft lava. There are upright, modern looking, walking humans being dated at 6.1 million years by this method. Most of the data is worthless if you allow this concept in your mind. All this does is screw up the data. [/quote]
Quote: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?
On the grounds that you and I cannot verify this as accurate, no matter how you try. It is totally based on poor assumptions of some idea of time and of stability in the universe. At 4.7 billion years, you are about as accurate as .0000026 in the dating, because the calibration is done with C-14 and historical data. It is basically, nonsense and not science. [/quote]
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
Actually, I came to my conclusions after keeping an open mind and keeping a huge distance on idiotic people who just accept things on faith and belief as you do.
If you were a real scientist, you would have the same conclusions, but you are indoctrinated and do not have the capacity to think for yourself. [/quote]
Quote: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.
This method is the same stuff just more refined. They take about 10,000 years of known data and project that out as if it was real. There is no way to know the conditions that created that matter, or if volcanic ash and lava is the same as it is today. You think about this for a while.
This idea that these pseudo scientists take liberties and use faith and belief to project on this.
There is no way the dirt around a replacement fossil is the same age as the original bones. It is an utter logical fallacy.
Home
Pages: 
