How accurate is radiometric dating?

@edgarblythe,

That is no different than Creationism. Faith in a creator God has been passed on through the ages, including the medical establishment, and the value of faith is even recognized today

You think your superstition is superior to other superstitions... but it really isn't. It is not that different.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Silver is based on fact and results. The true religious delusion here is your belief you even have a clue what you are saying.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Silver is based on fact and results. The true religious delusion here is your belief you even have a clue what you are saying.

That is exactly what creationists say about Creationism.

The scientific establishment, which you seem to disdain, says that human evolved from earlier species over a period of millions of years. The same scientific establishment says that not only is there no dietary or medicinal benefits to ingesting silver, it also presents health risks.

You are rejecting established science. That is your right. But, is is hypocritical for you to criticize Creationists for doing the same thing you are doing.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I haven't disdained the true scientists, just an establishment that usurps public knowledge of what's real. Pure scientists, who are not bought off to pursue fake results have no worries from such as me. You apparently can't tell the difference.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

I get it Edgar. Your true scientists tell you what you want to hear. The Creationists have their own true scientists to tell them what they want to hear. You both have your reasons for rejecting established science.

My point is that you are in no position to criticize Creationists for doing what you do yourself. If you stop, then I think we are done here.

The hypocrisy is the issue.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

If only you could see yourself for what you are. Just as bigoted as any creationist. In fact, the creationists on a2k appear a bit more honest in their arguments. You construct these bogus scenarios, which you then ascribe to me, so removed from reality, I worry for your sanity.

0 Replies

I apologize for helping the thread go off track. On the other hand, the original question was answered satisfactorily before Max and I clashed, so no harm no foul.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Apology accepted Edgar.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Not you, Bozo.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Who shot john is less important than knowing that john was, indeed, shot

Yes, but whether John was killed by the shot is still unconfirmed. Maybe there's another reason why he died. Just because there was some shellac (only according to one person's claim) on the specimen does not assure us that there was no C14 coming from the bone matrix intrinsically. Ascertaining that takes much more than just saying the bones were covered in shellac.

Quote:

thats circular and fraudulent reasoning. If you suspect that those dinosaurs are less than 75 MY old why select a method that is known to all to be misaplied?

Circular reasoning is saying rocks date the fossils, and fossils date the rocks. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD031.html

Quote:

You know that you will get an answer that is within a limit of quantitation BUT, you also know that the value is suspect because of spurious carbon.

If spurious carbon is what turns 75M year old bones into 22K year old bones, then doesn't that make the practical limit of C14 dating just 22K years? Because anything older than that you assume must be due to spurious carbon. Really disputes the 60K C14 dating horizon.

http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/highslide/sample-images/c14_table1.jpg

2 Replies

@Blue Grass 6,

You and Farmerman keep going back and forth, I am not sure this is interesting to any of us. I am quite sure that Farmerman knows significantly more on the topic than you do (from study and from actual experience). That leads me to ask this question?

It is a fact that established science accepts evolution, and an earth that is billions of years old. The people who actually take the 10 or 12 years to learn the math, look at the evidence and do the field work almost all agree on the basic science. These are also the people curing diseases and mapping the human genome.

Why do you think that is?

1 Reply

@Blue Grass 6,

you posted the Talk Origins Archive but apparently dont understand what it says.
The circular reasoning of rocks date the =fossils and vice versa is BS. Rocks date the rocks an fossils date the fossils. We use stratigraphy to "correlate" not date. Correlation is the determining of geological equivalency from area to area where the same age formation occurs. When we date the rocks and fossils that consists of (at least) two separate and (hopefully supportive data) on the matrix and the fossil

Quote:

If spurious carbon is what turns 75M year old bones into 22K year old bones, then doesn't that make the practical limit of C14 dating just 22K years? Because anything older than that you assume must be due to spurious carbon. Really disputes the 60K C14 dating horizon

Youre just playing the fool here. We date things with C14 and get all kinds of valid dates with a +/- range. These dates are valid up to a limit of qgw quantitation. Just because theyve reported 22 K years for a Hadrosaur or a stegosaur lets us know that something is really fucked up with the method because there were people doing cave art and eating the fauna and no data or evidence exists of a fossil anything-o-saurus in the entire 300K year period since Homo sapiens appeared. One of out other Creationist types insists on a pice of rock-oglyph in the Great Lakes area of the US shows a stegosaurus but Indian folklore says otherwise.

Your chart that purports to be C14 dats for Cretaceous aged fossils has been debunked sufficiently in the scientific literature, The U of Ga was scammed by the "geoscience Consultants"< a creationist consulting group that supposedly collected and submitted the samples for analyses. U of Ga labs later admitted to how they were unknowing participants of such a scam and were not going to accept any further samples from the original submitters (The Creation SCience Group). It gave the lab a nosebleed . With all the QA rules and regs, they accepted an undocumented batch of samples that were either

1 The actual fossil that was doctored with carbon so even if cleaned according to protocol , some carbon C12/C13/C14 would remain. Now, my own C14 guy says that C14 is only accurate to at or below 25 K years because the chances of being in a statistical equilibrium at 50K years is dubious .

2 It wasnt a fossil at all, since collagen was reported, it was supposed to be from a "Soft tissue sample" of hadrosaur or trceratops or stagosaur, Im not sure what they reported in. IT could be that this was just a heated up chicken grizzle or some old bones from a Plesitocene cave.
U og Georgia owned up to the whole thing and reviewed their sample acceptance criteria and what information needed to accompany the sample (NO more SAMPLE CONTENTS --HUNKA DINOSAUR BONE) will be allowed and the OP who sent it in was spoken to and disallowed from further lab contracting.
Yep it was a bogus sample and the analysis was similarly bogus, but the lab should have known better.

Radiocarbon dating is not like heating up Ramen noodles in a microwave, you have to know what its all about, and if you do , but are trying to hoist a scam on folks, well, thatns not very Christian is it.

What would HE say???

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Please explain how knowledge of evolution has helped us in curing anything. What relevance does evolution have in medicine?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

We use stratigraphy to "correlate" not date. Correlation is the determining of geological equivalency from area to area where the same age formation occurs. When we date the rocks and fossils that consists of (at least) two separate and (hopefully supportive data) on the matrix and the fossil

In the Talk Origins article they claim the revising of the date of the rocks was instigated by the fossils present:
Work with animal fossils, particularly of pigs, showed that the strata in question matched younger strata in the nearby Omo Valley. In its early stages, this fossil work was imprecise enough that the 2.61 Myr date could still be justified (Maglio 1972). However, the fossils continued to point to a younger date as the quality of the work on them improved (White and Harris 1977).

Quote:

Just because theyve reported 22 K years for a Hadrosaur or a stegosaur lets us know that something is really fucked up with the method because there were people doing cave art and eating the fauna and no data or evidence exists of a fossil anything-o-saurus in the entire 300K year period since Homo sapiens appeared.

I'd say right here are several evidences of a fossil anything-o-saurus within the 300K year period you're talking about.

Quote:

One of out other Creationist types insists on a pice of rock-oglyph in the Great Lakes area of the US shows a stegosaurus but Indian folklore says otherwise.

And here's another one:

http://www.genesispark.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Figure-11-Stegosaurus-Goat-Horse.jpg

Carvings of a Stegasaurus from the Ta Prohm temple in Cambodia. It was built a good 400 years before the discovery of the first dinosaur fossils.

Quote:

Radiocarbon dating is not like heating up Ramen noodles in a microwave, you have to know what its all about, and if you do , but are trying to hoist a scam on folks, well, thatns not very Christian is it.

Perhaps the scam is telling people that dinosaur fossils are millions years old when in actual fact, they intrinsically still consist of appreciable amounts of C14. If it's not a scam, let's see them prove it with the C14 data.

1 Reply

@Blue Grass 6,

You still insist that the "dinosaur fossils" are in the 30/40 K time period, EVEN AFTER the U of Georgia recognized that they were scammed. Why is it that, of all the tens of thousands of museum foossils of dinosaurs, carefully collected and documented and age dated and correlated, these several samples, submitted y the same Creationist "scientists" are the only ones where we see clear evidence to deceive ???

You should read more about the incidents nd learn a bit more rather than jump on the bandwagon for fraud science.(Doesnt make your belief system credible) .

Quote:

Work with animal fossils, particularly of pigs, showed that the strata in question matched younger strata in the nearby Omo Valley. In its early stages, this fossil work was imprecise enough that the 2.61 Myr date could still be justified (Maglio 1972). However, the fossils continued to point to a younger date as the quality of the work on them improved (White and Harris 1977).

. Notice, they said "matched younger strata" Thats what correlation means. What you posted was done over 45 yars ago This was resiolved and published several times since and many new techniques of dating have developed

Quote:

And here's another one:

Stegosar eh?? Well I wont interfere with yer fantasy , bt coulld it be a mammal with "tail fins?? I notive the coow above it has back fins also.

Were familiar with the pictures,one indiviual here posts them every few months as a way to capture the imagination of new readers but as someone once said," just because they have comic books with dragons in em doesnt mean that were gonna go out dragon hunting". we shoulda run into one or two if they were alive as recently as you say.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

BTW, nowhere on earth have dinosaur fosils and human fossils occured in remotely the same age strata. Alley Oop IS NOT a scientific paper.

I read that, recent examinations at Angkhor Wat had suggested that thi carving was done quite recentky (like the iks stones).
Im not gonna spend time trying to debunk it because a cartoon isnt data. Its like going out hunting gargoyles from evidence of gargoyle gutters and downspouts on Christian Basilicas

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Why is it that, of all the tens of thousands of museum foossils of dinosaurs, carefully collected and documented and age dated and correlated, these several samples, submitted y the same Creationist "scientists" are the only ones where we see clear evidence to deceive ???

How many of those dinosaur fossils have been C14 dated? If nobody else has C14 dated dino fossils, then what evidence to the contrary do you have to say that they deceived?

Quote:

You should read more about the incidents nd learn a bit more rather than jump on the bandwagon for fraud science.(Doesnt make your belief system credible) .

I'll believe it's a fraud when I see the data that proves that. Claiming fraudulence without the data is just hollow.

Quote:

Notice, they said "matched younger strata" Thats what correlation means. What you posted was done over 45 yars ago This was resiolved and published several times since and many new techniques of dating have developed

Ok, so how did they obtain the date for the "matched younger strata" then? They still applied a date right? How was that obtained?
It's still hard to not see how radiodating takes a back seat with statements of "the fossils continued to point to a younger date as the quality of the work on them improved." Clearly, the fossils here took precedence over what radiodates were acceptable and what dates were rejected.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

BTW, nowhere on earth have dinosaur fosils and human fossils occured in remotely the same age strata. Alley Oop IS NOT a scientific paper.

We've not found humans and the Wollemi Pine or the Coelacanth fish in the same strata either, but that doesn't mean we don't co-exist.

2 Replies

@Blue Grass 6,

youre analogies are all quite bogus. Coelecanths have evolved since theDevonian. Humans have showed up in late Pleistocene and we DO have evidence of Coelecanths and humans appearing together in the Plesitocene fossil record (Data and evidence is quite compelling)

The fact that coelecanths live in the mid abyssal seas and we live on land, we both occupy sediments dated as Plesitocene. WE OVERLAP in time but not stratigraphy (This is another example of how oceanis sediments and deposits on earth , CORRELATE, they represent equivalent geological times of deposition) .

I think you need to work on your reasoning skills .

1 Reply

@Blue Grass 6,

BTW, if you notice, I said DINOSAUR FOSSILS . There are whole bunches of others, like trilobites and mammoths, whales and Cambrian brachiopods,

0 Replies

How accurate is radiometric dating?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know