The Instigator
jh1234l
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
FritzStammberger
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points

Radiometric Dating is not reliable

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
jh1234l
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,781 times Debate No: 30750
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

jh1234l

Con

In this debate, pro should provide evidence that radiometric dating is unreliable, while I try to refute them. BOP is on pro.

Pro should start on the first round and only post a conclusion in the last round.

The "conclusion" for this debate is how you would vote if you were a reader.

Definitions:

"Radiometric dating (often called radioactive dating) is a technique used to date materials such as rocks, usually based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates"- Wikipedia[1]

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
FritzStammberger

Pro

The following information is cited at length from the book "Evolution: Its Collapse In View?
by Henry Hiebert
Pages 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32

Carbon 14 (radioactive carbon) forms in the upper atmosphere at a constant rate, through the action of sunlight (cosmic rays) upon ozone. This radiocarbon finds it's way, along with natural carbon, into the living tissue of plants, and consequently animals, as well as becoming dissolved in the ocean waters. Immediately after its formation, C-14 begins slowly to decay (half-life about 5, 730 years).

Scientists have calculated that after about 30,000 years from the commencement of such a process, the amount of radio carbon in the atmosphere, in all organic tissue, and in the seas would have built up to the volume where the amount decaying per day would just equal the amount being produced by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. Such a state of equilibrium is essential for the success of this particular technique of dating.

Does such a state of equilibrium exist?

Definitely not!

Scientists were amazed to find that upper-atmosphere balloon soundings measured a natural production rate of C-14 in excess of the calculated decay rate by as much as 25%. Using data from most recent tests, Nobel Prize Medalist Doctor Melvin Cook has determined that the production-decay rates are out of equilibrium by as much as 38%. This can only mean that the C-14 content of our atmosphere is still building up, a condition that could be expected only if the process had begun recently. This discrepancy of 38% between the formation and decay of C-14 has been calculated by Dr. Cook to indicated an age for our atmosphere of about 10,000 years. The likelihood that the specific production rate of Carbon 14 was greater by as much as three times (as evidenced by the luxuriant tropical vegetation and fauna from pole to pole as seen in the fossils). In the predeluvian world, would reduce this figure to a mere 7000 years.

W. F. Libby, the discoverer of radiocarbon dating, chose to ignore this discrepancy, attributing it to some error of measurement, since he "knew" the earth to be much older than 30,000 years. Consequently, C-14 dates are reasonably accurate only for about the last 3000 years, becoming increasingly invalid as older samples are tested, which lived at a time when this lack of equilibrium was even greater. It has been found that when all radiocarbon dates are corrected for the known non-equilibrium conditions, all are less than 10,000 years. This includes dates on Neanderthal Man bones, Sabre-tooth tigers, cole and crude oil.

Although subsequent and better tests have confirmed this lack of equilibrium, it has met with routine rejection from scientists on the basis that it cannot be so. The evolutionary model of origins demands vast ages, and most scientists believe in evolution. Data of this nature in consequently not disclosed in public literature.

Radiometric Dates

The various methods used (most commonly, the uranium-thorium-lead, the rubidium-strontium, and the potassium-argon methods) when applied to any given sample of rock apparently do not give the same dates at all. Widely discordant dates are the rule, not the exception. Even recently formed volcanic rocks of known age yield lead-uranium ages that are commonly over a billion years.

There are at least three assumptions underlying all radiometric dating, which are not only unprovable, but unreasonable.

3 Assumptions Involved in Radiometric Dating

1.) The rocks being tested are assumed to represent a closed system.

Always the assumption is made that these rocks have not, through leeching by groundwater or erosional water, intermixing, or any other physical process, lost or gained anything throughout the period of their existence. Here we have the probable reason for the widely discordant ages that are generally yielded in radiometric tests. It is likely that the minerals were affected to greatly varying degrees by the agencies listed above.

"The concept of a closed system is an ideal concept, convenient for analysis, but non-existent in the real world. The idea of a system remaining closed for millions of years becomes an absurdity."
- Henry M. Morris, Virginian Polytechnic Institute.

2.) The process rate of decay is assumed to have remained constant throughout billions of years.

It is obvious that any factors that are capable of influencing atomic structures could affect radioactive decay rates, The Genesis account (of creation) could conceivably permit completely unprecedented decay rates in effect during the initial creation period, when all the cosmic energy needed for nucleo-genesis was present in the environment of the matter being created.

The assumption that decay rates have remained constant is unprovable.

3.) It is assumed that no radiogenic daughter products were present when the minerals were first formed.

The bible teaches quite plainly of a full-grown creation. It is reasonable that an equilibrium amount of the daughter elements would be created along with the parent, giving an appearance of age. If this was true of the organic creation it was probably true of the geologic creation as well. The assumption that no radiogenic daughter products were present at nucleo-genesis is highly suspect for other reasons. It has been found that radiogenic lead exists with uranium minerals even in recently formed volcanic rock.

In the Journal of Geophysical Research, July 15, 1968, an instance in cited where lava from Kaupuleho, Hualalai, Hawaii, which was known to be 168 years old, was predicted by the potassium-argon method to be 2.96 billion years old. This is no rare occurrence. When modern volcanic rocks are dated radiometrically, their lead-uranium ages are commonly over a billion years.

If rocks of known ages yield such unrealistic dates, why should we accept so gullibly the ages yielded by the rocks of unknown age?

In spite of the so-called knowledge explosion, too little is known about all the factors that may affect dates yielded in radiometric tests for textbook writers to be grossly dogmatic about even those dates that have been selected as acceptable.

Again,
The previous information is cited at length from the book "Evolution: Its Collapse In View?
by Henry Hiebert
Pages 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32

some more clarity perhaps?


RADIOMETRIC DATING

(why it doesn't work)

1. imagine you walk into a room and you see a candle burning.

how long has it been burning?

(no stupid semantics about wax dripping or whatever)

The point is.

Without knowing when the candle was lit it is impossible to say how long it has been burning.

2. "Picture a swimmer competing in a 1,500 metre race and an observer with an accurate wristwatch. We note that at the instant the swimmer touches the end of the pool our wristwatch reads 7:41 and 53 seconds. How long has the competitor taken to swim the race?

you cannot know how long the swimmer took unless you knew the time on the wristwatch when the race started. Keep that in mind when you think about working out the age of something. Without knowing the starting time it is impossible to establish the time for the race. Note: Impossible."

http://creation.com...

"I don't think I need to continue showing you why radiometric dating is fatally flawed"
- Fritz Stammberger

Debate Round No. 1
jh1234l

Con

Thanks to Henry Hiebert for responding instead of Fritz making his own arguments.

C-14 dating is not reliable


C 14 dating is only used for things that are about 50,000 years old.[1] There are also many other radioactive dating methods, not only C-14, so this does not refute radiometric dating, only a kind of it that is not used for things that are very old.

Assumptions:

Contamination

Pro claims that contaminations can cause the results to change because the rocks are not a closed system. However, radiometric results are nearly always in agreement with old-Earth expectations. If the methods were producing completely "haywire" results at random due to contamnation, such a pattern of concordant results would not be expected.[2]

Daughter Product

In the Journal of Geophysical Research, July 15, 1968, an instance in cited where lava from Kaupuleho, Hualalai, Hawaii, which was known to be 168 years old, was predicted by the potassium-argon method to be 2.96 billion years old. This is no rare occurrence. When modern volcanic rocks are dated radiometrically, their lead-uranium ages are commonly over a billion years.

Please don't mess up the date it erupted and when it formed. These different dates are all true, one is when it erupted and the other one is when it formed.

The amount of initial daghter isotopes is not required or assumed to be zero. The greater the initial D-to-Di ratio, the further the initial horizontal line sits above the X-axis. But the computed age is not affected. [3]

Decay rates

Actually, decay rates don't change really much. Emery(1972) has shown that even the biggest changes are less than 1% of what is needed to fit the Earth's age into 6000 years.[4]

Radiometric datign "doesn't" work

1. imagine you walk into a room and you see a candle burning.

how long has it been burning?

(no stupid semantics about wax dripping or whatever)

Actually, what radiometric dating is mesuring IS the wax that is dripping.

"I don't think I need to continue showing you why radiometric dating is fatally flawed"
- Fritz Stammberger

Well, you are not showing it. You just copy-pasted from someone elses book.

[1]http://science.howstuffworks.com...
[2]http://www.talkorigins.org...
[3]http://www.talkorigins.org...
[4]Emery, G. T., 1972. "Perturbation of nuclear decay rates" in Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science 22 , pp. 165-202.
FritzStammberger

Pro

I typed that out by hand I'll have you know…

anyway

Con concedes that C-14 dating is unreliable!

In regards to my first argument on C-14 con replys;

"this does not refute radiometric dating, only a kind of it."

- the "kind of it" that con is referring to is C-14 dating.

wikipedia under "radiometric dating" states;

"Among the best-known techniques are radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thus I have successfully shown that at least 1 of the 3 major radiometric dating techniques is unreliable. C-14 dating.


the uranium-thorium-lead, the rubidium-strontium, and the potassium-argon methods

As I said;
"Widely discordant dates are the rule, not the exception."

con simply replies

If the methods were producing completely "haywire" results at random due to contamnation, such a pattern of concordant results would not be expected.[2]

but that's what I just said was happening

"Widely discordant dates are the rule, not the exception."

so we completely disagree on this point but neither of us has proven anything one way or the other.


finally, I said NO SEMANTICS!!

you think you defeated the candle analogy but how about the swimming race one? you failed to mention that one. see, I included two so you couldn't twist words around to get a solution.

Thus: Radiometric dating is too flawed to be trustworthy and is un-reliable.
wildly discordant dates are produced and then selected from to fit pre concieved ideas, which I will likely show in the next round.

"science is a religion with its own priesthood"

- (I think Chuck Missler said that).

Don't let the priests of science fool you, you are not descended from a fish you are made in the image and likeness of God. The only reason this old date is pushed so hard is that these ridiculously long periods of time are reqiured to make evolution look even slightly rational.

as Kent Hovind say's

"I am not against science, I am against lies."
Debate Round No. 2
jh1234l

Con

Con concedes that C-14 dating is unreliable! In regards to my first argument on C-14 con replys; "this does not refute radiometric dating, only a kind of it." - the "kind of it" that con is referring to is C-14 dating.

Actually, it does not refute a kind of it at all. C-14 dating is not intended for things older than 50,000 years old. [1] Trying to say that it is unreliable because it cannot do things that it is not intended to do is like saying that a lawyer is dumb because he couldn't score 10 goals in a basketball hoop.

"Widely discordant dates are the rule, not the exception."

con simply replies

If the methods were producing completely "haywire" results at random due to contamnation, such a pattern of concordant results would not be expected.

but that's what I just said was happening

"Widely discordant dates are the rule, not the exception."

so we completely disagree on this point but neither of us has proven anything one way or the other.

That quote was directed towards the contamination argument.

Actually, they had measured the age of many asteroids with radiometric dating, and they had agreeing dates:

4
4.21 +/- 0.76
4.37 +/- 0.34
4.50 +/- 0.02
4.43 +/- 0.04
4.52 +/- 0.04
4.59 +/- 0.06
4.44 +/- 0.12
4.38 +/- 0.12
4.49 +/- 0.02
4.46 +/- 0.06
4.51 +/- 0.04
4.44 +/- 0.13
4.53 +/- 0.19
4.44 +/- 0.30
4.57 +/- 0.19
4.45 +/- 0.18
4.57 +/- 0.21
Source: [2]

finally, I said NO SEMANTICS!!

you think you defeated the candle analogy but how about the swimming race one? you failed to mention that one. see, I included two so you couldn't twist words around to get a solution.

It wasn't semantics. I never twisted the definitions of words. The swimming race one does not apply to radiometric dating, because there is nothing to measure, while radiometric dating has constant decay rates to measure. I proved that they were constant last round. What the radiometric dating method is measuring is the "wax". Saying that it is a stupid semantic is not a valid response, because you are basically makinga logical fallacy:

FritzStemmbeger's fallacy:

P1. The way radiometric dating works is a stupid semantic in my opinion.
P2. My opinions must be true.
C: Radiometric dating is false.

Thus: Radiometric dating is too flawed to be trustworthy and is un-reliable.
wildly discordant dates are produced and then selected from to fit pre concieved ideas, which I will likely show in the next round.

No, you made a logical fallacy and also did not respond to my rebuttals on the assumptions.

Also, different dating methods are used to date a rock, and the results are as follows, they agree to eachother:[3]

Saint Severin 4 samples Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.33
10 samples Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.15
whole rock Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.04
whole rock Ar-Ar 4.38 +/- 0.04
whole rock Ar-Ar 4.42 +/- 0.04

My opponent's arguments were rebutted, he only attempted to refute some of the rebuttals, the following arguments were conceded by my opponent:

2.) The process rate of decay is assumed to have remained constant throughout billions of years.
3.) It is assumed that no radiogenic daughter products were present when the minerals were first formed.


Then he contends his case is true. "His" arguments were either refuted or conceded by himself, therefore his conclusion is unsubstantiated.

Pro has posted no evidence that radiometric dating isunreliable. Instead he copied his first few arguments from a book and the last one from http://creation.com... .

[1]http://science.howstuffworks.com...
[2]Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1991,The Age ofThe Earth California, Stanford University Press. 474 pp.
[3]http://www.talkorigins.org...
FritzStammberger

Pro

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Potassium–argon dating or K–Ar dating is a radiometric dating method used in geochronology and archaeology.

Assumptions

According to McDougall and Harrison (1999, p. 11) the following assumptions must be true for computed dates to be accepted as representing the true age of the rock.

  • The parent nuclide, 40K, decays at a rate independent of its physical state and is not affected by differences in pressure or temperature. This is a well founded major assumption, common to all dating methods based on radioactive decay. Although changes in the electron capture partial decay constant for 40K possibly may occur at high pressures, theoretical calculations indicate that for pressures experienced within a body of the size of the Earth the effects are negligibly small.
  • The 40K/39K ratio in nature is constant so the 40K is rarely measured directly, but is assumed to be 0.0117% of the total potassium. Unless some other process is active at the time of cooling, this is a very good assumption for terrestrial samples.
  • The radiogenic argon measured in a sample was produced by in situ decay of 40K in the interval since the rock crystallized or was recrystallized. Violations of this assumption are not uncommon. Well-known examples of incorporation of extraneous 40Ar include chilled glassy deep-sea basalts that have not completely outgassed preexisting 40Ar*,and the physical contamination of a magma by inclusion of older xenolitic material. The Ar–Ar dating method was developed to measure the presence of extraneous argon.
  • Great care is needed to avoid contamination of samples by absorption of nonradiogenic 40Ar from the atmosphere. The equation may be corrected by subtracting from the 40Armeasured value the amount present in the air where 40Ar is 295.5 times more plentiful than 36Ar. 40Ardecayed = 40Armeasured − 295.5 × 36Armeasured.
  • The sample must have remained a closed system since the event being dated. Thus, there should have been no loss or gain of 40K or 40Ar*, other than by radioactive decay of 40K. Departures from this assumption are quite common, particularly in areas of complex geological history, but such departures can provide useful information that is of value in elucidating thermal histories. A deficiency of 40Arin a sample of a known age can indicate a full or partial melt in the thermal history of the area. Reliability in the dating of a geological feature is increased by sampling disparate areas which have been subjected to slightly different thermal histories.

Both flame photometry and mass spectrometry are destructive tests, so particular care is needed to ensure that the aliquots used are truly representative of the sample. Ar–Ar dating is a similar technique which compares isotopic ratios from the same portion of the sample to avoid this problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

assumption |əˈsəm(p) sh ən|

noun

1 a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.



Conclusion

As I have shown, in order for the radiometric dates to be reliable it must be ASSumed that

"The sample must have remained a closed system since the event being dated."

No samples have ever met this criteria and thus radiometric dates are un-reliable on this one point alone.

My Dad used to have a saying about ASSuming things...

Debate Round No. 3
jh1234l

Con

My opponent bases his argument on if the rocks are a closed system and contaminations. Absolutely closed systems cannot exist. However, many rocks are nearly closed systems, so closed that multiple radiometric dating methods produce consistent results, within 1 percent of each other. Some rocks may be open to outside contamination, but not all of them are. Most ages are determined from multiple mineral and rock samples, which give a consistent date within 1 and 3 percent. It is extremely unlikely that contamination would affect all samples by the same amount. [1]In conclusion, the contamination does not affect the age much.


"The sample must have remained a closed system since the event being dated."

Actually, it does not. The contamination does not affect it much, as proven above.

No samples have ever met this criteria and thus radiometric dates are un-reliable on this one point alone.

So a 1 percent difference because it is not completely closed makes it unreliable. Sounds right.

As you can see, Pro has provided no conclusive evidence for his side.

[1]http://www.talkorigins.org...
FritzStammberger

Pro


Thank you once again to "talk origins" for responding…



1. it is ASSumed that we can know the initial conditions when the rock or mineral formed.



2. it is ASSumed that the rock or mineral remained closed to loss or gain of the parent and/or daughter isotopes since crystallization.



3. The rate of decay of the parent isotope is known accurately, and has not changed during the existence of the rock or mineral since it crystallized.



- many cases have been documented of recent historic lava flows which yielded grossly incorrect K-Ar ages because of "excess argon."



- "If a dating method does not match the "expected" age then it is assumed to be in error and they continue to retest the sample until they get the data they wanted. Scientists do this with all "independent" dating methods, but it is all based on their uniformitarian presupposition, which creates a bias in their interpretation of the data. In reality, none of these dating methods are independent, because they are all dependent on uniformitarianism."


http://www.debate.org...



"In A. A. Snelling's book Earth's Catastrophic Past he lays out in a scholarly manner MORE than a hand full of examples. The reason he can't report them in conventional peer-reviewed journals is because they won't let him. It has nothing to do with his data being weak, but has everything to do with the current bias in the scientific community."


http://www.debate.org...



"Why is there substantial C-14 in coal beds and diamonds that should be C-14 dead, and how can we know rock samples are not contaminated from excess Ar?"


http://www.debate.org...



"The current 3.5% salinity is too low if the earth is 4.6 Ga years old (http://www.icr.org......). Also, the avg height reduction for all continents due to erosion is 2.4 in/thousand years, which means North America would be eroded flat to sea level in 10 million years (Journal of Geophysical Research, 69:3395-3401). How can the earth be 4.6 Ga? In addition, the rate of the earth's magnetic field decay has been measured at 5% per century (ESSA Technical Report, IER 46-IES1). Putting the starting strength where it wouldn't melt the earth it could only be decaying for 10000 years. How can the earth be 4.6 Ga? Of course, this is based on uniformitarian assumptions, but scientists can't reject the philosophy now! This list is not exhaustive."


http://www.debate.org...



If someone believes it is 3:15 and they only look at watches that affirm it, but ignore the pile of watches in the corner that disagree, their accuracy % is skewed.



http://www.debate.org...



Thus: not only radiometric dating is un-reliable. So are the scientists who do the experiments because they suffer from extreme bias towards a certain age of things and ignore or discard uncooperative data.



common sense dictates that it is unreliable to base conclusions on assumptions.



CONCLUSION:



1. assumptions are unreliable.



2. radiometric dating is based on several false assumptions.



3. Thus it logically and necessarily follows that


RADIOMETRIC DATING IS UNRELIABLE.



OR



1. biased scientists with strong preconceived notions of what is acceptable dates are unreliable.



2. radiometric dating is carried out by scientists with strong preconceived notions of what is acceptable dates.



3. Thus it logically and necessarily follows that


RADIOMETRIC DATING IS UNRELIABLE.



Also we can add to all this the view point that a powerful, supernatural, evil force wishes to deceive the humans into accepting an old age of the earth in an attempt to discredit the books of Moses which tell of the coming messiah Jesus Christ.



- is fluoride in the water to prevent cavities?



- did terrorists hiding in caves take down the 3 towers on 9/11 including a 50 story building (building 7) that was not hit by a plane? and their passports flew out of the jets and landed on the ground?



- do we need to power our cars on gasoline? or is there a better alternative?



- does the government always have your best interest at heart?



- are you really a cowboy if you smoke marlboro?



You better start examining what you have been told, not only about the age of the earth but many many other things as well. This is only a teeny tiny fraction of the larger deceptions in our world that are happening right now.


Debate Round No. 4
jh1234l

Con

The arguments regarding contaminations have been refuted in the last round. The others are arguments done by ThePipes and is not an accurate source. Therefore they are baseless.

Therefore I'll refute the ones that are not things I already refuted or arguments of someone else.

Ocean Salinity


Actually, the salt in the ocean fluxuates. In fact, the ocean loses about as much salt as it gains.[1] Therefore ocean salinity cannot be used for an accurate dating method.

Erosion of Continents

This argument fails to see the other side: the continents also build up through things like lava flows, delta and continental shelf buildup, and uplift from colliding tectonic plates. These build ups are nearly the same speed of the erosion rates.[2]

Decay of The Magnetic Field

The magnetic field of the Earth has fluctuated and reversed in polarity over time, proven by evidence of periods of increasing and decreasing field energy [3]. The magnetic field therefore cannot be used for a reliable dating method

Fritz's CONCLUSION:



1. assumptions are unreliable.



2. radiometric dating is based on several false assumptions.



3. Thus it logically and necessarily follows that


RADIOMETRIC DATING IS UNRELIABLE.


The right conclusion:

1. Rock are nearly closed systems and therefore contamination has only changed the results by 1%. Contamination can be deected using the isrochron dating method, the same thing as radiometric dating except with multiple samples.[4]

2.Fritz has made no arguments by himself, while I made rebuttals based on information rom my sources.

Therefore Fritz has not met his BOP.

How I would vote if I were you:

Arguments: Con. Pro never had any of his own arguments and did not meet his BOP, while I posted information from my sources in my own words.

Conduct: Con.

"Also we can add to all this the view point that a powerful, supernatural, evil force wishes to deceive the humans into accepting an old age of the earth in an attempt to discredit the books of Moses which tell of the coming messiah Jesus Christ." Pro is basically saying that yone who does not agree with him is evil. That does not deserve to be in a debate, a conversation where people exchange their opinions.

Sources: Tied. We both used biased sources.

S/G: Pro. I had some errors in spelling and grammar.

Sources:


[1]http://orgs.usd.edu...
[2]Ross, Hugh. 2004. A Matter of Days. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 186-187 p.
[3]http://orgs.usd.edu...
[4]http://www.talkorigins.org...
FritzStammberger

Pro

The one undeniable FACT with ALL radiometric dates is that they are all based on unprovable assumptions about the past.

Any date can be selected depending on the assumptions that are made. This is what geologist do. They make up an assumed geological history for a rock depending on the numbers that come from the geochronology lab.

"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."

http://biblicalgeology.net...

"What would our geologist think if the date from the lab were less than 30 million years, say 10.1 ± 1.8 million years? No problem. Would he query the dating method, the chronometer? No. He would again say that the calculated age did not represent the time when the rock solidified. He may suggest that some of the chemicals in the rock had been disturbed by groundwater or weathering.4 Or he may decide that the rock had been affected by a localized heating event—one strong enough to disturb the chemicals, but not strong enough to be visible in the field."

"No matter what the radiometric date turned out to be, our geologist would always be able to ‘interpret’ it. He would simply change his assumptions about the history of the rock to explain the result in a plausible way. G. Wasserburg, who received the 1986 Crafoord Prize in Geosciences, said, ‘There are no bad chronometers, only bad interpretations of them!’5 In fact, there is a whole range of standard explanations that geologists use to ‘interpret’ radiometric dating results."

http://biblicalgeology.net...

References and notes

  1. In addition to other unprovable assumptions, e.g. that the decay rate has never changed.
  2. Evolutionary geologists believe that the rocks are millions of years old because they assume they were formed very slowly. They have worked out their geologic timescale based on this assumption. This timescale deliberately ignores the catastrophic effects of the Biblical Flood, which deposited the rocks very quickly.
  3. This argument was used against creationist work that exposed problems with radiometric dating. Laboratory tests on rock formed from the 1980 eruption of Mt St Helens gave ‘ages’ of millions of years. Critics claimed that ‘old’ crystals contained in the rock contaminated the result. However, careful measurements by Dr Steve Austin showed this criticism to be wrong. See Swenson, K., Radio-dating in rubble, Creation23(3):23–25, 2001.
  4. This argument was used against creationist work done on a piece of wood found in sandstone near Sydney, Australia, that was supposed to be 230 million years old. Critics claimed that the carbon-14 results were ‘too young’ because the wood had been contaminated by weathering. However, careful measurements of the carbon-13 isotope refuted this criticism. See Snelling, A.A., Dating dilemma: fossil wood in ‘ancient’ sandstone,Creation21(3):39–41, 1999.
  5. Wasserburg, G.J., Isotopic abundances: inferences on solar system and planetary evolution,Earth and Planetary Sciences Letters86:129–173, 150, 1987.

Here are some synonyms for "RELIABLE"

Synonyms

trusty, authentic, consistent. Reliable, infallible, trustworthy apply topersons, objects, ideas, or information that can be depended upon with confident certainty. Reliable suggests consistent dependability ofjudgment, character, performance, or result: a reliable formula, judge,car, meteorologist. Infallible suggests the complete absence of error,breakdown, or poor performance: an infallible test, system, marksman.Trustworthy emphasizes the steady and honest dependability which encourages one's confidence, belief, or trust: trustworthy and accuratereports.

Based on arguments that I have provided It can not be said that radiometric dating meets this standard of reliability. It is not "infallible", it is not "consistent." it is not "steady" and is therefore literally un-reliable.

perhaps your standard of reliable is too low.

-WD 40 is reliable
- Duct tape is reliable
- Jesus Christ is reliable

- radiometric dating is un-reliable.

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief."
- Timothy

Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by FritzStammberger 4 years ago
FritzStammberger
you just SAY it is discredited but it isn't, just because you claim something doesn't make it true.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
I facepalmed in the first sentence of pro's argument. The whole cosmic ray c-14 thing has been discredited by even creationists.

http://creationwiki.org...

"This is simply an outdated claim. Henry Morris was presenting some phenomenon that at the time seemed to have the potential of affecting decay rates. Thirty plus years of additional research have shown better models for accelerated decay."
Posted by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
"Pro should start on the first round and only post a conclusion in the last round." was in the rules.
Posted by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
I meant to type anyone, not "yone" in my round five.
Posted by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
radiometric dating in general
Posted by FritzStammberger 4 years ago
FritzStammberger
do you want to debate carbon 14 or uranium lead or both or other?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
jh1234lFritzStammbergerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and sources to Con, because pro used outdated claims. After Con refuted pro's claims, he ignored the rebuttals and just said he won. This happens for the next rounds. In a constant dropping by pro. Con proved radiometric dating was accurate and pro never responded. Arguments to Con
Vote Placed by badbob 4 years ago
badbob
jh1234lFritzStammbergerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: First , it looks to me like last voter tmar19652 is a vore bomber. Just my opinion! Coduct goes to pro because of comments by con such as "thanks to Henry Herbert for responding instead of fritz", when he also did the same thing and quoted people. He lost on arguments because he did not respond convincingly to pro's arguments. Pro was very thorough and laid out his argument very nicely. Still, both sides did a good job and overall it was an intersting debate. Both sides get credit for that!
Vote Placed by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
jh1234lFritzStammbergerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: In the end, fritz did not show that radiometric dating relies on un-provable assumptions. Con also used more sources. Conduct to con for pro using new arguments in the last round.