^^^ No, the list is based in a fundamental understanding of how radiometric dating works and is the reason why none of the dating methods can be proven to be accurate.
Printable View
^^^ No, the list is based in a fundamental understanding of how radiometric dating works and is the reason why none of the dating methods can be proven to be accurate.
Thanks Scott. We may not all agree on everything but I appreciate the support.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Yockel
Thanks Lois i can always count on you for support:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Louis Ho
"Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth’s history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts."
—National Academy of Sciences, Science, Evolution, and Creationism (2008)
Also, there is some good stuff from Dr. Robert C. Wiens about common misconceptions from within certain portions of the religious community as to the validity of various dating methods. A good article can be found here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page%2020
I don't think you'll find arguments against the validity of dating methods in any peer-reviewed journals or publications. You think religion is critical of established science, -have you ever met (science field) doctoral students? If there were flaws within the system there would be 1,000's of young scientists eager to make names for themselves by exposing them and tearing them apart... But there is almost 0.00 dissention within the scientific community itself.
Or else it means that young students are being indoctrinated. And there are scientists that say radiometric dating is unreliable because of the assumptions surrounding it and the impossibility or knowing the beginning state. These are not my original thoughts, I'm not that brilliant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Hirt
Are you making that claim right now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
Pop quiz Jason. What do we actually date when we date a granite?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
Your points above are not founded on a deep understanding of radiometric dating. All of the things you have stated as causing huge differences actually cause very small differences. Others are totally made up.
Its not Scientists who are indoctrinated. Thats ridiculous. Why would anyone bother?
You didnt read my post. Radiometric dating correlates well with other forms of dating. It is not proven because as we have already established, nothing is. It is however now beyond reasonable doubt.
Im not going into the finer details. I suggest you read something other than church propaganda if you want to understand it.
Pop quiz Jason. What do we actually date when we date a granite?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
Your points above are not founded on a deep understanding of radiometric dating. All of the things you have stated as causing huge differences actually cause very small differences. Others are totally made up.
Its not Scientists who are indoctrinated. Thats ridiculous. Why would anyone bother?
You didnt read my post. Radiometric dating correlates well with other forms of dating. It is not proven because as we have already established, nothing is. It is however now beyond reasonable doubt.
Im not going into the finer details. I suggest you read something other than church propaganda if you want to understand it.
From what I understand radiometric dating tries to measure the natural decay of radioisotopes which are unstable. They decay, emitting radiation until they reach a stable state. In the case of Uranium-238 it goes through transitional stages before becoming Lead-206. By measuring how long it takes for an unstable element to decay into a stable one and by measuring how much daughter element is produced by the parent element within a rock, scientists believe they are able to determine the age of a rock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Elliott
As I said in a previous post there are fundamental problems with this idea. First, no one knows how much Uranium was in a rock to begin with or if there was any daughter element present when the rock formed and if the daughter element was present how much. Without this information you cannot determine the age of a rock based on the half like of Uranium. Also, the planet Earth is not a closed system which means we don't know whether contamination of either the parent or daughter element has taken place. This again makes it impossible to date a rock with Uranium-Lead dating.
I did read your post Tim but may have misunderstood what you meant when you said radiometric dating correlates well with other forms of dating. What other forms of dating are you referring to ?
You're right. Normally I wouldn't have said anything, only everything in the OP was just so inconsistent with reality I felt compelled to comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan Cook
It was actually just more me rambling out loud to myself about how I can't believe these kinds of beliefs and outdated ideas still exist with the amount of information available to people.