Radiometric Dating

[rjh4 is back]

Maybe you're right, maybe I should have read the whole thing and maybe I will. But you see, this is the problem with starting off with what you think is a fact and then trying to get the evidence to fit it. In this case, either the fact is wrong or the evidence. This of course can never make any sense as to arrive at a fact you must first have the evidence and if the evidence contradicts your fact then you must assume that your fact is at fault.

It's a bit like saying that we know that the Universe is only 6-10 thousand years old so how is it possible that we can see objects that are million and even billions of light years away especially as the evidence for the latter is beyond all reasonable contestation.

Even if you hate the idea of the universe being that ancient you cannot simply reject the evidence or try to twist it to fit your own personal theory as this way lies ignorance. We must never fall in love with our theories and if contradictory evidence arrives then we must abandon them but we will have learnt something in the process.

This is how we grow, no matter how unsavory it may seem.

Thanks for the response. Apologies for coming across as "accusing" you of bias as Adrian put it. My intent was not to accuse of bias like it is such a bad thing. I do not think it is such a bad thing to have. Everyone, including scientists and Christians (no mutual exclusiveness intended ), has bias and interprets information with bias. I do, however, think that it is important to recognize our own bias because without this recognition, it is much more difficult to try to look at things from another's point of view (bias). So my intent was merely to try to get you to recognize/question whether this had anything to do with your position after the first few paragraphs.

As for the rest of your post, I certainly understand what you are saying. However, I do not think it is necessary to throw away a position that fits quite a lot of obervable facts because there are some that cannot be explained at this point in time. Scientists certainly do not do this. In fact, the issue about starlight is a good one. Certainly, it is an issue that creationists should want to address because it is a very good point. Apparently, it is also an issue that an old-universe position would need to address. See Starlight Problem. Now I seriously doubt either side is going to look at the problem, throw up their hands, and give up trying to think of possible solutions because that would achieve nothing. Looking for solutions...now that is when we learn!!

[rjh4 is back]

Point me to one documented (note: documented) occurrence of this. There are instances when contamination is found (even in unlikely samples). You are all hearsay and no evidence of your position.

So here is my challenge. Show me one documented case of this happening, and I will look at it. I predict that there will be a real rational explanation for such data being thrown out that has simply been misinterpreted by yourself and all other creationists.

No doubt there would be an explanation for such data being thrown out. I would predict this myself. Scientists always try to explain data that doesn't look like predicted. Had to do it for plenty of lab work in college. Doesn't always mean that there was something wrong with the sample or equipment, though. It could be a systemic problem with the method.

[Tiberius]

No doubt there would be an explanation for such data being thrown out. I would predict this myself. Scientists always try to explain data that doesn't look like predicted. Had to do it for plenty of lab work in college. Doesn't always mean that there was something wrong with the sample or equipment, though. It could be a systemic problem with the method.

That's why you take different measurements with different samples and different equipment. I notice you have ignored my challenge. Please find me one example (just one) and I will take a look.

[theVOID]

If you want to read more on radiometric dating, I found this article in the past few days. This article presents the problems with radiometric dating and references to support those positions (not all of which are creationist in origin). Based on the reasoning provided in the article, I do not know why anyone would trust it. But then again I am biased. Read for yourself though and see what you think. It is long but comprehensive.

Radiometric Dating

The same author has an article on the

Geologic Column

and

Fossil Record

Again to me the argumentation along with the evidence presented is convincing to me that a recent global catasrophic event produced the fossil record and the geologic column, not millions/billions of years. But, again, I am biased. Read for yourself. Look up the references. See if what you have been taught all these years still makes sense.

If a single global event killed them all then find me a human being next to a Cambrian fossil! It's an utter nonsense idea, the global flood. Do you actually not realize that the egyptian built several pyramids during this supposed flood? Don't you find that really fucking impressive? I'd love to see an egyptian build a pyramid in the largest flood in existence! Maybe they also arranged the species fossilized into chronological layers of strata all over the globe while they weren't busy building fucking pyramids inside a few thousand feet of water!

[littlegrimlin1]

Awesome guys, when I'm on the defensive side, I feel kinda hopeless.

[downbeatplumb]

RJH4 seems to think that science is all about providing evidence to support a hypothosis.
This may have been true in his school, but in most science you put forward a theory then try to disprove it.
Although you will get some scientists that cheat, ( they are after all only human) on the whole its a system that works quite well, this computer is the result of science working.

[lukec]

Do you actually not realize that the egyptian built several pyramids during this supposed flood? Don't you find that really fucking impressive? I'd love to see an egyptian build a pyramid in the largest flood in existence! Maybe they also arranged the species fossilized into chronological layers of strata all over the globe while they weren't busy building fucking pyramids inside a few thousand feet of water!

Dude, don't you see!? This actually solves the mystery of how the Egyptians moved so much rock- they just floated it in. It's so simple. (Side note: perhaps they chronologically organized the species as they were moving stone from their quarries?)

[Minimalist]

That's why you take different measurements with different samples and different equipment. I notice you have ignored my challenge. Please find me one example (just one) and I will take a look.

There have been technique changes, particularly in radiocarbon 14 dating methods over the 60 years that the process has been used. For example, early on they would take a piece of wood from, say, a door post and date it. The problem with this is that c14 only tells us the date that the tree died. In a dry climate that door post might have lasted for 150 years and when you add that to the +/- variable of the test you could easily get a date with is nearly 3 centuries off.

The technique has been refined so that they now look for cereal grains or pollen grains (short-lived specimens) and the have the +/- down to 20 years. Theists look at these changes as a way to denounce the entire test.

They are wrong but then they are wrong about many things.

[littlegrimlin1]

They put science down so much, it makes me question science at times. But when I am reminded of science's good doing such as, this computer, I feel much better about it. I haven't done much research on carbon/radiometric dating, but their main arguements were that the rates of decay are too variable to determine anything. But thats all stupid. :\\

[Minimalist]

Actually, Gremlin, that's a pretty good way to look at things. Science has contributed mightily to an improvement in our lives. What tangible result does religion have to offer?