Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The fatal flaw with radioactive dating methods
CMI ^ | July 30, 2009 | Tas Walker, Ph.D.

Posted on 07/30/2009 10:42:38 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

The fatal flaw with radioactive dating methods

--snip--

This illustrates the problem with the radioactive dating of geological events. Those who promote the reliability of the method spend a lot of time impressing you with the technical details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc. But they don’t discuss the basic flaw in the method: you cannot determine the age of a rock using radioactive dating because...

(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: creation; evolution; gibberish; intelligentdesign; junkscience; pseudoscience; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-232 next last
To: metmom
Prove that the rate of decay WAS always the same as claimed.

That's simple, it is reproduced in the lab every day and observed. We also can test objects of a known age, such as when specific monuments where built or burnt areas in the tree ring history. It is shown through observation and testing.

Add to that, exactly how much mother material there was to start with and when it occurred so that we are able to make precise and accurate calculations.

Some specific isotopes are created specifically from this decay. They aren't isotopes found in nature outside this process.

Count backwards? shakes head in disbelief.....

Here is a simpler analogy. You started typing this comment and I have a recording of it. I want to know when you started typing, so I look at the time now, then I watch the recording and see how long it is. That gives me the start time.

Besides, you just contradicted yourself...Does it vary like you said here?

Poor wording on my part, I should have said factors that impact results, not variances in the actual decay rates. For example, a common misused 'proof' that it is flawed is seal carcasses in the arctic sometimes showing to be millions of years old even though they are recently killed. The rate of decay didn't change, however, we know that there is a certain amount of dissolved carbon dioxide in the water from ancient deposits. That is a known factor and is taken into account with the results. The actual decay didn't change but the amount of additional carbon from outside, older sources has to be accounted for.

41 posted on 07/30/2009 11:25:21 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Hey, I’ve had dates like that. You think she’s a nice girl and suddenly-boom! She’s trying to run your life!

Oh wait, I wandered into the creationist ghetto again. See ya!


42 posted on 07/30/2009 11:25:35 AM PDT by saganite (What would Sully do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/critique_of_tas_walker%27s_flood_geology.htm";

Fatal flaw in Dr. Tas Walker.....

All “creation science” is a lie.......


43 posted on 07/30/2009 11:25:35 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom

LOL...Good eye Metom!!!


44 posted on 07/30/2009 11:26:22 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961; PC99; GodGunsGuts
PC99 - Even if true ... doesn’t advance the supernatural theory that the magical Hebrew God created the Universe 5,000 years ago.

Publius6961 - Without reading the posted article, I can be sure that the poster made no such claim.

Actually GGG does make that claim : ) I happen to play a game that is older than GGG's universe.

45 posted on 07/30/2009 11:28:04 AM PDT by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you canÂ’t reason someone out of something that they didnÂ’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Corrected in the last part of 41, admitted poor wording on my part.


46 posted on 07/30/2009 11:28:24 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

No one is saying that the Hebrew God created the universe 5000 years ago. Just that the yardsticks used by many scientists are not reliable, that there is no standard measure by which to calibrate them.


47 posted on 07/30/2009 11:30:06 AM PDT by Leftism is Mentally Deranged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Radioactive dating?

A conservative with beer goggles takes home hippie chick?

48 posted on 07/30/2009 11:34:28 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
You see, in your anaology the child actually witnessed the toy before it was covered up, in the case of radiactive dating, they never saw the starting point.

The point of the analogy is that you folks still think the toy is missing because you can't see it.

49 posted on 07/30/2009 11:35:19 AM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat
And your rebuttal is...?

And

And your rebuttal is...?


Wait a minute -- are you sincerely asking for a rebuttal to your statement, "Another straw-man post from, the coloring book spams."? I made a criticism of radioactive dating, you made an ad-hominem, I asked for an *actual* rebuttal to my argument, and you want me to "rebut" your "coloring book" statement? How ridiculous can you Darwinists get?
50 posted on 07/30/2009 11:42:17 AM PDT by OldGuard1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Leftism is Mentally Deranged; GodGunsGuts
No one is saying that the Hebrew God created the universe 5000 years ago. Just that the yardsticks used by many scientists are not reliable, that there is no standard measure by which to calibrate them.

LOL actually GGG has said precisely that.

51 posted on 07/30/2009 11:43:19 AM PDT by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you canÂ’t reason someone out of something that they didnÂ’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: OldGuard1

Now the name calling!!


52 posted on 07/30/2009 11:45:02 AM PDT by org.whodat (Vote: Chuck De Vore in 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

You are spoiling all the fun with this so-called “science”.

Science doesn’t belong here, troll!

This is a science-free zone!


53 posted on 07/30/2009 11:45:19 AM PDT by headsonpikes (Genocide is the highest sacrament of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
Then you can show how that could have changed

Very simple: a change in fundamental constants, just as physicists are already claiming is happening or has happened with other constants.

reproduce that in a lab

How do you expect me to change fundamental constants in the lab? And while you're at it, recreate the transition from a bacteria to a human in the lab.

54 posted on 07/30/2009 11:45:47 AM PDT by OldGuard1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: facedown

From the article that you obviously never bothered to read or understand:

“you cannot measure the age of a rock using radioactive dating because no-one was present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and no-one monitored the way those elements changed over its entire geological history”

Do you see how your analogy breaks down from the get-go, Facedown? If not, let me know, and I’ll try to explain it with smaller words that even the child in your analogy could understand.


55 posted on 07/30/2009 11:46:01 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: saganite
I know, I know, the argument is “the rate of decay was not always the same”. OK, prove it. Specifically how or what caused the rate of decay to change and can that be reproduced?

And is your post an example of the intellectual scientific debate that evos bemoan is lacking on FR?

56 posted on 07/30/2009 11:48:14 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: saganite
Hey, I’ve had dates like that. You think she’s a nice girl and suddenly-boom! She’s trying to run your life! Oh wait, I wandered into the creationist ghetto again. See ya!

And is your post an example of the intellectual scientific debate that evos bemoan is lacking on FR?

I hate it when the copy button doesn't copy.....:(

57 posted on 07/30/2009 11:49:12 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: metmom

There isn’t any scientific debate on these Evo threads so your question is meaningless.


58 posted on 07/30/2009 11:51:45 AM PDT by saganite (What would Sully do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin
Ira: The downside of just copying your arguments off the web (in particular, from the ASA) is that there are already rebuttals out there.

A Christian Response to Radiometric dating by Dr. Tasman B. Walker.
59 posted on 07/30/2009 11:51:54 AM PDT by OldGuard1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

And using the generic walmart brand crayons to fill it in...


60 posted on 07/30/2009 11:53:49 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-232 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson