radiometric dating

Yehren · Post by **Yehren** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 1:04 pm

The most important thing to scientists is that the method works when tested.

As you see, it does. The ultimate test is to see if it works on a known date. And it did.

And yes, there are many possible ways to mess up an analysis. This is why only experienced people should do them.

In spite of all these potential problems, Argon/Argon actually worked on a known event.

Creationists are reduced to "Who are you going to believe, me or the evidence?"

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 1:20 pm

Jbuza wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Jbuza wrote:IT appears that all coal still contains 14c. SO it doesn't appear to be a contamination issue, but a problem with the geological time scale
Lets ignore C-14 for the time being seeing as you have already made up your mind using your favorite sources to reinforce those beleifs.

Can we move on with the topic at hand?
I understand, it is not suprising evolution has been ignoring the problem of 14c in coal and diamonds, so there is no reason for you not to do the same.

The problem here lies in that we are using different explanations for the same phenomenon.

Therefore it would be more prudent to move on to somethin else where we can focus on the actual data and observations and get away from explanations based on data.
For instance the element in question from the original post.

Jbuza · Post by **Jbuza** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 1:22 pm

Yehren · Post by **Yehren** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 1:25 pm

Astonishing then, that the one time we test it on a known date, it worked.

You're trying to tell us the sky isn't blue. Not a very good start.

numeral2_5 · Post by **numeral2_5** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 1:27 pm

Yehren wrote:Astonishing then, that the one time we test it on a known date, it worked.

You're trying to tell us the sky isn't blue. Not a very good start.

O, Jbuza got served!

Jbuza · Post by **Jbuza** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 1:28 pm

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 1:28 pm

Jbuza wrote:The dating techniques are based upon assumptions that are impossible to verify. Samples within a lava flow show different dates. Radiometric "dates" are not evidence, they are interpretations based on measurements and unproven assumptions. IT is nothing.

We're not dating anything, if Earth is as young as you presume why are these elements not found naturally in the Earth.

Note emphasis on found naturally in the Earth.

numeral2_5 · Post by **numeral2_5** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 1:30 pm

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Jbuza wrote:The dating techniques are based upon assumptions that are impossible to verify. Samples within a lava flow show different dates. Radiometric "dates" are not evidence, they are interpretations based on measurements and unproven assumptions. IT is nothing.
We're not dating anything, if Earth is as young as you presume why are these elements not found naturally in the Earth.

Note emphasis on found naturally in the Earth.

O, Jbuza got served again.

Jbuza · Post by **Jbuza** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 1:32 pm

Jbuza · Post by **Jbuza** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 1:33 pm

numeral2_5 · Post by **numeral2_5** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 1:33 pm

It wouldn't appear old.

Jbuza · Post by **Jbuza** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 1:34 pm