afdave
Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006
|
Tracy-- It's circular, my friend. I abbreviated the logic and probably confused you. Let me explain it in more detail ...
1) Evolution has occurred. (Really? How do you know?)
2) Because the rocks are old. (How do you know this?)
3) See they contain trilobites. (Why does that make them old?)
4) They are old because evolution has occurred and takes millions of years. (Wait ... I thought that's what you were trying to show by the age of the rocks.)
5) No. Evolution is a fact. It stands alone. (I thought you said it is proven by old rocks)
6) I did. (Then how again are the rocks shown to be old?)
7) I told you ... they contain trilobites.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!
Steve Story... | Quote | | Originally, AFDumdum said he loved science but thought evolution was a blemish on its pretty face. Since then, he's discovered some new blemishes, nuclear physics and geology. I wonder if there's a limit to how much science he'd deny? A breaking point? My guess is no. |
This from a guy who claims intellectual superiority over me in geology, yet thought sedimentary layers should be dated exponentially because the atmosphere varies exponentially in density ... ??&&%%!!
| Quote | "the ones that are dated RM were very likely NOT deposited at the same time as the sedimentary layers."
Where is your proof?...documents?..you base this all on an assumption because the opposite proves you wrong. |
Friend, this is like asking documentary proof that the 2 week old garbage stinks. No need to go to the trouble to document something that stinks to high heaven. Mind you, as recently as a few months ago, I was under the illusion that there was some validity to assigning all these dates to layered sequences like the Grand Staircase, but that illusion has been blown completely away now that I really understand how it works. I've got all the documentation I need. What documentation would you believe anyway? Do you want a Henry Morris quote? You would spit on that. Do you want some statement from a Uniformitarian Geologist? There AREN'T any ... he wouldn't be a Uniformitarian if there were any. And if STOPS being a Uniformitarian, he is black balled and thrown into the "Henry Morris" category. This is why my mission is NOT to convert people like you. You guys are skeptics and are only convertible by a miracle of God himself. A much easier task--my goal--is to educate myself, then teach kids the truth.
| Quote | | Do you feel that a conspiracy is being commited by everyone in the scientific community? |
No conspiracies. Just misinformation and peer pressure.
|
JonF
Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005
|
The quoting facility has gone wonkers, and I can't figure where the problem is, so the he11 with it.
[quote]Hmmm ... all it takes is sufficient heating to change the Parent/Daughter ratios, eh? Seems like that could have happened quite a bit in the past, doesn't it now?[/quote]
Yup. And it's easy to detect.
[quote]Let's look at the assumptions of radiometric dating a little closer now ... [quote]Many radioactive dating methods are based on minute additions of daughter products to a rock or mineral in which a considerable amount of daughter-type isotopes already exists. These isotopes did not come from radioactive decay in the system but rather formed during the original creation of the elements. [/quote]
Wow ... that's revealing! So the amount of daughter we are using to date the rock is MINUTE. And the initial amount is CONSIDERABLE. How much is "considerable"? How is this considerable amount estimated?[/quote]
No estimates involved, Davie-dork. Measurements. The "considerable amount" is measured.
[quote]But there is no mention of HOW initial amounts of daughter products are determined.[/quote]
You're looking in the wrong places, Davie-pie. Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective. Isochron Dating. Radiometric Dating, especially the section on The U, Th, Pb System. Radiogenic Isotope Geology
[quote]Consider also this quote ...
MOST ROCKS CANNOT BE DATED ISOTOPICALLY
[quote]Relative geologic ages can be deduced in rock sequences consisting of sedimentary, metamorphic, or igneous rock units. In fact, they constitute an essential part in any precise isotopic, or absolute, dating program. Such is the case because most rocks simply cannot be isotopically dated. Therefore, a geologist must first determine relative ages and then locate the most favourable units for absolute dating. It is also important to note that relative ages are inherently more precise, since two or more units deposited minutes or years apart would have identical absolute ages but precisely defined relative ages. While absolute ages require expensive, complex analytical equipment, relative ages can be deduced from simple visual observations. dating. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 15, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69751[/quote][/quote]
So? Many rocks can be and are dated isotopically.
[quote]CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR ISOTOPIC DATING[/b]
[quote]Likewise, the conditions that must be met to make the calculated age precise and meaningful are in themselves simple: [/quote]
Gee, I'm really disappointed in the Britannica. That's really bad. It's about 60-ish years out off date.
[quote]1. The rock or mineral must have remained closed to the addition or escape of parent and daughter atoms since the time that the rock or mineral (system) formed.[PRETTY TOUGH TO TELL THIS I THINK] [/quote]
Actually, in most cases, pretty easy to tell. Like in the isochron diagram I posted earlier, or as described in the references above, or on a concordia-discordia diagram (the most widely used method of dating). And the Ar-Ar method and the concordia-discordia method can often provide a valid age even if the system has not remained closed ... as has been pointed out several times before in this thread.
[quote]2. It must be possible to correct for other atoms identical to daughter atoms already present when the rock or mineral formed. [HOW IN THE WORLD DO YOU DO THAT?][/quote]
Easy. In the case of isochron dating and Ar-ar dating, the correction is automatic. In the case of concordia-discordia dating, there are no significant number of other atoms identical to daughter atoms already present, because zircons so strongly reject lead at solidification (and, as has been pointed out before, even the RATE group acknowledges this; from HELIUM DIFFUSION RATES SUPPORT ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY:
[quote]Samples 1 through 3 had helium retentions of 58, 27, and 17 percent. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [14, pp. 335-337]. We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that "old" radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth — at today’s rates — of nuclear decay occurred.[/quote]
{emphasis in original}
Read the references for details.
| Quote | | 3. The decay constant must be known. [OK ... PRETTY EASY, AT LEAST UNDER PRESENT CONDITIONS] |
Yup, and pretty easy under past conditions too.
| Quote | | 4. The measurement of the daughter-to-parent ratio must be accurate because uncertainty in this ratio contributes directly to uncertainty in the age. [OK. WE HAVE BETTER INSTRUMENTS NOW.]dating. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 15, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69756 |
| Quote | | 1) The Grand Staircase has 80 or so layers of sedimentary rock (mostly water-laid, JonF, Coconino probably was too--studies I cited long ago) |
Prove it. Address the issues in Coconino Sandstone
| Quote | 2) The layers were dated by the fossils contained FIRST (see articles above)
3) Very few of these rocks can be dated radiometrically (same article)
4) Certain rocks were chosen for RM dating because they were "favorable" (??)
5) I have been given 4 such RM dates for the 80 or so layers of the Grand Staircase
6) In these 4 cases, why were the selected rocks chosen? Ostensibly because they contained the desired minerals like Zircons or some other "suitable" mineral, but my guess is that if you looked at each individual case, you would find that the "Art of Selecting Datable Rocks" has been tailored to correlate with the Primary Dating System - Index Fossils (remember the article above? Fossils yield Primary Dates) |
Nobody cares about your guesses, Davie-pootles. What matters is the data and evidence you can muster in favor of your claims ... so far, zilch.
| Quote | | 7) OK. More questions, then. In these "suitable" minerals, how do you know how much daughter was initially present? |
See references above.
| Quote | | And why should we think that the "suitable mineral" has any relation to the sedimentary layer? |
Principle of superposition.
| Quote | | Remember, the "RM dateable minerals" were formed by melting rock (see EB article) which somehow got into the sedimentary layer in question. How did it get there? |
Liquid flow.
| Quote | | And why is it's supposed date of creation (EB's terminology, not mine) the same as the sedimentary layer's date of depostion? If you look at the Grand Staircase picture above, you can see the lava flow which comes up through all the layers on the left side of the picture. It is obvious that some of this lava has entered many of the layers. Considering the info given in the EB article, what "date" are you going to get if you take a sample of this (or similar) lava from any one of the many layers it intrudes into? |
For an intrusive formation like that, a date that is younger than any of the formations into which it intrudes. Duh.
| Quote | | The date of the original creation of the rock which later melted to make the lava flow? |
No.
| Quote | | Or the "heating date" corresponding to the time when the lava flow occurred? |
Close.
Technically, you get the date at which the lava/magma cooled enough to "freeze" the relevant isotopes into position. This is usually close enough to the solidification time as makes no difference here, but in the case of plutons it can be tens of thousands of years after the magma flow.
| Quote | | You see ... there are many questions. And there can be no good answers to any of them because no one was there to really determine if the assumptions are even in the right ballpark. |
All questions easily answered, your ignoring of the answers notwithstanding. Personal observation is not necessary.
| Quote | | So given the above discussion, what we are back to is that the whole Grand Staircase is dated by FOSSILS. END OF STORY. |
Wrong as usual. Some layers are dated by fossils, some are dated by absolute mehtods, and the absolute dates bracket the possible dates for the sedimentary layers.
| Quote | | How do we determine the dates based on fossils? Because Evolution has occurred and we know the favorable mutation rates. (Yeah, right) |
No, this is totally irrelevant to biostratigraphy.
| Quote | THIS IS CIRCULARITY AT IT FINEST, FOLKS!
1) The rocks are dated by the fossils.
2) Then other fossils are dated by the rocks just dated by fossils.
3) Sprinkle some fake RM dating onto the whole mess to help it not stink so bad!!
4) Feed it to the public and then pat each other on the back about what great scientists we are!! |
What you describe in this list, even with the unsupported claims of fakery, is not circularity.
| Quote |
Just in case you didn't catch this point, EB clearly states that it is FOSSILS that are used to determine date in the past 600my, here it is again ...
| Quote | | FOSSILS ARE USED TO DATE THE PAST 600 MY. Just as the use of the fossil record has allowed a precise definition of geologic processes in approximately the past 600 million years, absolute ages allow correlations back to the Earth's oldest known rocks formed almost 4 billion years ago. ... Unlike ages derived from fossils, which occur only in sedimentary rocks, absolute ages are obtained from minerals that grow as liquid rock bodies cool at or below the surface. dating. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 15, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69749 |
|
Davie-diddles, that doesn't say what you claim it does.
| Quote | And here's a quote that explains Index Fossils ...
| Quote | CORRELATION TOOL=INDEX FOSSILS. The basic conceptual tool for correlation by fossils is the index, or guide, fossil. Ideally, an index fossil should be such as to guarantee that its presence in two separated rocks indicates their synchroneity. This requires that the lifespan of the fossil species be but a moment of time relative to the immensity of geologic history. In other words, the fossil species must have had a short temporal range. On the practical side, an index fossil should be distinctive in appearance so as to prevent misidentification, and it should be cosmopolitan both as to geography and as to rock type. In addition, its fossilized population should be sufficiently abundant for discovery to be highly probable. Such an array of attributes represents an ideal, and much stratigraphic geology is rendered difficult because of departure of the natural fossil assemblage from this ideal.
dating. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 15, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69753 |
|
That's a pretty good description. If only you understood what it's saying ...
| Quote | and I like this one ...
THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN IS A "MENTAL ABSTRACTION" (OR SHOULD WE SAY A MENTAL "ABERRATION"?)
| Quote | | The end product of correlation is a mental abstraction called the geologic column. dating. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 15, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69754 |
|
Geez, EB falls down again. That's very disappointing. The Geologic Column and Its Implications to the Flood.
|
|
|
incorygible
Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
| Quote (afdave @ Aug. 15 2006,11:54) | And Incorygible, if it's not "favorable mutation rates" that help you determine the date of the LCA for humans and apes, then what is it? How else do you get that 8 mya figure? Don't tell me its fossils because then I'm going to ask you how you know the fossils are that old. you are going to say 8 my and i will say, "How do you know?" to which you will respond, "because they are in 8 myo strata!" Oh really? How do you know the strata is that old? "The fossils in it!!""
Round and round the Mulberry Bush, the Monkey chased the Weasel !!
Again, CIRCULAR REASONING at its finest!!! |
Okay, Dave, I won't tell you it's fossils (stick to the subject -- what the #### do molded lumps of minerals have to with DNA, jackass?). Brace yourself, Davey: your fondness for insane and incomprehensible false dichotomies (fossils vs. "favorable mutation rates"?!?! has left you vulnerable to yet another smack upside the head from outta left field.
We use NEUTRAL mutation rates, dipshit.
Since you're a little slow, I'll spell it out for you: "neutral" is about as far from "favorable" as you can get without being its exact opposite, numbnuts. Which is what led me to ask what fountain of misinformation was feeding you the "favorable mutation rate" bullshit.
As for the "how did you arrive at 8 mya" dishonesty, go read my answers to this question from the first hundred times you asked it -- no one is interested in seeing me post it yet again, and even the most retarded chimp could reproduce my detailed answer by now.
|
|
|
Diogenes
Posts: 80
Joined: July 2006
|
Dave, want to play a game of pretend? Let's pretend we are scientists today (luckily I have my labcoat under my desk at work and have grown accustomed to the looks my coworkers give me when I wear it). So let's propopse a hypothesis, taken from your latest post.
Hypothesis: Do to many conditions (e.g. containmation over time and during testing, variability of initial concentrations) all forms of radiometric dating have such large margins of error such that the end dating results are effectively useless for absolute or relative dating.
That looks pretty good, we've got a hypothesis now. Now that we have a hypothesis what do scientists do next....I guess we'll need to make some sort of prediction so our hypothesis is falsifiable and therefore a valid hypothesis.
Prediction: Given that radiometric dating methods are highly unreliable then their values should differ from those of other dating methods. Furthermore in the geologic column we should see differences in dating within the same layer at different locations, and we should see layers out of sync with each other such that many layers appear above layers that are dating as younger than themselves.
Woohoo, we're cooking now, we've got a falsifiable prediction. Now on to data collection.
Data Collection: Radiometric dating methods correlate to Dendrochronology, Ice Core, Lake Varves dating methods. Layers date to the same time period with different radiometric dating methods, from different scientists at different locations. The dates of the layers of the geological column align in a succession of dates that descend as you get deeper.
Now we compare the data we collected to our predicted results and get....
Conclusion: Data does not match prediction, therefore the hypothesis is false.
Hmmm....that didn't work out right, maybe I got something wrong. Maybe you could put up your own hypothesis and prediction for radiometric dating and show that matches the results we see in nature, because I surely can't.
--------------
:)
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005
|
| Quote (afdave @ Aug. 15 2006,11:54) | | Bottom line ... the more I learn about RM dating, the more fishy it smells. |
Davie-prat, your posts today make it cleaar that you haven't learned anything about radiometric dating yet.
|
|
|
notta_skeptic
Posts: 48
Joined: June 2006
|
| Quote (afdave @ Aug. 15 2006,13:51) | | Quote | | Do you feel that a conspiracy is being commited by everyone in the scientific community? |
No conspiracies. Just misinformation and peer pressure. |
Riiiigghhht, Dave, "misinformation and peer pressure" across 66 countries, 2 international science organizations, and tens of thousands of scientists in all branches of science.
Maybe you were thinking of your middle school years, when everyone made fun of you because of the weird pants your mother made you wear?
--------------
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
|
|
|
afdave
Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006
|
THIS JUST IN ... UK GENETICS PROF STEVE JONES IS WORRIED! GOTTA LOVE IT!
And for those of you that haven't yet seen my new Dynamation for kids (and adults) ...
Go to http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html
Cheers!
--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005
|
| Quote (afdave @ Aug. 15 2006,12:51) | 1) Evolution has occurred. (Really? How do you know?)
2) Because the rocks are old. (How do you know this?)
3) See they contain trilobites. (Why does that make them old?)
4) They are old because evolution has occurred and takes millions of years. (Wait ... I thought that's what you were trying to show by the age of the rocks.)
5) No. Evolution is a fact. It stands alone. (I thought you said it is proven by old rocks)
6) I did. (Then how again are the rocks shown to be old?)
7) I told you ... they contain trilobites.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! |
Davie-dip, that pathetic strawman bears no resemblance to the real dating arguments. Re-read the Britannica quote you posted, and read Index fossil and Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale: Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?: Biostratigraphy. (It would do you some good to read and comprehend that entire last article, but I'm betting you won't even glance at the biostratigraphy section).
| Quote | | Quote | AfDave,
You asked "How in the world do you determine the amount of initial daughter product? The initial daughter product is MUCH greater than the decayed product that you are supposed to be measuring (according to the article). "
One method is Accelerator Mass Spectrometry. It is extraordinarily precise and can determine "single atoms in the presence of 10^15 stable atoms." It is not appropriate for every situation, but works well in general. Look here for further info... [URL=http://tesla.physics.purdue.edu/primelab/introduction/ams.html |
Thanks. I do understand that AMS is great for determining small quantities. However, if you read the article closely, you will see that determining small quantities is not the challenge. Determining the INITIAL daughter quantity is the challenge. No AMS equipment can help you look into the past and determine this. All it can do is measure the present minute quantity. |
But, if you knew anything about radiometric dating, you'd understand how isochron methods and the Ar-Ar method produce the initial daughter quantity automatically as part of the method, and why the initial daughter quantity is not a problem or issue in concordia-discordia dating (acknowledged by the RATE group in the quote I posted a couple of mesages up).
|
|
|
ericmurphy
Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (afdave @ Aug. 15 2006,09:09) | | Well good morning everyone ... I see everyone is in a fine mood! In the past week I've learned a great deal about the Grand Staircase, dating of layers and even discovered some new names for myself. So I'm looking forward to another excellent week of discovery! |
Dave, why do you think "difficult" means "impossible"?
Just because most rocks cannot be dated radiometrically, and it takes a great deal of effort to dates those that can, doesn't mean no rocks can be dated radiometrically.
If you would get your head out of the creationist ghetto you would realize that radiometric dating of rocks is a firmly established methodology for determining the absolute age of rocks. Do you really think that you, with your undergraduate degree in electrical engineering and your pre-schooler's understanding of science, are qualified to dispute the results obtained by specialists in the field? I've got news for you, Pinata Dave: you're not.
Radiometric dating can establish absolute dates for many (not all, not even most) rocks, and any fossils that are embedded in them. I know you don't like that, because it demolishes your UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis, but that's life.
And speaking of which: when are you going to stop trying to poke holes in other peoples' arguments and start finding support for your own arguments? Did you miss my big long post about how you have failed to provide supporting evidence for a single assertion you've made so far? Or should we rename this thread "AF Dave's UPDATED Lame-Ass Attempts to Rebut Other Peoples' Hypotheses While Providing No Evidence For His Own"?
--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity
"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams
|
|
|
stevestory
Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
That article does illustrate why Dave believes what he does, even if he maintains otherwise:
| Quote | | Annie Nawaz, a second-year law student at Hertfordshire, distinguishes between scientific and "natural" evidence written in stone in the holy books. "As a practising Muslim, the holy Qur'an - that's our proper evidence," she says. It does bother her when this conflicts with other kinds of evidence, but "it just comes down to the way you have been brought up and your beliefs and values and how strong they are". |
Same shit, different religion.
|
|
|
afdave
Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006
|
Incorygible has conquered me ... I should have said NEUTRAL instead of FAVORABLE!! What a dastardly crime I committed!!
Hey JonF from MIT ... your posts are too big. Chop them in half and the quotes will work ...
--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com
|
|
|
Chris Hyland
Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Just before you get too excited Dave I think I should just point out a couple of things:
a) the survey was all students not just science not just science students
b) the survey is based on self selection, so what it actually tells us is of the people with a .ac.uk email address (includes anyone who works at a UK university including secretaries, IT technicians etc), who are registered with the website and decided to fill in the survey.
c) most people in the UK think that intelligent design is the same thing as theistic evolution
|
|
|
[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]
|
