25% of Americans are idiots

[pwood]

The only dating methods discussed (over and over again) by evolution-believing scientists and the mass media are ones that supposedly "prove" that the earth is billions of years old. One of the most popular of these is known as radiometric dating. However, not as well known is the fact that such methods have a number of serious flaws which are usually glossed over, or ignored when writing on, or discussing this subject in public.

With the exception of Carbon-14, radiometric dating is used to date either igneous or metamorphic rocks that contain radioactive elements such as uranium. And even though various radioactive elements have been used to "date" these rocks, for the most part, the methods are basically the same. They consist of measuring the amount of radioactive (mother) element and comparing it to the amount of stable (daughter) element. A discussion of the Uranium/Lead method follows.

Uranium is radioactive, which means it is in the process of changing from an unstable element into a stable one. The most common form is uranium-238. It has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. This means that if you had some pure uranium-238 with no lead in it, 4.5 billion years later one half of it would have decayed into its stable daughter product (lead-206). And after 9 billion years there would be 75% lead and 25% uranium, and so on. Few people realize it but all radiometric dating methods require making at least three assumptions. These are:
1) The rate of decay has remained constant throughout the past.
2) The original amount of both mother and daughter elements is known.
3) The sample has remained in a closed system.
Constant Decay Rate:
For purposes of radiometric dating it must be assumed that the rate of decay from mother element to daughter element has remained constant throughout the past. Although there is no way to prove whether or not this has been the case, scientists have attempted to alter the rate of decay of radioactive materials and have found that they are almost immune to change.
Original Amounts Known:
The second assumption is much more speculative since there is no way to verify whether or not some (or most) of the daughter element was already present when the rock solidified. Therefore, a guess must be made. However, in some cases, a few scientists are telling us that they have solved this problem.
For example, with the uranium/lead method scientists have attempted to estimate what the original ratio (of uranium-238 to lead-206) was when the Earth formed. To do this they have selected a certain meteorite, which contained various types of lead (including lead 204, 206, 207 and 208) but no uranium, and they have assumed that this ratio is equivalent to the earth's original lead ratio. They did this because it is almost certain that these lead isotopes were all present in large quantities when the earth was created. This is because "common" lead contains both radiogenic (lead 206, 207 and 208) and non-radiogenic lead (204) but it does not contain any uranium. In fact, about 98% of "common" lead is "radiogenic" (containing lead 206, 207,208) and only 2% non-radiogenic. 1,2,3,4,5,6
A Closed System:
The third assumption is that the sample has remained in a closed system. This is necessary due to outside influences such as heat and groundwater that can seriously alter the original material. And since the earth is not a closed system, these last two assumptions make radiometric dating highly subjective and questionable.
For example, if a rock sample was below the water table at any time, leaching would take place. For Uranium/Lead dating this means that some of the uranium that was initially present would be "leached" out of the rock. Leaching can also cause uranium to be leached into rocks that have little or no uranium in them. Therefore, in virtually every case, scientists do not know what the original condition of the rock was; and, even if they did know, they don't any more due to heat contamination, mixing, and leaching. This is discussed in great detail by Dr. Snelling in his article on this subject. 4

Note: As for the few cases where scientists do know what the "original" condition (or date of eruption) was, they still have not been able to come up with the correct "date" for the age of the rock without all sorts of fancy footwork and massaging of data. That's because radiometric dating (with the exception of Carbon 14) is almost always performed on igneous rocks (i.e. those that were once in a molten state). Also because, when different substances are in a liquid state, something known as mixing almost always takes place: meaning that whenever a liquid (or molten) rock is erupted out of the earth, both the mother and daughter elements will be "mixed" together, thus making it virtually impossible to determine the time that an eruption took place.
Heat Contamination:
Another problem that calls into question the credibility of radiometric dating is heat contamination. For example, In 1973, in Alberta, Canada (near the town of Grand Prarie) a high voltage line fell which caused nearby tree roots to fossilize almost instantly. When scientists at the University of Regina, Saskatchewan were asked what the results would be if these roots were dated by Potassium Argon method. Their response was that the results:
Two well-documented examples of "heat contamination" are the 1800 and 1801 eruptions from two Hawaiian volcanoes. Although these eruptions were less than 200 years old, the radiometric "dates" obtained from them were 140 million to 2.96 billion years for one, and from 0 to 29 million years for the other -- depending upon the (ocean) depth at which the lava sample was obtained.

[Roger.Smith]

Originally Posted by pwood

The only dating methods discussed (over and over again) by evolution-believing scientists and the mass media are ones that supposedly "prove" that the earth is billions of years old. One of the most popular of these is known as radiometric dating. However, not as well known is the fact that such methods have a number of serious flaws which are usually glossed over, or ignored when writing on, or discussing this subject in public.

With the exception of Carbon-14, radiometric dating is used to date either igneous or metamorphic rocks that contain radioactive elements such as uranium. And even though various radioactive elements have been used to "date" these rocks, for the most part, the methods are basically the same. They consist of measuring the amount of radioactive (mother) element and comparing it to the amount of stable (daughter) element. A discussion of the Uranium/Lead method follows.

Uranium is radioactive, which means it is in the process of changing from an unstable element into a stable one. The most common form is uranium-238. It has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. This means that if you had some pure uranium-238 with no lead in it, 4.5 billion years later one half of it would have decayed into its stable daughter product (lead-206). And after 9 billion years there would be 75% lead and 25% uranium, and so on. Few people realize it but all radiometric dating methods require making at least three assumptions. These are:
1) The rate of decay has remained constant throughout the past.
2) The original amount of both mother and daughter elements is known.
3) The sample has remained in a closed system.
Constant Decay Rate:
For purposes of radiometric dating it must be assumed that the rate of decay from mother element to daughter element has remained constant throughout the past. Although there is no way to prove whether or not this has been the case, scientists have attempted to alter the rate of decay of radioactive materials and have found that they are almost immune to change.
Original Amounts Known:
The second assumption is much more speculative since there is no way to verify whether or not some (or most) of the daughter element was already present when the rock solidified. Therefore, a guess must be made. However, in some cases, a few scientists are telling us that they have solved this problem.
For example, with the uranium/lead method scientists have attempted to estimate what the original ratio (of uranium-238 to lead-206) was when the Earth formed. To do this they have selected a certain meteorite, which contained various types of lead (including lead 204, 206, 207 and 208) but no uranium, and they have assumed that this ratio is equivalent to the earth's original lead ratio. They did this because it is almost certain that these lead isotopes were all present in large quantities when the earth was created. This is because "common" lead contains both radiogenic (lead 206, 207 and 208) and non-radiogenic lead (204) but it does not contain any uranium. In fact, about 98% of "common" lead is "radiogenic" (containing lead 206, 207,208) and only 2% non-radiogenic. 1,2,3,4,5,6
A Closed System:
The third assumption is that the sample has remained in a closed system. This is necessary due to outside influences such as heat and groundwater that can seriously alter the original material. And since the earth is not a closed system, these last two assumptions make radiometric dating highly subjective and questionable.
For example, if a rock sample was below the water table at any time, leaching would take place. For Uranium/Lead dating this means that some of the uranium that was initially present would be "leached" out of the rock. Leaching can also cause uranium to be leached into rocks that have little or no uranium in them. Therefore, in virtually every case, scientists do not know what the original condition of the rock was; and, even if they did know, they don't any more due to heat contamination, mixing, and leaching. This is discussed in great detail by Dr. Snelling in his article on this subject. 4

Note: As for the few cases where scientists do know what the "original" condition (or date of eruption) was, they still have not been able to come up with the correct "date" for the age of the rock without all sorts of fancy footwork and massaging of data. That's because radiometric dating (with the exception of Carbon 14) is almost always performed on igneous rocks (i.e. those that were once in a molten state). Also because, when different substances are in a liquid state, something known as mixing almost always takes place: meaning that whenever a liquid (or molten) rock is erupted out of the earth, both the mother and daughter elements will be "mixed" together, thus making it virtually impossible to determine the time that an eruption took place.
Heat Contamination:
Another problem that calls into question the credibility of radiometric dating is heat contamination. For example, In 1973, in Alberta, Canada (near the town of Grand Prarie) a high voltage line fell which caused nearby tree roots to fossilize almost instantly. When scientists at the University of Regina, Saskatchewan were asked what the results would be if these roots were dated by Potassium Argon method. Their response was that the results:
Two well-documented examples of "heat contamination" are the 1800 and 1801 eruptions from two Hawaiian volcanoes. Although these eruptions were less than 200 years old, the radiometric "dates" obtained from them were 140 million to 2.96 billion years for one, and from 0 to 29 million years for the other -- depending upon the (ocean) depth at which the lava sample was obtained.

[Citation Needed]

If you're going to copy and paste, at least cite your source. You don't understand a word of what you've posted. At least give the name of the fundy website you copied that from.

[Roger.Smith]

Nevermind found it. You copied your post from http://www.earthage.org. This website claims dinosaurs are 16,000-24,000 years old.

LOL. The website you stole this from is pure nuttery. Don't try to get over on me.

[Ramjet]

On a test hop one day, the airplane was flown to a required altitude where both engines HAD to still run, then we continued climbing until one or both engines flamed out.

They flamed out at the same altitude (classified) and for a brief moment I looked outside. The sky was turning purple AND the curvature of the world was evident.

Fallopin 1:1 The world is round.

[pwood]

You are really predictable lol

I knew you would say I copied and pasted and did not understand it prior to the post.

Rather than trying to dodge the question by telling me I do not understand it or questioning the source. Neither of them is necessary for you to dispute it if it's incorrect

[Roger.Smith]

Originally Posted by Jarvis

Typical childish reply when a facet of science becomes an open sore.

I agree, the Bible is childish.

[pwood]

Nevermind found it. You copied your post from http://www.earthage.org. This website claims dinosaurs are 16,000-24,000 years old.

Nope guess again different website.

[Roger.Smith]

Originally Posted by pwood

You are really predictable lol

I knew you would say I copied and pasted and did not understand it prior to the post.

Rather than trying to dodge the question by telling me I do not understand it or questioning the source. Neither of them is necessary for you to dispute it if it's incorrect

LOL, you did copy it. I even posted the website you copied from.

Are Dinosaur Bones Millions of Years Old ? Ten things about Dinosaurs that the Mass Media doesn't want you to know


That was on the website you copied your post from. You must not have read what Revelation said about lying.

[pwood]

No know it all I did not
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYo...he%20Earth.htm

[pwood]

Im still waiting for you to dispute that radiometric dating is not flwed but like most you try to change the topic

[Roger.Smith]

Originally Posted by pwood

No know it all I did not

Originally Posted by pwood

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20 The%20Age%20of%20the%20Earth.h tm

So not only do you not know how radiometric dating works, you also don't how website URLs work either.

[pwood]

I never said I did not copy and paste nor do I pretend to know much about science. Honestly, I find it boring as hell that is why I am on ECCIE and not some fucking boring science website

[slowmover]

"25% of Americans are idiots"

It appears 80% of that bunch are here.

[hungryhippo]

Originally Posted by pwood

No know it all I did not
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYo...he%20Earth.htm

Originally Posted by Roger.Smith

So not only do you not know how radiometric dating works, you also don't how website URLs work either.

Hahaha! Thank you Pwood.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

Without meaning to, you are making the case for evolution.

Evolution happens over generations so none of us can witness it live (except in the case of virus, etc.), but it's happening all around us.

The average height of people has increased inches over the past 600 years. This is history, not theory.

In cultures that have worn shoes for the past 1000 years, the little toe is beginning to head towards obsolescence. It was a gripping toe, not a power toe. Not used or needed in a shoe. Our feet are changing.

All of your examples are survival mechanisms. That's what evolution is all about. As life forms evolve, of course that includes the changes in physical structure required to support the change. When creatures from the sea took to land, they needed limbs. When creatures from the land took to the sky, they needed hollow bones. You have to stop thinking in terms of immediate change. Genetic evolution of complex species takes place over long periods of time.

Not so fast- these are examples of animals defy evolution- are you saying there was a period in time where the Cheetah was not fast? If you are making the assumption that the average 13 year old is more than likely much taller and bigger than the average 13 year old in 1900 as a sign of evolution? Or the average linebacker in the NFL today is taller and larger than the average linebacker in 1965 is foolish since in both situation there are many variables that come into place.
Again explain to me in laymans term how the Giraffe evolved it's long neck= this is far different from the avg human growing inches taller over centuries. As I mentioned there's a unique apparatus that a Giraffe has that prevents it from passing out every time it bent it's neck to sip water- if it evolved a long neck over countless thousands of years- by default there had to be man years when it didn't have this unique apparatus- so why didn't the Giraffe die off? Did Woodpeckers go through a period of years where it started drilling into trees and got brain damage? How did it "evolve" the ability to drill into trees without splattering it's brain if evolution is a long process?