Think about it:
they select the dating methods according to the rock layers they want to date! Then the dating methods provide dates which fit their preconceived opinions about how old the rock layers should be. If you don’t see the bias involved here, you need a lighter to see the sun.
So let’s take this one to its logical conclusion.
- If I want to measure the width of a human hair, I use an electron microscope.
- If I want to measure the width of a sheet of metal a few millimetres wide, I use a micrometer.
- If I want to measure the size of my living room, I use a tape measure.
- If I want to measure the distance from London to Aberdeen, I use the odometer in my car. Or a GPS device.
By your logic, the fact that I’m not using an electron microscope to measure the distance from London to Aberdeen means that the distance of 545 miles rather than 5.45 millimetres is a “preconceived opinion.”
Of course you select the dating method based on the approximate ball park region! The fact that they get a result at all demonstrates that they were using the correct method. If the method didn’t match the age, they wouldn’t get a result at all. They don’t do so to fudge the age, but to narrow it down.
I’m sorry, but that is simply how measurement works in every area of science. There is nothing “preconceived” about it whatsoever.
6 Likes
The point is that…
-
…distances are directly measurable! You only use different resolutions!
-
…distances don’t change over time!
Not necessarily so with decay rates! -
Radiometric dating doesn’t measure something static as a distance!
-
It measures decay rates - not time. It is an >assumption< that these rates correlate with time.
-
It is an >assumption< that no daughter material was in the stones when they formed.
-
It is an >assumption< that daughter material losslessly accumulated in the measured material.
All these assumptions have been disproven!:
- Freshly formed lava of volcanoes contains daughter elements.
- Water takes daughter elements in and out of lime stone (which would be done on grand scale by a global flood) and
- the mother-to-daughter-element ratio is subject to heat and uv-light hitting the atmosphere (which would be isolated out by steam clouds formed by vaporized flood waters, hence a lower decay rate).
The whole thing is not a constant process!
Your analogy would be acceptable, if distances between things would change, but not if they are static!
Radiometric dating is not an accurate measurement method for time! No matter how you try to twist it!
No, Henry, decay rates do NOT change over time. We’ve already explained why to you. Accelerated nuclear decay – especially accelerated nuclear decay by six orders of magnitude – is science fiction.
No is is NOT an assumption. It is a conclusion that is determined through multiple independent lines of evidence.
No it is NOT an assumption. In the case of zircons for starters, it is a direct consequence of their physical and chemical properties. In these cases, daughter product would not physically fit into their crystalline structures.
In any case, there are other forms of radiometric dating that do not make any assumptions whatsoever about the original amount of daughter material. Read up about isochron dating for starters.
I think you’ll find that modern radiometric methods do actually take these things into account.
I’m sorry, but you are trying to debunk an inaccurate and garbled caricature of radiometric dating that does not describe what real geochronologists actually do.
5 Likes
No problem. You are allowed to believe so.
https://www.google.com/search?q=flaws+radiometric+dating&oq=flaws+radiometric+dating&aqs=chrome..69i57.8805j0j4&client=ms-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
You trust your sources, I trust mine.
No one argues that. I have a rock on my desk that is about 400 million years old (fossilized coral from an ancient tropical reef in Michigan) My desk was here before the rock sitting on it, since it would otherwise not be sitting there, but my desk is not 400 million years old. The granite building down the street is not as old as the granite. However , if you have a igneous intrusion into a sedimentary rock, you can be certain the igneous rock is younger than the sedimentary and the igneous can be dated with relative accuracy, sedimentary rock, not so much.
3 Likes
No, Sir, you haven’t! You have a rock on your desk that’s producing a certain number of clicks on your Geiger counter! You assume the clicks to correllate with millions of years! That’s what you have.
Again, radiometric dating is based on assumptions that Noah’s flood would mess up!
No. It. Is. Not.
The video you have posted does not accurately describe how radiometric dating works in reality in 2020. It does not account for modern techniques such as isochron dating; it does not account for the extensive cross-checks that are routinely made between different methods; it does not account for the fact that accelerated nuclear decay would have vaporised the Earth if it had any basis in reality; and it does not account for the physical and chemical properties of minerals such as zircons, which allow us to be absolutely certain that they did not contain any daughter isotope when they first formed. It brings nothing new to the table, but only repeats young-earth talking points that have been thoroughly refuted multiple times already in this thread.
That’s the problem with young-earth rhetoric. You guys think that you can just hand-wave away any and every scientific finding that you don’t like by labelling it an “assumption” or an “interpretation” or some other magic shibboleth like that. I’m sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. You can’t dismiss things as “just an assumption” without examining the theoretical and experimental basis behind them, and you can’t just present any old alternative interpretation if your alternative does not follow the basic rules and principles of honest and accurate measurement and mathematics.
1 Like
Duh! I didn’t expect you to rethink radiometric dating as it is the only way you can back up your world-view dependent presupposition of deeptime you need for your dumb theory to stay afloat. So be it. I don’t care what you >BELIEVE IN<.
This is nothing to do with “dumb theories” or “worldview dependent presuppositions” or “what you >BELIEVE IN<”. This is about getting your facts straight. Nothing more, nothing less.
4 Likes
A word from The Wise One, “The Lord opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” Would you say you interactions since you joined this forum were marked by the former or the later?
2 Likes
Darwin based his idea on Lyell’s geologic principle that involved deep time - LONG BEFORE radiometric dating was even invented! It’s been an unscientific worldview-dependant proposition then and it still is too this day! You think that radiometric dating is providing a “straight scientific” evidence you just had to follow? Pull the steel beam out of your eyes!
Let me guess: you would believe in deep time even if radiometric dating didn’t exist - exactly like Darwin did. Why? Because time is the only way to prevent the theory you >believe< in from collapsing - which you couldn’t buy any means afford due to your ideological commitment to Darwinism. You’re demonstrably biased pro evolution! Denying that would only support my point. Learn living with it.
Actually, the dating doesn’t work like that with fossils.
2 Likes
Tell that to the Lion of Judah when he comes back and rules by a stiff rod, brother!
Arrogance is mostly perceived by those about others who wrongly believe that they are right.
Fossils are dated by the rocks, rocks are dated by index fossils. The radiometric dating methods are selected in accordance with the rock layers the fossils have been found in - no wonder they confirm the respective ages. That’s how they do it.
You realise that you just implied that Jesus is proud? The Lord of Heaven and Earth is the most humble being in the universe since he is incapable of thinking more highly of himself than he ought. As Christians we are called to imitate him by doing likewise.
Physician heal thyself!
1 Like
If you find me to be proud just because I stand by my guns, it tells more about yourself than me, I suppose. I honor the God who inspired the Bible and the points I’ve made are scientifically evidenced and consistent with the Bible. You guys are the proud ones here, as you support the distortion of biblical truth by squishing man’s “knowledge” into the genesis account - which God didn’t authorize! Don’t tell me I’m arrogant by pointing you guys to the obvious!
Take notes:
I’m on biblical ground - you’re the ones who are clearly not!
I honor biblical truth. Jesus said that he is the way, the truth and the life. So by honoring the truth - I honor Jesus! What about you guys? Just sayin’.
God help us all–another professional smiter!
2peter3 
“Let me guess: you would believe in deep time even if radiometric dating didn’t exist…”
No doubt, as multiple independent observations show the age of the earth and the universe is ancient. All radiometric dating does is quantify it accurately in appropriate cases. It was known to be ancient long before Darwin, and accepted to be ancient by many who do not accept evolution.
It is not consistent with the YEC interpretation of Genesis but it is consistent with other interpretations independent of evolutionary theory, and it is consistent with creation showing the glory of God as stated in scripture without deception or false representation.
4 Likes