Posted on 06/18/2009 8:48:47 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Radiometric dating is often used to “prove” rocks are millions of years old. Once you understand the basic science, however, you can see how wrong assumptions lead to incorrect dates.
Most people think that radioactive dating has proven the earth is billions of years old. After all, textbooks, media, and museums glibly present ages of millions of years as fact.
Yet few people know how radiometric dating works or bother to ask what assumptions drive the conclusions. So let’s take a closer look and see how reliable this dating method really is...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
Another in a long line of evos who didn’t bother to read the article but just knee jerks his way through the postings.
The point was that during one or two cataclysmic events, it’s possible that the decay rate changed, at that time, not that it is variable.
It’s been constant for the how many hundred years that we’ve know about radioactive decay and anything using radioactivity is based on what we’ve seen for that couple hundred years or so.
The technology works now based on the radioactive decay now.
It would still render dating results erroneous if the the decay rate changed at one point in time.
“Do you buy all of your slaves from the nations near you?”
So the question you pose to me is one you might ask yourself first. And maybe ask yourself why you show up at all with so little to contribute besides insults.
Those of us who like to discuss either the article posted or responses to it find pointless comments, like:
“Are you really as dumb as you seem to be?” disruptive, which appears to be their only purpose.
Spend a little quality time with a mirror because the Buck stops here.
“Yeah, tpanther always posts that even when it’s clear that someone means the world and not America. I would try explaining it to tpanther again, but it doesn’t seem to make any difference.”
Ummmm “always”....?
“clear”....?
Just a little fast and loose with the facts there!
How was it clear?
The only thing clear was that you’re moving the goal-posts now.
1. These threads are generally argued by people in the U.S.
2. These threads center around the NEA and other liberals championing their fraudulent peer review cult of evolution and “settled science” to the exclusion of any and all other ideas in the USA.
And uhhhh, you didn’t explain to me anything the first time around
so yeah...
“I posted before seeing this. Now it makes, I was a little confused there. heh...”
...this makes more sense than you know! heh
Leviticus 25:44-45 clearly delineates where we may buy our slaves. I think of it as a public service to question the slave buying practices of our members.
You still haven’t answered the question I asked that you repeated here. It’s certainly clever to say “the Buck stops here” (I get it—my name!), but such cleverness is not limited to you.
From now on, you shall be known as Forrest. There, I’ve answered the question for you.
So you have "faith" that the assumed physical constants that were used to calculate how thick those cables needed to be really are "constants"?
LOL, there’s an “answer” for everything. I wonder if the same is true for quartz, diamonds, obsidian, etc.
Plate movements are measurable and the distance between craters in the Yellowstone eruptions are consistent with those measurements. This is why 600,000 years is a measurable cycle between eruptions.
The funny thing is about how they whine about how no intelligent discussion on science can take place on FR,....
and then they exacerbate the problem.
It would be nice to see some evo actually address the points about possible errors in radiometric dating, instead of immediately going into orbit and keyword spamming the thread.
Quite a monument to the evos, it is.......
And then they have the nerve to complain about the lack of scientific discussion.....
You mean this isn’t scientific discussion:
“While you’re at it, does pi=3?”
Now how can you match that for uplifting scientific inquiry from a Darwinist mind?
The point was that during one or two cataclysmic events, it’s possible that the decay rate changed, at that time, not that it is variable.
I did read the article. There have been some comments submitted speculating about radiometric decay being made variable by "cataclsmic events", but no where in the article do they posit such a cause. They just call into question the assumption that those decay rates are constant, and imply that the assumption that they are is wrong.
If it's the former, the proof is in the news the liberals hate to run. If it's the latter, then I have no proof that people on FR would believe they love to debunk everyone that I have produced as evidence in the past, so I won't walk that path again.
Unfortunately, those observations and results have not been performed under the radiometric decay conditions that you are extrapolating.
And again, dynamic time is different from radiometric time, significantly so in this scenario, and you are equating the two. That is why I referred you to post #27.
Finally, the ZPE is probably involved in radiometric decay energies and is certainly involved in radiometric decay rates.
What condition is it I'm "extrapolating"? Have the results you're speculating about ever been observed at all under any conditions?
Sure they did. Next to the hourglass in assumption #2 that scientists make.
And they didn't say that it made the decay rate variable. They just question whether the decay rate changed as a result of some event, or more likely, if something interfered with the amount of parent or daughter material and gave erroneous readings.
You are extrapolating radioactive energy release per radioactive decay event.
"Have the results you're speculating about ever been observed at all under any conditions?"
Exactly why you can't make that extrapolation...
Yes. Why not? For now, in this world as it exists now, it's been demonstrated to be reliable, although accidents do happen and some elevators fail.
Don't you have faith that constants have been what they are for millions of years?
Don't you believe that radioactive decay has always been what it is now? Based on what?
I asked the question—why don’t you address your inquiry to me, Forrest?
Indeed. I agree that there is some degree of "extrapolation" (and interpolation) involved because the energy release of every instance of a decay event was not observed and measured. No physical constant based on measurement of a physical event or property ever has been.
Yes.
Don't you believe that radioactive decay has always been what it is now? Based on what?
Yes, I do. I base that on the evidence of God's creation and the belief that he has no reason to misrepresent it to us.
While it's possilble that something may have happened to any given sample, for this to be a reasonable possibility whatever "it" was that interfered with it would have had to have done so in all the samples from multiple locations in exactly the same ratio to produce consistently erroneous results.
OK, so you admit that energy release is measured over a time frame, as I propose, rather than over individual, decay events, as you extrapolate.
That would support my contention that energy release over dynamic time may be what is constant rather than per radioactive decay event.
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.