Posted on 01/04/2009 5:39:47 AM PST by PurpleMountains
You are right, my mistake again. I misread the number of zeros -- I guess my eye-glasses need a tune-up? ;-)
Of course I am neither a geologist nor a chemist, and I doubt if you are either, so we are here arguing subjects that neither one of us knows very well.
What little I do know, I learned in school and have read about over the years since. The basic idea of radiometric decay is that certain elements decay over time at a known rate. So, if you know today's percentages of the original element and its decayed state, you can calculate back to the time when it's original "atomic clock" was set at zero. I understand this has something to do with a "blocking temperature."
Now, point is, what else goes into arriving at accurate dates I don't know, and neither do you. But I would be most surprised if there were not SOME other variables involved, and if, how you set these would not effect the test results.
Consider, in this example, a sample rock might not be "perfect," with no contaminates at any time during the last BILLION years. If a test lab knows to watch for contaminants, it can focus on the more "pure" looking areas. If the lab knows the age is likely around a billion years, but the test comes back at a million years, the lab would suspect someone made a mistake somewhere. It could then go back and repeat the process to see if the same results come back multiple times.
And contamination is just one issue in radiometric dating. I'm certain there are others.
I'm simply saying that the idea of radiometric decay is pretty simple, but just like anything else, the real world is more complicated, and sometimes very easy to make mistakes.
1. How much potassium was there when the rock was formed.
2. How much argon was there when the rock was formed.
3. Whether the decay rate was constant.
4. Whether potassium or argon from another source leeched into the sample.
In light of the above and starting with an “old earth” view, what kind of assumptions do you think they’ll make....ones that will lead to a young age or an old one?"
Obviously, your basic problem is, you don't much understand the processes you are criticizing. And neither do I, but clearly more than you do. And you would instantly understand more, if you weren't so dead-set opposed to it.
Radiometric dating starts with the moment a "blocking temperature" was reached, which sets the atomic clocks to zero. From there on, the time lapsed is measured according to the half-lives of the materials.
Of course, if there is any contamination, or mistakes made in processing, then tests will come back with wrong dates. That's why it helps to have a likely range of ages in mind. If the answer comes back drastically different, then you know you need to take a careful look at just exactly you did, then go back and see if you get the same results over and over.
****Obviously, your basic problem is, you don’t much understand the processes you are criticizing. And neither do I, but clearly more than you do. And you would instantly understand more, if you weren’t so dead-set opposed to it.****
Obviously your basic problem is that you seem to think you can make assumptions and still come up with an accurate date. The four things that I listed are unknowable and assumptions have to be made. That’s just a fact.
The moment one assumption comes into play, it’s over. I’ve listed four above.
You’ve still not answered my question (which Mr. Silverback keeps asking you to answer).
Here it is again:
The volume of ice in a glass of water is twice as much as the volume of water. How long did it take from the time the glass was filled until now to reach the current state?
Is it possible to answer that question without more information?
Is that question any different than this question?:
Black rock was examined that had been formed as a result of lava flow from a volcanic eruption. There is twice as much Potassium as there is Argon in the sample. How long did it take to reach the current state?
I’ll make it even easier on you, just answer this.....is it possible to answer these without making assumptions?
Not sure what you are asking....if you are asking if this was the RATE team that did the research, then the answer is yes.
Don’t know. Never counted them. Never tried. I presume by scientists you mean scientists, those who claim that status, and those who deny any such claim, but do try to speak for Science in any event.
”But so far, I haven't seen any of those folks” (brazenly declaring their religious atheism, loudly claiming that atheism is a scientific theory or fact, rudely insulting anyone who disagrees, ganging up with other "scientists" to shout down any real voice of reason, as you described it.)
It’s necessary first to look. You’re familiar with those folks, it seems. You faultlessly ticked off their practices, except you missed mockery – do ya’ll have a seminar you attend?
Some quotes from those you claim to not have seen:
“Materialism, I would say, does not encroach on theology, so much as it deems it pointless, as a bicycle is to a fish.”
”My statement above is literally true, and so you are a liar, despite your quotes, for attempting to deny what is obviously the case.”
“Goat herders. There was a shortage of camels that year and besides, cheese made of goats milk was all the rage.”
”by definition, Creationism / ID-ism is a Big Lie, and its proponents Big Liars.”
”Your statement above is a lie on several levels, and I'm pretty certain, a deliberate lie, just because that's the kind of guys you are. Truth telling just doesn't come natural to you, does it?”
“You cannot be a scientist and believe in creation or ID.”
“Theology not only presupposes, but is a field that studies the nature and worship of a being or beings that materialism deems not to exist. What could materialism have to say except that theology is a null endeavor?”
”. . . when I read the arguments of ID-Creationists, I get a sense of slimy, creepy & really disgusting attempts to pervert the truth for strictly religious reasons. I'll say again, I think it's a Big Lie . . .”
“In Spaghetti Monster they trust”
“Materialism, I would say, does not encroach on theology, so much as it deems it pointless, as a bicycle is to a fish”
”I don't think Joshua is a folk tale. I just think he was a liar.”
” . . . people who CLAIM they reject evolution on scientific grounds are LIARS, and sorry, but that's all there is to it.”
”Teaching school students creationist anti-evolution lies is a form of child abuse and should be criminally punished as such.”
” I consider the anti-evolution arguments of Creationism or ID-ism to be a Big Lie, worthy of a Goebbels in it's flaunting of truth -- and so, necessarily it's proponents are Big Liars . . .”
Now, we have at least one stout defender of Science who thinks that while it might be fair to resort to demeaning attacks against Christians in response to their slanders, it’s inappropriate that scientists should lower themselves to so crude a level. I quite agree. Persons of such a superior station in society should set a better standard for the edification of those of us less elevated. We must also acknowledge, however, that in making that truthful observation, our stout defender friend has also conceded those attacks do occur, and apparently on a sufficient scale as to excite his notice. He said:
”It's true that our creationists have no reluctance to bring up the phony Hitler or Marx connection, so it might be entirely fair to point out the "Christian Identity" connection, which is clear and undeniable. However, I think it's inappropriate. Our side shouldn't descend to such tactics”
So it seems clear that though this forum has presented you with many opportunities to rebuke Scientists for their declarations badgering and denouncing Christians, you’ve not seized the moment with the same gusto that you display when attacking Christians.
That explains it. For a while I thought you might be discussing science.
When you get time, point me to the methodology that explains how they control for contamination.
****When you get time, point me to the methodology that explains how they control for contamination.****
I gave you their info....I’m sure you can find it. I’ve seen the DVD, which doesn’t include the methodology. I’m sure it’s in the book if you really are interested.
Contamination is the only thing you’ve got and is the last bastion of the opposition. Can you refute their statement about the crystal structure of diamonds preventing recent contamination? I would think that’s where you’d want to start.
****For a while I thought you might be discussing science.****
Nice Rejoinder....eight scientists with PhD’s doing an eight year research project....that can’t be science...it disagrees with the worldview of js1138.
There is other evidence out there that says the earth can’t possibly be as old as the theory of evolution demands...it’s summarized quite nicely here:
http://www.icr.org/article/1842/
Contamination is not a trivial issue. Every instance of radiometric dating has to contend with possible contamination. It's just assumed until ruled out by painstaking methods. Any dated sample that doesn't deal explicitly with this is worthless.
So let me know when you have some info on how RATE controlled for contamination.
Here’s some links:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/helium-rw.pdf
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/cooling-mm.htm
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Physical%20Science/RateConference.html
http://www.reasons.org/tnrtb/2008/09/10/
http://www.reasons.org/tnrtb/2008/09/17/
http://reasons.org/resources/tnrtb/HeliumDiffusionZirconTechnicalpPaper.pdf
That’s right. Public education became a nest for Marxist/Socialist indoctrination bit by bit along with a growing Federal domination of education. Now you propose that we try to “restore” values that government adamantly opposes, while we allow that same government to continue to tighten its death grip on education.
”You seem to be arguing for elimination of any legal requirement for public education.”
Seem to be! You’re uncertain (even in the least)?
”I'm only saying that is not going to happen, period, ever. So fahgeddaboudit.”
And I’ve already told you that if you don’t propose to find ways to rip control of education from the hands of government, and instead intend to slip comfortably into conversations about “changes” in education that government will never allow, then include me out. If you don’t understand the meaning of “include me out,” it means very much the same as “fahgeddaboudit.” So, in case you didn’t understand me the first time, I will repeat. If you wish to indulge in fruitless conversations about change in educational values within the context of continued government control, then include me out. Are we, now, clear?
You didn’t seem to always feel about government control of education the way you now do. In Post #1675, betty boop made the comment, “ALL education should be privately conducted and financed. Liberty is better preserved under this model.” In response, in Post #1680 you opined, “Bingo! Problem solved.” What happened to change your mind?
****So let me know when you have some info on how RATE controlled for contamination.****
I’ve given you the information where it can be found. If it’s of interest to you, go look it up.
****Contamination is not a trivial issue. Every instance of radiometric dating has to contend with possible contamination. It’s just assumed until ruled out by painstaking methods. Any dated sample that doesn’t deal explicitly with this is worthless.****
I didn’t say it was trivial. While I am not a scientist I’ve done a lot of reading on both sides of this issue and I have a layman’s understanding of how it’s done. The RATE guys say that recent contamination of diamonds is not possible because of its crystal structure....
The larger point is that all dating methods require assumptions. These would be more fatal to accuracy than anything else no matter what view you hold about the age of the earth.
Thanks for the links...
I’ll do my best to read and understand them. (Hope they’re not too technical!)
I wouldn't have posted my opinion of RATE if I hadn't looked up their methodology. My questions about their competence, integrity and honesty are mostly rhetorical, but there's always a possibility I'm wrong. If I'm wrong about their lack of controls for contamination, here's your chance to document my error.
Otherwise I will continue thinking they are shit-faced liars.
You know what....you were doin’ great right up until that last line.
I think our conversation is over.
No different than putting the jawbone of an ape with the skull of a human and calling it Piltdown man.
How many decades will it be before some honest creationist calls them to task?
Mr. Silverback: "Only if you also maintain that I've said Rush Limbaugh and Byron York don't ever discuss real, verifiable facts when they write op-eds. "
So, let's see if I understand your analogy here. You are saying that honest science corresponds to what was traditionally supposed to go in the news section of a newspaper (back when "honest reporting" was a serious idea), whereas anti-evolutionism is editorial opinion which belongs on the editorial pages, right?
And just like politics, where all opinions weigh more or less equal, one man one vote, your opinion on evolution should weigh just as strong as anyone else's, and should have just as much right to be published on an editorial page as anyone else -- fair and balanced, "fairness doctrine," etc., right?
In other words, from Mr. Silverback's perspective, a "scientific journal" isn't really "scientific" at all, they're all just opinion journals, where people claiming to be "scientists" publish their personal opinions, and so could be forced by some legal "fairness doctrine" to publish dissenting opinions, which would certainly include anti-evolutionism, right?
So, if I understand you, Mr. Silverback, there really is no such thing as "science," there are only different people's opinions about the nature of things, and your opinions ought to be just as valid as anyone else's, is that about right?
If so, then sorry, but I don't agree. ;-)
Mr. Silverback:"And yet you refuse to thus far."
What in the world are you talking about? Did you pose some math problem for me?
Indeed, let me ask the larger question (as schaef21 would say): If you are going to bother yourself to respond, why not respond with an actual argument, instead of just insults?
.....
schaef21:"I’ll make it even easier on you, just answer this.....is it possible to answer these without making assumptions?"
You obviously believe you are making a strong argument here, because you keep repeating it over and over and over -- even after I've answered it more than once, you refuse to acknowledge the correct answers.
So, I'll try again. But I'm asking you, this time PAY ATTENTION to what I'm saying:
Wikipedia article on radiometric dating:
"If a material that selectively rejects the daughter nuclide is heated, any daughter nuclides that have been accumulated over time will be lost through diffusion, setting the isotopic "clock" to zero.
"The temperature at which this happens is known as the blocking temperature or closure temperature and is specific to a particular material and isotopic system.
"These temperatures are experimentally determined in the lab by artificially resetting sample minerals using a high-temperature furnace.
"As the mineral cools, the crystal structure begins to form and diffusion of isotopes is less easy. At a certain temperature, the crystal structure has formed sufficiently to prevent diffusion of isotopes. This temperature is what is known as blocking temperature and represents the temperature below which the mineral is a closed system to isotopes. [9][10]
"Thus an igneous or metamorphic rock or melt, which is slowly cooling, does not begin to exhibit measurable radioactive decay until it cools below the blocking temperature.
"The age that can be calculated by radiometric dating is thus the time at which the rock or mineral cooled to blocking temperature."
Now, schaef21, seems to me this response is perfectly clear, and should answer your first two items above.
Your third issue questions whether radiometric decay rates are constant, or might be effected by external factors:
"In general, the half-life of a nuclide depends solely on its nuclear properties; it is not affected by external factors such as temperature, pressure, chemical environment, or presence of a magnetic or electric field.[3][4][5]
"(For some nuclides which decay by the process of electron capture, such as Beryllium-7, Strontium-85, and Zirconium-89, the decay rate may be slightly affected by local electron density, therefore these isotopes may not be as suitable for radiometric dating.)
"But in general, the half-life of any nuclide is essentially a constant.
"Therefore, in any material containing a radioactive nuclide, the proportion of the original nuclide to its decay product(s) changes in a predictable way as the original nuclide decays over time.
"This predictability allows the relative abundances of related nuclides to be used as a clock to measure the time from the incorporation of the original nuclide(s) into a material to the present."
On the major concern over possible contamination -- your 4th item above:
"Although radiometric dating is accurate in principle, the precision is very dependent on the care with which the procedure is performed.
"The basic equation of radiometric dating requires that neither the parent nuclide nor the daughter product can enter or leave the material after its formation.
"The possible confounding effects of contamination of parent and daughter isotopes have to be considered, as do the effects of any loss or gain of such isotopes since the sample was created.
"It is therefore essential to have as much information as possible about the material being dated and to check for possible signs of alteration.[6]
"Precision is enhanced if measurements are taken on different samples from the same rock body but at different locations. Alternatively, if several different minerals can be dated from the same sample and are assumed to be formed by the same event and were in equilibrium with the reservoir when they formed, they should form an isochron.
"This can eliminate the problem of contamination."
Yes, I do note the word "assumed" is used once in the above discussion, but even here I question if that's the correct term, since careful inspection of different materials and all of the contexts in which they were found should provide accurate information on which to base such a scientific judgement.
First, I notice you've employed some interesting propaganda techniques in making your argument here. For example, I've never ever "denounced Christians," especially since most Christians do not accept ID-Creationism. But let's get to the heart of it.
The issue here is lies and liars. That HAS to be the issue because ID-Creationists claim that evolution itself is a Big Lie and evolutionists Big Liars. So, just what are the lies, and who are the liars?
In 1,765 YHAOS you provide a long list of quotes, most of which come from me saying, in effect that ID-Creationism is a Big Lie. But mixed in with those are just a few by atheists claiming, in effect, that science "proves" there is no God. Well, I note and "admire" you use of propaganda techniques here, but I never saw those atheists' quotes before, and obviously don't agree.
I'll say again, the following (to be just a bit colorful about it) are "big fat lies":
"Science "proves" there is no God."
No it doesn't. By traditional philosophical definitions, "science" only looks for the natural causes of natural occurrences. It "proves" nothing about God, but instead assumes that whatever influences God has are expressed through natural occurrences and causes. Since science studies only the natural realm, it can say nothing about the supernatural.
So by definition, anyone who claims atheism is a "scientific fact" is himself a Big Liar.
Intelligent Design Theory "proves" that evolution is a Big Lie and evolutionist are Big Liars."
No it doesn't. By normal scientific standards, "Intelligent Design" is junk science. It is strictly religious belief masquerading as science for the purpose of getting taught in public school science classes. In short, it's a fraud and itself a Big Lie.
Now YHAOS, you have asked before, why are we talking about lies and liars, instead of just mistakes and mistaken ideas? Answer: because the essence of ID-Creationism is to declare the Theory or Evolution a Big Lie and to replace it with the idea that science and anti-science are just matters of opinion -- with anti-science just as "scientific" as science.
And if you don't believe me, YHAOS, go back and read the beginnings of this thread! Or better yet, ask Mr. Silverback.
Bottom line: if ID-Creationism truly were "real science," then why is it that NO ID-Creationist even knows how to do publishable peer-reviewable SCIENCE related to evolution?
I'll say again, if that were not the case, then this would be a very different argument.
Yet again, you seem to steadfastly refuse understanding or acknowledging what's being argued here. Education "privately conducted and financed" is NOT the same as saying: "repeal all laws requiring children must be educated!"
Even today, there is lots of "privately conducted and financed" primary education in this country -- private schools, religious schools and home schools account for some significant percent of all children's education (is it 20% or 30%?).
The usual conservative solution (which I agree with) is to increase this percentage, and help restore community values to public schools by providing parents with tax breaks and/or vouchers -- so that more parents can chose the best schools for their children.
Sure, if we could reach the point where "ALL education should be privately conducted and financed," that would be fine. But how about if we start out with "MORE education should be privately conducted and financed"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.