I just did a search using the keywords “radiometric dating inaccurate”…

This is one of many things that comes up… [inaccurate tosh deleted]”

Irrelevant, Mike. There is no indication that the author has the slightest idea of what (s)he is talking about.

Never mind other people’s opinions, Mike. Share some data!

You are the one who seeks to gainsay the scientific consensus (i.e. a consensus of experts). It is up to you to provide some evidence. Not second-hand anecdotes, but actual verifiable data that supports your assertions.

For example, you claimed that a live snail had been dated as 15,000 years old. Where is the reference for this? Who did the work, when, where, and where was it published? Was the work a valid example of radiometric dating, or was it intended only to make the point that one needs to understand the limitations of the technique to apply it with any rigour?

Mike J again:
“We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present.”

You have no understanding of the “normal processes of science”. Many forms of science use data available in the present to inform us about events in the past.

Taking it to an extreme, every single experiment uses data in the present to provide information about the past (i.e. data are always analysed after the experiment was carried out). Unless you are suggesting that scientists routinely time travel?

Mike J:
” A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past.”

One does not need to do experiments to make observations. Or do you not believe that the Earth orbits the Sun?

Mike J:
” Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely accurately. However, the “age” is calculated using assumptions about the past that cannot be proven.”

This is a lie. Those ages are not calculated using assumptions, they are calculated using proven methods, and purely logical inferences from what has been demonstrated. Radiometric dates have been independently confirmed (for instance, by comparison of carbon-14 dating with results from dendrochronology). Furthermore, different radiometric dating methods (i.e. entirely different techniques with no more in common than the use of radioactive decay series) have been used and corroborate each other’s dates. If different methods disagree, the geologist will be very sceptical of the result.

Finally, the isochron dating technique (which, IIUC, is the preferred method in modern geology) contains an internal measure of the quality of the data. Did you follow that link I provided earlier?

Again interesting stuff, could you please quote your source. Still not the article I was looking for though is it? I agree with Buzz on this one and I will leave it at that.

Since you have not given any links to the original material that you are quoting from I can’t really comment. Looks like you are pulling material from a YEC website. I guess reality is conspiring against your world view.

[[Mike, you are an idiot. There is no other way to describe it.]]

Buzz, although I can understand your frustration, be careful about this stuff — the BA nearly threw me off the blog because I used a nearly identical phrase.

I definitely have the tendency to get nasty with posters who annoy me, but the return posts I make are almost always better when I wait a minute before clicking Send, read through them again, and eliminate the nasty stuff. Just this morning some global warming denier was telling me that John Daly was right that his cherry-picked stations showing cooling proved global warming was a farce. I wrote “I’m beginning to think you’re not only flat-out wrong, but stupid as well.” Then I thought about it and took that out, just writing something about how Daly’s methods would have gotten him an F in any introductory data analysis class. It was a better post after I did that.

I like your posts a lot and don’t want to see you in trouble with the BA. Forgive me if this went on too long. Like Mike J., I have a tendency to run off at the mouth.

Unless the australopithicus fossil was actually embedded in the basalt (and how could that physically happen, since the melting point of basalt is much higher than the ignition point of bone?) the fossil was found in a mix of basaltic gravel and sand, probably mixed with many other rock fragments of a wide variety of ages. The ages of those rocks and fragments have nothing to do with the age of the fossil nor necessarily with each other. The atomic clocks don’t get reset just because the original magma deposit has eroded into sand or gravel. It has to *MELT* to reset the clock. Sheesh!

I just did a search using the keywords “radiometric dating inaccurate”…

This is one of many things that comes up…

————
When a “date” differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain “bad” dates.[9]

For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.[10] Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was “too old,” according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today.

A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470.[11] This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which, according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans “weren’t around then”). Various other attempts were made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was settled upon because of the agreement between several different published studies (although the studies involved selection of “good” from “bad” results, just like Australopithecus ramidus, above).

However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope with a skull like 1470 being “that old.” A study of pig fossils in Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull was much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Ma—again several studies “confirmed” this date. Such is the dating game.

Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the data to get what they want? No, not generally. It is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is so strongly entrenched it is not questioned—it is a “fact.” So every observation must fit this paradigm. Unconsciously, the researchers, who are supposedly “objective scientists” in the eyes of the public, select the observations to fit the basic belief system.

We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present. A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely accurately. However, the “age” is calculated using assumptions about the past that cannot be proven.

I was curious as to some of the claims that you have made regarding the inaccuracies in radiometric dating. I have indeed done a Google search on the “15000 year old live sail” as you suggested and have turned up not a single article. Also please explain how the geologic column has anything to do with dating astronomical objects? Do you also dispense with the Theory of Relativity as well? From what I have read of your diatribe you seem to be a deluded individual of the highest magnitude, I would like for you to list your credentials in your next post so that we may all benefit by not sending any of our progeny anywhere within cooee of the place that obviously handed them to you on a platter.
It’s a simple case of put up or shut up.

No, Mike, I say you are ignorant of the basics of science because your comments prove it.

You gainsay mainstream science, yet make no attempt to support your assertions. You accuse gelogists of participating in some kind of conspiracy, but you have no evidence to back that up, apart from a few incredible anecdotes. Go away until you have some substance to support your claims, or stop making those claims.

Quite simply, Mike, I do not believe you.

You have not shown any knowledge of one of the most basic principles of science – that you must support your assertions with evidence. If you do not have the evidence, then your claim is no more than speculation.

If you truly have a masters in abiotic chemistry, I dread to think what sort of two-bit diploma-mill that came from.

All that aside, of course you have the right to question science. As do we all. However, you do not have the right to insult the experts by dismissing their opinions out of hand. You do not have the right to make stuff up about entire fields of science.

And you most certainly do not have the right to expect me to swallow your assertions without backing them up with hard data.

its like a christian quoting the bible to an atheist to back up their claims about creation.. It doesn’t really work too well.”

Er, actually, Mike, it’s http://www.talkorigins.org

And, unlike the Bible, many of the essays on Talk Origins contain references to the primary scientific literature, so readers can actually check out the original science for themselves. Even those articles that do not reference the literature have bibliographies, and they almost all reference the source of the information they cite.

Whereas you, by contrast, have yet to cite a single primary source to support your assertions.

you’ll be SHOCKED to find out that the ONLY METHOD used to date rocks and fossils…. is ROCKS AND FOSSILS… hahah rotflmao

yep… dating the rocks by the INDEX FOSSILS.. and then turning right around and dating the FOSSILS by what layer of rock they are found in.

The layer, of course, has its age determined by the FALSE and FICTIONAL geologic column… which in turn was made up using INDEX FOSSILS too.”

Hey, Mike. Not only is your comment all a bunch of lies (seriously, anyone with an interest in learning about radioisotope dating, there are some very good essays on Talk Origins, some with references to the primary scientific literature), but it is also starting to get boring.

I’ll tell you what, Mike. You provide a reference to an authenticated instance where a human artifact really has been discovered in a piece of coal, and I’ll go read about it. If you want to pay for my transatlantic flight, I’ll even go visit it.

“As for me taking a “geology course”… that was my minor in college before I received my masters in abiotic chemistry.”

So you are saying what they have been teaching in 1,000′s of colleges across the country is wrong?

“Take it from me… I took geology for 4 years in college, all geologists know and admit this… they “say” its compiled from here and there, from different places around the world—”

So, you’ve met and talked to “all geologists” and know what they say?

“As for me “lying” or not knowing how science works… I am a science professional… having received my bachelor in tectonic geology, and my masters in abiotic chemistry,”

And with your minor in Geology, and your Bachelor on Tectonic Geology, how much research have you actually performed in the field, gathering evidence that the Geologic Column is completely wrong, or how much evidence have you gathered that proves there was a global flood? How much work have you done as a professional to verify your hypothesis? What journals have published your research?

See where I’m going here? The internet is not exactly a reputable source for research. I could just as easily go and find 100 websites that say the the Geologic Column DOES exist and is indeed valid. I could also go and find websites that say that Donald Duck is the greatest scientific mind of all time. There’s even a website that insists that the earth is flat.

So again, show us your own evidence for your claims, if you actually have any.

I’m not here, nor do I have the time this morning, to do your work for you…

dude, it’s simple really… go to a search engine… and go back up to what I wrote… cut and paste, and look it up for yourself. Draw your own conclusion.

As for reading lyells works, I’ve read #1 though vol 4.

As for me “lying” or not knowing how science works… I am a science professional… having received my bachelor in tectonic geology, and my masters in abiotic chemistry, i think i’ve earned the right to raise question… and to be given the benefit of the doubt that I know the freakin’ “process”.

Bascially, the vague generalities thrown around by people in forums that accuse a person of “not knowing science” because they say a specific THEORY/IDEA is wrong then, forces one to raise the question that maybe the people in here don’t really know what science is, and are instead promoting/pushing an agenda either knowingly, or unknowingly.

Are you people really that lazy that you can’t go to google and look up what is being said about Lyell?

I understand your dilemma of course, if the column was destroyed — it’s like taking out the cornerstone on a building.. it all comes crashing down.. I understand that scares you… but sometimes reality can be a bit harsh.

Lets start with radioisotope dating…[irrelevant nonsense removed - Oh, that seems to be everything]”

Mike, it matters not how many BLOCK CAPS you use.

What matters is evidence.

You can make up stories about radioisotope dating until the cows come home, but that won’t make them true.

All I can say to you is: prove it.

You claim that radioisotope dating found a 15,000-yo live snail, but how about you back that up with a reference to the actual scientific report? Otherwise, it is no more convincing than a shaggy-dog story told by that well-known authority, A Bloke in the Pub.

you people need another site besides http://www.talkorigins.com …

its like a christian quoting the bible to an atheist to back up their claims about creation.. It doesn’t really work too well.

And talkorigins is so riddled with errors, and inaccuracies it actually is a fun read sometimes.

But since I have taken the time, as an ex-evolution believer, to read most of talkorigins material… literally have spent accumulated weeks on that site from all the times it has been thrown at me as “an answer” by the cronies…

I give you a site to read… maybe you people will actually do some real science here… that is … read the legit questions people have with your “theories”… do the google on it and find out the truth about how shaky your so-called facts are…

I’ll prepare you for the shocker…

Your facts are about as good as Richard Hoaglands are… moon base anyone … hahah rotf just cant stop

http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp

“I didn’t know that Lyle had isotope dating back in the 1800 when he LITERALLY MADE UP the geologic column…”

He didn’t just “make it up”. It was a conclusion drawn from years of study of a large body of evidence.

And even though radiometric dating was not available to Lyell, he could determine the relative dates of various strata (i.e. which layers were older or younger than which other layers). The rock strata were identified by the charcteristic collections of fossils they contained. And thus arose the geologic eras – Permian, Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Triassic, Jurassic, Creaceous etc.

Mike J again:
“And you can’t actually date the rocks using isotopes… or radiometric dating..”

That is just a lie.

Radioactive decay is a well-understood phenomenon, that allows accurate determination of the age of a sample, provided its limitations are understood and accounted for. Guess what? Modern geologists undertsand the limitations and account for them in their measurements. Go and look up isochron dating on Wikipedia.

Mike J:
“I guess you never heard of the LIVE snail that was dated at 15,000 years old… ”

Reference, please? I’ll believe you after I’ve read the scientific report.

Mike J:
“the mammoths side by side dated as thousands of years apart… ”

Again, reference, please.

Mike J:
“the ‘range’ of dates that are given by the “computer program” written based upon the FALSE geologic column…”

What? What are you on about now? This remark is meaningless.

Mike J:
“They then “pick” the date based upon what layer of rock you told them you found it it… the older dates and younger dates are then thrown out.. how’s that for “factual” science…”

Actually, it sounds like something someone made up. Can you provide a reference to this methodology in use by actual geologists? If not, then we are free to doubt its authenticity. Perhaps you should, too.

Mike J:
“The only way people date the rocks is by the INDEX FOSSIL found in them… ”

Another lie.

Mike J:
“In otherwords.. you date the fossils by what rocks they are found in, and then turn right back around and date the rocks by what FOSSILS are found in them..”

Before radioisotope dating was available, the fossils identified the strata, and the sequence of strata provided a relative date for the fossils. However, radiometric dating allows accurate determination of dates for strata. The use of several different sequences of parent / daughter isotopes for the same rocks allows for independent measures to be compared. If they are vastly different, geologists do not trust the resultant dates. If they agree well, that gives us confidence in the dates. Additionally, the isochron method actually contains an internal measure of the quality of the data.

Mike J:
“That’s the ONLY way you determine dates of rocks… radiometric and isotope dating a myths that atheists tell themselved to justify their belief in the unseen/untested/unproved hypothesis of evolution.”

More lies.

Mike J:
“This is the way Charles Lyell explains how its done in his famous book “Principals of geology”… he invented the column so we better listen to him on how it’s used.”

I have not read Lyell’s book, but I’m prepared to bet that you have not either. Perhaps you should learn some geology before you diss the 200 or so years of work that underlie modern geology.

Or do you prefer your own fantasy world to the real one that is measured and studied by science?

Lets start with radioisotope dating…

Most of you may not know, since phil and these other commenters won’t/don’t tell you… that radio-isotope dating spits out ALL SORTS of dates… sometimes over a hundred different dates are generated..

When you go to “the lab” to have your sample, rock, bone, tree or other inanimate object dated, they ask you WHERE you found it as part of the “little questionnaire” you fill out …

They even ask (if it was buried) what layer of rock you found it in…

This then helps a “winnowing” process where they literally toss out the “too old” and “too young” dates… all based upon the NON-EXISTENT geologic column.

Which brings me to the other person who said that the “geologic column exists in about 3 places around the world” … HAHA WTH? Where did they get that magic number?

I’d like to ask that person to tell me where those spots are, because I will pay for myself (and them) to fly there and inspect it… fact is… the column ONLY exists in the textbook… it doesn’t exist anywhere in the real world…

Take it from me… I took geology for 4 years in college, all geologists know and admit this… they “say” its compiled from here and there, from different places around the world—

And, since the date ranges originally set in stone by Lyell in the 1800′s is the same dating range that is used today, one must ask how Lyell could have known the order of strata…

How did Lyell ‘decode’ the strata.. .oh yeah… thats right.. he used/and they still use today… index fossils..

If you go to the denver science museum (or in any major city) go to the geology section.. they’ll usually have one display that talks about index fossils and how they’re used in dating… then USUALLY IN THE SAME ROOM there is another display talking about the Geologic Column and how the layers of rocks are used to figure out how old the fossils are… hahahah!!

Again, get it through your skulls … radiometric dating has shown LIVE snails to be 15,000 years old… side by side fossils shown to be 100,000 years apart… human made objects INSIDE lumps of coal on display for you to inspect yourself at museums across the country…

As for the stupid, almost retarded mantra that the cronies here (and elsewhere) use … that people who disgree with their IDEAS somehow don’t “understand science” or don’t “understand theory”… get a brain, and some intellect— just do the freakin’ google on what I’m saying, and take the time to question what you’ve been taught. I would say that YOU people don’t understand what science is, and clearly don’t understand “theories” since you daily elevate your own to facts… and then claim they are facts because they are “commonly accepted” by other likeminded people who WANT to believe in things like the UNSEEN UNTESTED primordeal soup, or the UNSEEN UNTESTED geologic column.

These things are MADE UP, people! If you believe the bible is “made up fiction” —- my god, you’re going to be shocked if you ever get off your fannies and look up the history of Charles Lyell, and find out literally everything based upon the geologic column is wrong…

unfortunately, almost every branch of science now depends on the dating system derived from this ficticious work of an 1800′s madman.

[[In otherwords.. you date the fossils by what rocks they are found in, and then turn right back around and date the rocks by what FOSSILS are found in them..]]

No, you have that wrong. Index fossils can only give you which stratum you’re in, not its age. The geologic column only tells relative ages in the first place. It tells you that precambrian is older than cambrian, but it doesn’t provide a date for either.

[[That’s the ONLY way you determine dates of rocks… radiometric and isotope dating a myths that atheists tell themselved to justify their belief in the unseen/untested/unproved hypothesis of evolution.]]

Radiometric dating is based on nuclear physics, which is as well established a theory as exists anywhere in science. Atom bombs do work, and so do nuclear power plants, and the sun. Therefore radioactive decay dating works as well. [Sings:] Can’t have one without the… other!

I suggest you do the legwork yourself..”

No, Mike, I don’t have to prove anything. The only claim I made is that there are Thousands of books related to Geology. I will add to that there are thousands more thesis, dissertations and papers written by thousands of students and scientists that say the evidence contradicts everything you said.

You are the one who makes the claim that you are right, and everyone else is wrong. YOU are the one who must provide evidence of your claim, otherwise, nobody will believe anything you say.

Notice I am not saying that you or your beliefs are wrong. I’m saying that the evidence does not support what you claim.

By the way, the greatest thing about using science to find the truth is that if I don’t believe what someone says, I can test it myself.

[[So really, when I look at flatirons, I see a fraudulent GEOLOGIC COLUMN]]

You know, don’t you, that the geologic column was discovered and described by scientists who were creationists, when creationism was still a viable scientific theory? It predates Darwin by about a hundred years.

You said “oh, phil, I must ask.. how is it that “they” (you) know that the Flatirons are 300 million years old..”

The answer is radioisotope dating, about which several essays written for laypeople may be found here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

You went on to say “Its a rhetorical question really, since I know that date is based upon the totally FALSE, and completely made up GEOLOGIC COLUMN.”

No. The geological column is three things. First, it is a tool to aid understanding. Second, it is a tool to aid teaching. Third, it is a real sequence of strata that exists in two or three places around the world. If you had bothered to find out any actual information about it, you would know this.

Mike J also said:
“…

I say that the geologic column dating system is a broken down piece of you know what.. and that the the rock we see at flatirons was uplifted and “turned” at a 45 degree angle by the global flood which happened approx. 4000 years ago. ”

Except that there has never been a global flood. Such a thing would leave evidence that is consistent all over the world, and there is no evidence of such an event. Plus, all of the mechanisms proposed by YECs to explain where the water came from and where the water went ignore the simple energetics of the situation.

Mike J also blathered:
“The 4,000 year approximation explains the very small layer of dirt/sand sediment which is on TOP of the flatirons rock that we see today… ”

But it cannot explain the miles of sediment depth that are found in other parts of the world. Sediment where each layer has taken decades or centuries to be deposited, and where the sediment contains many thousands of layers.

Mike J:
“if they were 300 million years old, they’d be covered, weathered to the point of nothing…”

Well, they were uplifted 300 milion years ago, and all of what was once on top of them has been weathered to nothing. Give them another 50,000 years, and they too will; be gone.

Mike J:
“If you want to claim that there were rocks on TOP of the flatirons that were weathered away… surely you couldn’t claim wind erosion somehow blew away billions of tons of rock, and left no sand or desert to the east over CO and KS…. ”

Irrelevant. The sediment went farther afield. Obviously, you cannot envision what a long time 300 million years is. And, it could have been water erosion in part (parts of North America were seabed hundreds of millions of years ago).

Mike J:
“The only thing that could “expose” and turn the flatirons “plates” could be water… and surely no sane geology buff would claim that “plate tectonics” somehow performed an unnatural miracle which defies the laws of space time… ”

You’re wrong again.

Mike J:
“So really, when I look at flatirons, I see a fraudulent GEOLOGIC COLUMN, and hope that someone else out there also has a critical eye towards seeing through all the made up atheistic science belief systems.. such as the fable of Billions of years added to every part of your unseen, untested “theories” (that in your own circles are elevated to fact)”

There is so much wrong here, Mike.

First, you seem to have no understanding of what the geologic column actually is, as described by the geologists.

Second, accusing scientists of fraud is not going to make the facts change to suit your preconceptions.

Third, science is not intrinsically atheistic (this is a common lie propagated by creationists, who try to polarise the debate into science OR religion). In fact, many scientists are people of faith (including Christians).

Fourth, your claim that the theories of modern science are untested is a lie. If you bothered to educate yourself about what science actually is and how it actually operates, you would know better. If you cannot be bothered to become informed yourself, then you should at least have the decency to acknowledge the hard-won expertise of the experts.

Mike J:
“if you think about it, evolution, the geologic column, primordeal soup, big bang from !?nothing?!…. ”

Further illustration that you have no understanding of the science you are dissing.

Mike J:
“sounds even MORE crazy than Scientology with their aliens, thetan energy, and big bang from nothing beliefs… which they also claim is fact based upon “accepted” peer reviewed “theories”.”

But, if you had bothered to find out you would know that science is all published and in the public domain. You can go to a university library and read it for yourself. Of course, you may need to undertake a degree-level course to be able to understand the scientific literature, but surely that’s a small price to pay to be able to find out for yourself what all the fuss is about, hmm?

Hey, no we don’t. It’s the USAians that get it the wrong way around.

Consider which is the more logical sequence of time measures – day / month / year or month / day / year?

Or, if one uses international standard date format, we both get it wrong, because the most logical way is to record time using: year / month / day / hour / minute / second.

Besides, 3.14 is a pretty scrappy approximation of pi! Even 22/7 is closer!