Dating methods in doubt

[murraybiscuit]

In the end I'm not going to change my mind and neither are the atheists.

i think the athiests would be willing to adjust their view to support which ever argument provided the best evidence.
i'm not so sure this is typical of the yec mindset however

 

[Pegasus]

[video=youtube;kzOt6sCKIbo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzOt6sCKIbo[/video]
More evidence that the earth is older than 15000 years.

 

[Ekstasis]

i think the athiests would be willing to adjust their view to support which ever argument provided the best evidence.
i'm not so sure this is typical of the yec mindset however

Yeah this thread went totaly wacho! So let me say this then

NO scientific evidence can proof without a doubt that

- God does / does not exist
- the earth & us were/weren't made through intelligent design

and mark my words, it never will. At the end the "fat lady will sing" through global catastrophy as depicted by evolution/ the endtimes as we know it through our faith.

Conclusion: we shall ride this boat together wether we like it/not.

 

[alloytoo]

Yeah this thread went totaly wacho! So let me say this then

NO scientific evidence can proof without a doubt that

- God does / does not exist
- the earth & us were/weren't made through intelligent design

and mark my words, it never will. At the end the "fat lady will sing" through global catastrophy as depicted by evolution/ the endtimes as we know it through our faith.

Conclusion: we shall ride this boat together wether we like it/not.

You need to read up on Falsifiability

 

[Ekstasis]

You need to read up on Falsifiability

/facepalm

 

[alloytoo]

/facepalm

I can explain it in this context if you like?

 

[Ekstasis]

I can explain it in this context if you like?

Have your moment my dear.

 

[alloytoo]

Have your moment my dear.

Well, at the risk of repeating myself:

The positive assertion carries the burden of proof, because the negative assertion can be dis-proven simply by providing positive evidence.

So persistently insisting that people disprove your delusion while you fail to actually prove it, is a fundamentally flawed conceit.

 

[Ekstasis]

Well, at the risk of repeating myself:

The positive assertion carries the burden of proof, because the negative assertion can be dis-proven simply by providing positive evidence.

So persistently insisting that people disprove your delusion while you fail to actually prove it, is a fundamentally flawed conceit.

However, the FACT for both sides, as in my second last post still stand. BTW your evidence has always suggested a conclusion which is far from a proven fact. As much as you want me to consider the "evidence", have you condidered the remote possibility that you ...might be wrong?

 

[Ekstasis]

Well, at the risk of repeating myself:

btw, this discussion is far OT. Rather leave it for when the time is right

 

[undesign]

You should be banned for trying to flout the PD rules by posting your thinly veiled YEC/religious agenda in Natural Science, Off Topic etc.

 

[Ekstasis]

You should be banned for trying to flout the PD rules by posting your thinly veiled YEC/religious agenda in Natural Science, Off Topic etc.

Hench .....

btw, this discussion is far OT. Rather leave it for when the time is right

Read the OP. Was in the correct section. Not my fault it went OT. The mods might as well lock it. Not going in the direction I hoped for

 

[copacetic]

Hench .....

Read the OP. Was in the correct section. Not my fault it went OT. The mods might as well lock it. Not going in the direction I hoped for

Well, where would you like it to go? I think it has been fairly reasonably established that this effect is negligible.

 

[Ekstasis]

Well, where would you like it to go? I think it has been fairly reasonably established that this effect is negligible.

Simple.. on the topic of dating methods!

I didn't start this thread with a hidden agenda. I'm also not convinced about the 6000 yr old earth btw.

 

[copacetic]

Simple.. on the topic of dating methods!

I didn't start this thread with a hidden agenda. I'm also not convinced about the 6000 yr old earth btw.

That's good.

Well, go ahead then, what is it about dating methods you'd like to chat about?

I'm not an expert though.

 

[Ekstasis]

That's good.

Well, go ahead then, what is it about dating methods you'd like to chat about?

I'm not an expert though.

The findings related to solar flares and it's influence on radioactive isotopes seems to be major. This is what all the dating methods rely on. It shakes the whole idea of a x billion yr old earth. Thus it should also have an influence on the evolution tree.

 

[copacetic]

The findings related to solar flares and it's influence on radioactive isotopes seems to be major. This is what all the dating methods rely on. It shakes the whole idea of a x billion yr old earth. Thus it should also have an influence on the evolution tree.

I'll recall an earlier post:

It's a variation of around 0.3 percent, so no, it's not going to make a practical difference in a method that generally has a bit of a margin of error in any case.

If you for some reason disagree with that, then by all means, explain why.

But to say that the solar flares are going to shake the whole idea of a 4.55 billion year old earth is going to take some evidence, which you are more than welcome to present.

 

[Ekstasis]

It's a variation of around 0.3 percent, so no, it's not going to make a practical difference in a method that generally has a bit of a margin of error in any case.

Where did you get this info?
Furthermore the findings must still be studied more as far as I understand. Besides the variable of the decay rate, there's two other assumptions the scientists have to make in their calculations.

I just find the dating methods very immature for science

 

[alloytoo]

But to say that the solar flares are going to shake the whole idea of a 4.55 billion year old earth is going to take some evidence, which you are more than welcome to present.

Well it doesn't appear to be Neutrinos, they seem to have ruled that out.

It would appear to me that something solar effective half-lifes would effect all elements in a variety of ways, but the convergence of dates based on decay rates suggests that if there is an effect that it's smaller than our current tolerances anyway.

 

[copacetic]

Where did you get this info?

The first physicist to notice that radioactive decay rates might vary was David Alburger of the Brookhaven National Laboratory. Between 1982 and 1986, Alburger discovered that silicon-32 and chlorine-36 decayed at rates that varied about 0.3 percent with the seasons, this although they were kept at constant temperatures and humidities throughout the year. Neither weather nor any other influence could explain the variation, except for one thing: the distance between earth and sun. A team of German researchers found similar variations in a sample of radium-226--and also found that the peaks and valleys of the decay rates were offset from one another by one month.

These results were largely forgotten, but in 2001 Falkenberg found a 0.37 percent seasonal variation in the decay rate of hydrogen-3 (tritium), similar to that found by Alburger and the German team twenty-odd years earlier. Falkenberg suggested that the neutrinos that the sun radiates could be the agents of radioactive decay, and that the varying distance between earth and sun was varying the neutrino flux and therefore the decay.

Article.

Furthermore the findings must still be studied more as far as I understand. Besides the variable of the decay rate, there's two other assumptions the scientists have to make in their calculations.

As Alloytoo says, the variation, which was noticed decades ago already, is within the accepted tolerance ranges of the technique, so I am unsure what the great excitement is about.

What are the other two assumptions, if I may ask?

I just find the dating methods very immature for science

Not sure why.