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...

[metmom]

No thanks to the evos.

[OldGuard1]

That's simple, it is reproduced in the lab every day and observed. We also can test objects of a known age, such as when specific monuments where built or burnt areas in the tree ring history. It is shown through observation and testing.

First off, reliable historic records only go back a few thousand years. There are "older" records, but you'll find they're generally a bunch of local mythos, such as the Japanese emperor-gods and the like. Dendrochronology records go back to about the time of the flood, and they get really spotty in the early years; there's a lot of criticism of them at over 5k-6k years. But you're not making claims of 5-6k years; you're making claims of billions.

Secondly, your "reproduced in the lab every day" line is exactly what you're being criticized for -- assuming that whatever applies today applies to yesterday, or is at least linearly correlated. But that's not even what many of the physicists who promote radiometric dating say about, for example, the Big Bang. Even physicists admit that "universal constants" can be radically different at different times.

To put it another way. I could have stood by Mount St. Helens every day for a hundred years up to May 17th, 1980, making measurements of how many catastrophic eruptions there were. Each day I would have put a "zero" on my tally sheet. The conclusion, by your logic? Mount Saint Helens has never erupted and never will.

Reality doesn't work that way. Just because a measurement one day is the same as it was a previous day doesn't mean it's eternally unchanging.

[metmom]

Likewise for the rest of the evo malcontents...

And are these posts of yours an example of the intellectual scientific debate that evos bemoan is lacking on FR?

PC99 : Even if true ... doesn’t advance the supernatural theory that the magical Hebrew God created the Universe 5,000 years ago.

steve-b :GodGutsGunsGibberish Alert.

xcamel:I think a certain ‘creat-inst’ poster was exposed to a bit too much radiation...

org.whodat:Another straw-man post from, the coloring book spams.

Filo:Not nearly as funny as people incapable of understanding science espousing the flaws in said science from abject ignorance.

headsonpikes :You are spoiling all the fun with this so-called “science”. Science doesn’t belong here, troll! This is a science-free zone!

xcamel:And using the generic walmart brand crayons to fill it in

************************************************************
Looks a lot like DC.....

[facedown]

If not, let me know, and I’ll try to explain it with smaller words that even the child in your analogy could understand.

Have a nice day.

[metmom]

Some specific isotopes are created specifically from this decay. They aren't isotopes found in nature outside this process.

The presumption, then, is that there were none of those isotopes at one point. How is that point in time determined?

Wouldn't the material have started decaying as it was formed? Unless it all formed at once, there would be no accurate way to determine the age, as some of the parent material would already have been decaying as other of the material would be forming.

[xcamel]

"metmom hasn't created an about page... or much of anything else for that matter"

[org.whodat]

Common sense, helps, some of us were having a laugh about the spam poster and his continuous straw man argument posts. He's a carbon based life form. But we were try to do it without resorting to the low life art of name calling.

What is an evo??

[nostrum09]

Not having a degree in science doesn’t mean that one can’t tell the difference between the theory of evolution (which can be tested and revised or shown as completely incorrect, as any theory should be) and the belief in creationism or ID which, by their very nature, cannot be tested and must be taken on faith.

[FormerRep]

What’s an EVO? Probably a 3-wheeled Yugoslavian automobile that runs on squirrel oil...

[FormerRep]

Doesn’t matter. Even with a degree you will be considered a brain-washed part of the big-science machine. ;)

[org.whodat]

What’s an EVO? Probably a 3-wheeled Yugoslavian automobile that runs on squirrel oil...

I think you are correct, the question is how old is that squirrel oil.

[baclava]

Treating any of this as a “science debate” only reinforces the false impression given by the Creationists that there is a legitimate scientific debate going on, with two equally valid sides.

There isn’t. This “fight” is a political fight dreamed up by an extremist crackpot minority of religious zealots.

Despite their arrogant claims to represent the “Christian point of view”, the creationists and their fundamentalist friends constitute a very tiny minority in mainstream religion. They are an abomination.

In essence, the fundamentalists and their creationist allies want to do for the United States what the fundamentalist Taliban did for Afghanistan and the Ayatollahs have done for Iran—they want to run the country in accordance with their interpretation of “God’s will”.

Every mainstream Christian denomination in the United States rejects the paranoid and ultra-literalist world-view of the creationists, and sees no conflict at all between Christian faith and modern science.

They should crawl back to their caves and huddle around their book burnings; they are the true enemy of Christianity.

[tpanther]

Likewise for the rest of the evo malcontents...

And are these posts of yours an example of the intellectual scientific debate that evos bemoan is lacking on FR?

PC99 : Even if true ... doesn’t advance the supernatural theory that the magical Hebrew God created the Universe 5,000 years ago.

steve-b :GodGutsGunsGibberish Alert.

xcamel:I think a certain ‘creat-inst’ poster was exposed to a bit too much radiation...

org.whodat:Another straw-man post from, the coloring book spams.

Filo:Not nearly as funny as people incapable of understanding science espousing the flaws in said science from abject ignorance.

headsonpikes :You are spoiling all the fun with this so-called “science”. Science doesn’t belong here, troll! This is a science-free zone!

xcamel:And using the generic walmart brand crayons to fill it in

************************************************************
Looks a lot like DC.....

---

Yes and how curious some posters get their feelings hurt when creationists fight back. Why THEN we’re the vicious hate-filled, snide ones.

[Paradox]

Are you just trying to troll? Making fun of someone's religious beliefs is not cool. And calling Christianity 'the supernatural theory that the magical Hebrew God created the Universe 5,000 years ago' is definitely not conservative.

I think that characterization is accurate. I dont think anyone should take offense to it, unless one is hypersensitive about such things. Also, not all Conservatives are religious.

[xcamel]

Folowing their same logic, I guess all the truly evil things done by “The Relegion Of Peace” are perfectly justified.

[RFEngineer]

“Yes and how curious some posters get their feelings hurt when creationists fight back.”

Unfortunately for you, you cannot fight back with scientific research and rigor - you are left with hysterics, extrapolation and exaggeration.

Most folks who believe in evolution can happily co-exist with creationists that are creationists as a matter of faith. It’s when creationists pretend to engage in scientific research, like the subject author of this thread, that things degrade.

[mgstarr]

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/a_dump_on_aig%27s_tas_walker.htm

[tpanther]

NO-sir-project-alot.

A review of the facts illustrates you’re in desperate need of the services of a cult deprogrammer.

Everytime GGG posts the scientific rebuttals you and your ilk have nothing to offer but helpless insults, hysterics, extrapolation and exaggerations.

That’s there for all to see.

[LeGrande]

Wouldn't the material have started decaying as it was formed? Unless it all formed at once, there would be no accurate way to determine the age, as some of the parent material would already have been decaying as other of the material would be forming.

Yes, but your reasoning is backwards.

The radioactive material (all heavy matter in fact) came from a supernova at which point it started decaying.

The question you should be asking is what does that date, except for the supernova?

[Filo]

And are these posts of yours an example of the intellectual scientific debate that evos bemoan is lacking on FR?

What possible use would producing real science be in this context. The 'thumpers aren't capable of understanding or accepting it. It's more than well enough documented in millions of pages of scientific study, research and whatnot. Posting snippets of it here to refute utter nonsense is pointless.

Poking fun at those who can't comprehend it? That's priceless.