It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Rock Hunter
Originally posted by jake1997
Double blind test.
The same standard as the medical community. Put the dating methods up against a double blind test and then Im with you 1000 %.
What are you talking about??? I have no idea whatsoever about what you are going on about , why don't you just realise that on this particular matter that you are wrong.
This is like banging my head against a brick wall.
Originally posted by Rock Hunter
The starting daughter amount of Ar is assumed to be 0. This is perfectly acceptable as from lab tests were minerals have been grown it has been found that Ar does not usually incoporate itself into minerals.
Hence therefore the presence of Ar in minerals millions of years old must be from the result of Decay of K, and not from some presence of Ar. As we know the decay constant of K, we can work out the age.
Over the years, numerous interlaboratory studies have been conducted to test and establish standards or monitors for radiometric dating (as examples, Lanphere and Dalrymple, 1965; Samson and Alexander, 1987; Sudo et al., 1998; Renne et al., 1998; Dalrymple and Lanphere, 1969; Jaeger et al., 1963; Flisch, 1982; Turner et al., 1971; Ingamells and Engels, 1976; Odin et al., 1982).
The ages of the standards have been independently measured with different radiometric methods, oxygen isotope records (Karner and Renne, 1998, p. 740) and/or astronomical methods (Renne et al., 1998, p. 121-122; Hilgen et al., 1997, p. 2043). In response to this definitive evidence, Woodmorappe (1999, p. 74) unjustly accuses Hilgen et al. (1997) of 'tweaking' the data to make the astronomical and radiometric results agree.
Of course, interlaboratory studies on radiometric dating and multiple analyses on outcrops with different methods are nothing new. Examples are cited in Harland et al. (1990) for Phanerozoic samples and Dalrymple (1991) for meteorites and Precambrian outcrops. One of the older and well-known interlaboratory studies is Lanphere and Dalrymple (1965). The results of this study are also described in some detail in Jaeger (1979, p. 23-25). In Lanphere and Dalrymple (1965), 55 laboratories were sent a muscovite standard for dating. The average K/Ar date for the muscovite was 83.0 million years and the average Rb/Sr date was reasonably close at 85.7 million years. Interlaboratory standard deviations were only 1.2% for the K/Ar dates and 2.8% for the Rb/Sr dates. These excellent results refute creationist claims that K/Ar and Rb/Sr methods are inconsistent or imprecise.
Originally posted by jake1997
The central part of where I am right now with Nygdan is how you can show that there was no daughter element 'born' at the same time the parent was. The same process that created the parent should also logically create the daughter element.
Ar does not usually incoporate itself into minerals.
The age of the earth really doesn't matter that much.
Jake - The DAUGHTER element is formed FROM the parent. Why do you continue to say that the daughter is formed simultaneously with the parent. Daughter elements are not created, they are formed from decay. The only way these isotopes can be be created is from decay. They are not created naturally.
Originally posted by jake1997
Im sittin here all casual and having a casual conversation, answering a simple question with a simple answer. Then you get your panties in a wad again. You geo types must die young....high BP or heart attacks.
Originally posted by silentlonewolf
For one the earliest dated rock, (not zircon crystal), is from the Canadian Sheild. The Acasta Gneiss. This is a metamorphic rock of granite (though i originally thought it was two kinds of igneous rocks fused together) Lab tests have shown than when a rock is heated to the point where it metamorphisis the bonds strech and let the daughter escape leaving only the parent. This would erase almost all daughter from the rock. The Acasta Gneiss is dated to 3.6 billion years old (I believe ).
[edit on 5-5-2005 by silentlonewolf]
Originally posted by jake1997
Yeah.. I guess your right.
1.) You cannot show me that the rate stayed constant
2.) You cannot show me there was no daughter element created
3.) You turn to your hate speech whenever you get shown this
Originally posted by jake1997
I didnt know they abandoned the asteroid idea.
Back when NBC ran a show that presented a different view then the darwinian doctrine, there was a backlash that even surprised me. People who disagreed with what was presented were outraged that someone would dare put forward a different view.
Watch the way people treat your work after that.
The line proves the correctness of the data?
Double blind test.
The same standard as the medical community. Put the dating methods up against a double blind test and then Im with you 1000 %.
Not in some closed lab attended only by evolutionists. Video tape the whole procedure or even have 60 minutes there.
The same process that created the parent should also logically create the daughter element.
It would simply be a blind test of the element content. That is not what currently takes place.
Now if Im reading it right, the same fault exists. The fact that it falls into line on the graph is a circular reasoning thing
rock hunter
The methods used in radiometric dating are precise and have been heavily scrutinised for over 20 years. We would not use them otherwise!!!
jake1997
1.) You cannot show me that the rate stayed constant
The constancy of radioactive decay is not an assumption, but is supported by evidence:
The radioactive decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measurable, at least within limits of accuracy. This is despite experiments that attempt to change decay rates (Emery 1972). Extreme pressure can cause electron-capture decay rates to increase slightly (less than 0.2 percent), but the change is small enough that it has no detectable effect on dates.
Supernovae are known to produce a large quantity of radioactive isotopes (Nomoto et al. 1997a, 1997b; Thielemann et al. 1998). These isotopes produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates. These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light-years away (Knödlseder 2000). Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago. Present decay rates are likewise consistent with observations of the gamma rays and fading rates of supernova SN1991T, which is sixty million light-years away (Prantzos 1999), and with fading rate observations of supernovae billions of light-years away (Perlmutter et al. 1998).
The Oklo reactor was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1,800 million years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost two billion years (Fujii et al. 2000; Shlyakhter 1976).
Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young earth would have produced enough heat to melt the earth (Meert 2002).
Different radioisotopes decay in different ways. It is unlikely that a variable rate would affect all the different mechanisms in the same way and to the same extent. Yet different radiometric dating techniques give consistent dates. Furthermore, radiometric dating techniques are consistent with other dating techniques, such as dendrochronology, ice core dating, and historical records (e.g., Renne et al. 1997).
The half-lives of radioisotopes can be predicted from first principles through quantum mechanics. Any variation would have to come from changes to fundamental constants. According to the calculations that accurately predict half-lives, any change in fundamental constants would affect decay rates of different elements disproportionally, even when the elements decay by the same mechanism (Greenlees 2000; Krane 1987).
2.) You cannot show me there was no daughter element created
Claim CD002
Isochron methods do not assume that the initial parent or daughter concentrations are known. In basic radiometric dating, a parent isotope (call it P) decays to a daughter isotope (D) at a predictable rate. The age can be calculated from the ratio daughter isotope to parent isotope in a sample. However, this assumes that we know how much of the daughter isotope was in the sample initially. (It also assumes that neither isotope entered or left the sample.)
[...]For some radiometric dating techniques, the assumed initial conditions are reasonable
Is there any evidence to suggest that there was any daughter element, or even a significant enough amount to alter the results? And, agian, the fact that there are mutliple independent methods that are in concorde with one another, indicates that there weren't strange amounts of the daughter elemenst lying around. True, god could've conceived of a set up that would 'trick' science into indicating an old age, but thats not really saying much.
3.) You turn to your hate speech whenever you get shown this.
I don't know about hate speech, but it is understandable that scientists get worked up when people tell them that they are simple minded foolish frauds. I mean, a christian would get upset if you told them all sorts of similar things, why shouldn't anyone get upset??
Originally posted by Aelita
Every technique or measurement has a "systematic" error assigned to it. In case of limited statistics, there is also statistical error. From the available documents, it would appear that sources of systematic errors are understood and proper values are assigned to the magnitude of such errors. Therefore, any measured time span has an "error bar" attached to it and you can usually find it in publications claiming the find.
[edit on 5-5-2005 by Aelita]
On another note... I had some nice links in the grand canyon thread but the thread was ditched. It seems that presenting a video that shows that much science is bad form.......
I dont mind it if we dont agree....but just throwing something out because you dont agree with it is Bovine scathology. Im not saying this in hopes of making something happen... im venting..thats all.
Originally posted by jake1997
I guess I missed something about the graph. It seems to me that if I pick the numbers that start the equation, that I should also be able to predict the end number falling into a range that changes on a curve with the variable data of element content.
I had some nice links in the grand canyon thread but the thread was ditched. It seems that presenting a video that shows that much science is bad form.
There really is no way of getting around the creation of the creation of the GC being a catastrophy once you see the evidence.
It was trashed because it was considered religion because it makes the bible look correct and there is no way around it.
Dont agree? Refute it.
Saying "I dont agree so Im deleting it" ... That is what I expected at first.
rock hunter
Was this video by any chance made by people who didn't have any clue what they were talking about, and don't know anything about geology. I reckon it probably was!!
Leave the science to people who know what they are talking about.
I still do believe that their is some divine force of some sort
Originally posted by Plumbo
[
So, the earth is old and the animals and people are young.
period.
Originally posted by sntx
Originally posted by Plumbo
[
So, the earth is old and the animals and people are young.
period.
I agree. 6000 years is pretty old and every person and animal are young in comparison.
Steve