Tas Walker on radiometric dating.

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Tas Walker on radiometric dating.

Postby Peter Henderson » Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:19 pm

Since Tas Walker has demonstrated Siccar Point does not prove "long ages" here he is demolishing radiometric dating.

No need to believe in "millions of years":

http://creation.com/the-way-it-really-i ... ric-dating

Many people think that radiometric dating has proved the Earth is millions of years old. That’s understandable, given the image that surrounds the method. Even the way dates are reported (e.g. 200.4 ± 3.2 million years) gives the impression that the method is precise and reliable (box below).

However, although we can measure many things about a rock, we cannot directly measure its age. For example, we can measure its mass, its volume, its colour, the minerals in it, their size and the way they are arranged. We can crush the rock and measure its chemical composition and the radioactive elements it contains. But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age.

No matter what the radiometric date turned out to be, our geologist would always be able to ‘interpret’ it.Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.

It may be surprising to learn that evolutionary geologists themselves will not accept a radiometric date unless they think it is correct—i.e. it matches what they already believe on other grounds. It is one thing to calculate a date. It is another thing to understand what it means. So, how do geologists know how to interpret their radiometric dates and what the ‘correct’ date should be?


Technical jargon aside, if this demonstrates radiometric dating is purely and simply based on unprovable assumptions, why doesn't he present this before a recognised science body such as the Geological Society ?

What is he afraid of ?

Or maybe he's relying on people's general lack of knowledge about radiometric dating ?
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Tas Walker on radiometric dating.

Postby Peter Henderson » Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:21 pm

Not unsurprisingly, comments are now closed for this article.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Tas Walker on radiometric dating.

Postby Michael » Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:08 pm

He's lying
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Tas Walker on radiometric dating.

Postby Peter Henderson » Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:04 pm

Michael wrote:He's lying



When I was doing asbestos analysis Michael, we used different methods for the indentification of different types of asbestos. By Walker's logic, that's an unprovable assumption.

I suspect radiometric dating works in a similar way i.e. different methods for rocks of different dates.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Tas Walker on radiometric dating.

Postby Brian Jordan » Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:22 pm

It looks like a whole crowd of straw men to me.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Tas Walker on radiometric dating.

Postby cathy » Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:11 pm

What is he afraid of ?


I'd guess knowing that he is spouting utter garbage and being exposed as doing so. Why bother when you know you're wrong anyway. And they all know they're wrong.

Technical jargon aside, if this demonstrates radiometric dating is purely and simply based on unprovable assumptions, why doesn't he present this before a recognised science body such as the Geological Society

well what unprovable assumptions? Creationists keep saying this, but at its most basic radiometric dating relies on provable assumptions, ie constant decay rates leading to ratios of parent to daughter atoms. Based on the fact that non constant decay rates aren't or haven't been observed yet and the observation that one thing will decay into a defined other thing and not something else at that constant rate.

It's the belief that radioactive decay could have been faster in the past is based on an unprovable assumption. If they are right then I would assume that some trace would be left in the rock or there would be discrepancies between different methods. 'Assuming' the radioactive element was in the rock in the first place is not an assumption its a given isn't it? As are the ratios.

Many people think that radiometric dating has proved the Earth is millions of years old. That’s understandable, given the image that surrounds the method. Even the way dates are reported (e.g. 200.4 ± 3.2 million years) gives the impression that the method is precise and reliable (box below).

Not even sure what he means by this statement, but I imagine if it were a creationist reporting it they'd say these dates could be 3.2 million years out without mentioning things like acceptable error and how 200 being possibly out by 3.2 is nothing really. However when I was lent AiGs book all those years ago, Snelling had given dates of 6000 +/- 2000 years. Now that is a big percentage error!!
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Tas Walker on radiometric dating.

Postby Michael » Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:15 pm

I gave up counting after ten lies.
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Tas Walker on radiometric dating.

Postby Brian Jordan » Fri Jun 14, 2013 6:04 pm

They must expect (and, I fear, often find) their congregations to be both ignorant and naive. Demonstrating - if they can - minor errors or discrepancies in radiometric dating offers absolutely no support for their claim of a 6.000 year old universe.
Still, if his cheerleader Ken Ham is prepared to misrepresent the Bible, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2013/06/do-you-need-a-phd-to-understand-the-bible.html, what's the odd disingenuous claim about science going to do to Walker's conscience? Not a lot, I fear.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Tas Walker

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:42 pm

After I posted under this recent one, a couple of others spoke about uniformitarianism.
http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/ice-fre ... mment-5578

And you live and learn:
https://www.facebook.com/creationministries
"Although we can measure many things about a rock, we cannot directly measure its age. For example, we can measure its mass, its volume, its colour, the minerals in it, their size and the way they are arranged. We can crush the rock and measure its chemical composition and the radioactive elements it contains. But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age".
(I think this may be a comment a propos the Walker 2002 article rather than a direct quote from it.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Tas Walker

Postby Brian Jordan » Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:11 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age".
(I think this may be a comment a propos the Walker 2002 article rather than a direct quote from it.)
Well, Peter quoted those words at the top of the page, from a creation.com article by Walker, reproduced from Creation mag, 2002. Incidentally, they turn up again in an article at answers.yahoo.com (no relation) where they're used, verbatim without citation, by someone called "Busted" in a comment in 2008. Definitely a busted flush. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080410215816AA6ghhv
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Tas Walker

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:41 pm

Brian Jordan wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age".
(I think this may be a comment a propos the Walker 2002 article rather than a direct quote from it.)
Well, Peter quoted those words at the top of the page, from a creation.com article by Walker, reproduced from Creation mag, 2002. Incidentally, they turn up again in an article at answers.yahoo.com (no relation) where they're used, verbatim without citation, by someone called "Busted" in a comment in 2008. Definitely a busted flush. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080410215816AA6ghhv


Yes - I see you are correct.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom


Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests

cron