Uranium lead dating answers in genesis
They hypothesised as to why this could be so and concluded that the possible nature of the lead loss makes this 4.
Uranium lead dating answers in genesis
Now for the rocks which were too old. Referring to Nature But the earth is supposed to be only 4. So Podosek and friend decided they must be wrong. Williams then claims that the above shows that dates are discarded if they do not fit preconceived notions and that this destroys the objectivity upon which science is built. He notes that it is impossible to tell, from the isotope information alone, when correct dates have been found.
The discarding of data has been dealt with. The accusation is nonsense. What about the second charge that it is impossible to tell from isotope information alone when a correct date has been found? Also what about the claim of loss of objectivity?
I shall use the word "bias" - for reasons that will become clear. These two issues are somewhat interrelated. Therefore I will discuss them together. This is the bias that filters out information which the informed person decides is nonsense for good reasons. It is somewhat an automatic bias and it is useful in that it prevents the informed person from having to literally evaluate all information presented.
Thus, if someone claims that Antarctica has totally thawed out, the claim can automatically be judged to be false. Likewise the scientists judged the 6 Gya diamond dates to be incorrect because, as they wrote, the evidence is "overwhelming" for a 4. This is the bias that filters out information which really ought to be incorporated into a decision. Thus to only accept evidence that proves the tenets of a sacred book and summarily reject all other counter evidence is a type 2 bias. Type 1 and type 2 are often intermingled.
For example one person's type 1 may be another's type 2. In what sense could Podosek et al.
flaws in dating
Clearly they were operating under type 1 and in the tradition of the scientific method did several things: The anomaly remained unresolved but the researchers were able to eliminate excess potassium as a cause and noted similarities with other minerals that are known to give false dates due to excess argon. They also noted problems in determining excess argon in diamond as well as the relative lack of inert gas observations in diamond. They inferred excess argon although clearly, from the article, this inference would need to be checked so in essence the anomaly remained unexplained.
Given that absolute dating systems rely on well understood physics, geology and chemistry, and that the evidence is overwhelming for an ancient Earth, then clearly the researchers were not operating under a type 2 bias.
A few anomalies arising within a methodology do not render the method useless. Nature is sloppy and does not conform to the well controlled environment of the lab or the precision of the test tube. Compare this with an organisation that has a creed which requires its scientists to defend the Bible no matter what other evidence may suggest.
Clearly type 2 bias has to play a major part in the deliberations of this organisation to the effect that methodologies have to be adopted that rely on misrepresentation and misunderstanding in the manner shown above. It certainly cannot be a type 1 bias because the need is to reject good evidence not bad evidence. So does the article on the 6 Gya diamonds show that researchers "cannot tell when dates are right and when they are wrong"? But do not take notice of the conclusion Williams wishes you to draw. Firstly, scientists do not rely on a single date unless they have to. Resource limitations cost, time may force this but cross checking is done as much as is possible.
Secondly, dates are always open to re-interpretation and often dates can be a focus of much contention between supporters of different theories. Thirdly, and this is related to the first point, dates that do not make sense become anomalous and, as is shown by Williams' griping, they are reported and discussed. YECs often suggest that something sinister is going on; that the mainstream is out to destroy their faith. In the case of absolute dating systems, the plot if you like is to avoid the obvious that the earth is only 6, years old.
Thus we get statements such as those by Williams, accusing Compston and Pidgeon of throwing away data; or of Ham in The Lie: Evolution informing his followers that evolutionists are "wilfully ignorant", or of AiG scientists maintaining that it is all done to "allow time for evolution". In the book Geochronology: Radiometric Dating of Rocks and Minerals see above the silliness of such claims can easily be seen as the development of a science is described. The book comprises a series of papers dating from through to which were important in the development of geochronology. There you will see type 1 bias in action continually.
Compare this with the AiG statement of faith and you will understand why YEC science relies so much on type 2 bias. This point is obvious in reading the book. Why should a geologist be interested in ToE? Geologists wish to know the ages of things such as the earth, the planets, rocks and minerals. That they have no professional interest in ToE is revealed by the lack of mention of it in the book. YECs love to play make believe with these.
Exploring the wonders of geology in response to young-Earth claims...
By throwing doubt on the dating systems by accusing the mainstream of paying little attention to assumptions, YEC can convince its followers that absolute dates are essentially meaningless. It works beautifully with people who have an instinct to trust the authority, no matter what, be it the Bible, the preacher of the "Bible believing" scientist.
How much attention is paid to assumptions?
- Questioning Answers In Genesis: Andrew Snelling concedes, radiometric dating of meteorites is solid.
- ost dating not marriage.
- serbian dating agency!
How aware of assumptions are mainstream scientists? As with all methodologies in science, awareness of assumptions is a critical part and a methodology is not accepted until assumptions can be evaluated and understood. Rutherford was aware that radioactivity could be used to determine the age of minerals and spelt out the assumptions necessary to realise this.
What about Claire Patterson's paper, "Age of meteorites and the earth", published in Geochemica et Cosmochimica Acta , , volume 10, pages Assumptions are spelt out and Patterson shows why the meteorite data reveal that the assumptions are justified. As does Holmes in several papers, and Ahrens, and. The list goes on and it is hard to find a paper where assumptions are not mentioned or dealt with in one way or another. The fact that the best YEC can do to "discredit" conventionality is to write in the manner that Williams does, is testament to the fact that YEC is operating under bias type 2.
If YEC did not have to operate under this bias then why misrepresent the mainstream pretending that it is reality? If YEC has a good argument, why not use it. It is not good argument to pretend that the mainstream throws away data when it does not; that the mainstream operates under wild assumptions when it does not; that a technique showed a crystal undatable-datable when it did not. How is this rejecting information that does not make sense? In reality, it is rejecting information that does make sense. The history of Helium dating should put to rest the notion that the mainstream only uses data which is convenient to maintain the notion of an old Earth.
As mentioned in other essays, if the mainstream is so cavalier then there are other dating methods that produce dates in the order of trillions of years not billions of years.
- Primary Sidebar.
- dating indian womens.
- Uranium lead dating answers in genesis | Shikha la mode?
- Search This Blog.
- filipino british dating site.
- 100 free dating sites in ukraine;
The point is that the mainstream does not follow the YEC example. The scientific method used by the mainstream works so well across all scientific endeavour. The mainstream is cavalier? It is not concerned with using viable methodologies?
The history of helium dating illustrates that YEC inferences in this area are as nonsensical as any other.