The fatal flaw with radioactive dating methods

CMI ^ | July 30, 2009 | Tas Walker, Ph.D.

[GodGunsGuts]

The fatal flaw with radioactive dating methods

--snip--

This illustrates the problem with the radioactive dating of geological events. Those who promote the reliability of the method spend a lot of time impressing you with the technical details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc. But they don’t discuss the basic flaw in the method: you cannot determine the age of a rock using radioactive dating because...

[Filo]

Well then, good luck with your life!

Exactly!

And the same to you, my friend! :)

[<1/1,000,000th%]

So you have kids?

[Filo]

So you have kids?

Yes. And that matters why?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

If the only reason for the existence of the universe is for you to have kids, it would have been a failure if you didn’t.

[Filo]

If the only reason for the existence of the universe is for you to have kids, it would have been a failure if you didn’t.

You seem to misunderstand my position. Probably deliberately.

The reason for the existence of life is propagation.

The universe needs no reason although it may well have one. If it does I can guarantee you it doesn't have squat to do with a bunch of semi-sentient parasites dominating a tiny, insignificant planet orbiting a completely unremarkable star at the ass-end of an average galaxy in a smallish cluster of galaxies amongst billions of others.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The reason for the existence of life is propagation.

Says who?

Sounds like you're saying that the reason life exists is so that it exists.

The universe was certainly created, as we are here. But for no reason?

Or just so life begets life?

[r9etb]

GodGutsGunsGibberish Alert.

Actually, the article is correct, as far as it goes. The radioactive dating method does in fact depend on an assumption concerning the initial concentration of isotopes in the item being dated.

The question is, then: how reliable are the assumptions being made? Can those assumptions be tested in any way?

The article of course doesn't dwell on that aspect of the problem ... the author would apparently have us believe that those assumptions are essentially unfounded.

[Filo]

Says who?

Me.

Sounds like you're saying that the reason life exists is so that it exists.

Kind-of. Life exists to continue its existence. Once life comes about it either propagates or vanishes. In order for it to be life it actually has to propagate. . .

The universe was certainly created, as we are here.

No, the universe certainly exists, as we are here. The creation part is assumed by some, rejected by others.

But for no reason?

Why does it need a reason?

Why would that reason have anything to do with us, if there is one?

Or just so life begets life?

That's just a fact, not really a reason.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

No, the universe certainly exists, as we are here. The creation part is assumed by some, rejected by others.

The creation part is based on the currently available evidence. There are 2 satellites in earth orbit continually measuring it.

Thank you for our pleasant exchange. I was just curious what you thought when I saw your post.

[Filo]

The creation part is based on the currently available evidence. There are 2 satellites in earth orbit continually measuring it.

I'm not aware of any evidence or satellites supporting/studying that.

Thank you for our pleasant exchange. I was just curious what you thought when I saw your post.

Thanks! Same back at ya. It's always nice to have a pleasant chat.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I'm a full service quizmaster. If you're interested, check these out;

WMAP and Planck

[Filo]

I'm a full service quizmaster. If you're interested, check these out;

WMAP and Planck

Ahh, those I'm familiar with. They aren't seeking/studying "creation" - they are seeking origins. Different concept. . . creation implies a creator.