Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

YEC Debate

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 7:45:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Some of you might be interested in reading this. Yes, it's shameless self-promotion.

"The Earth is >10,000 years old"
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 2:39:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 7:45:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
Some of you might be interested in reading this. Yes, it's shameless self-promotion.

"The Earth is >10,000 years old"

Anyone who believe that garbage, as does a relative of mine, needs serious medical attention. There is enough evidence to prove that the world is much, much older, imo.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 3:46:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 7:45:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
Some of you might be interested in reading this. Yes, it's shameless self-promotion.

"The Earth is >10,000 years old"

I should have included the debate link..

http://www.debate.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 4:43:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 2:39:52 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 2/8/2015 7:45:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
Some of you might be interested in reading this. Yes, it's shameless self-promotion.

"The Earth is >10,000 years old"

Anyone who believe that garbage, as does a relative of mine, needs serious medical attention. There is enough evidence to prove that the world is much, much older, imo.

Nah. As creationists rightly point out, as long as one doesn't have knowledge of the starting amount of radioactive elements present in rocks then all estimates of Earth's age are at best a guess.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 9:54:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 4:43:41 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/9/2015 2:39:52 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 2/8/2015 7:45:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
Some of you might be interested in reading this. Yes, it's shameless self-promotion.

"The Earth is >10,000 years old"

Anyone who believe that garbage, as does a relative of mine, needs serious medical attention. There is enough evidence to prove that the world is much, much older, imo.

Nah. As creationists rightly point out, as long as one doesn't have knowledge of the starting amount of radioactive elements present in rocks then all estimates of Earth's age are at best a guess.

You obviously don't really understand radiometric dating. Get at least a bit of education and give it a try.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 4:32:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 9:54:06 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/9/2015 4:43:41 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/9/2015 2:39:52 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 2/8/2015 7:45:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
Some of you might be interested in reading this. Yes, it's shameless self-promotion.

"The Earth is >10,000 years old"

Anyone who believe that garbage, as does a relative of mine, needs serious medical attention. There is enough evidence to prove that the world is much, much older, imo.

Nah. As creationists rightly point out, as long as one doesn't have knowledge of the starting amount of radioactive elements present in rocks then all estimates of Earth's age are at best a guess.

You obviously don't really understand radiometric dating. Get at least a bit of education and give it a try.

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

You're just being stubborn.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 4:34:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 4:32:47 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:54:06 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/9/2015 4:43:41 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/9/2015 2:39:52 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 2/8/2015 7:45:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
Some of you might be interested in reading this. Yes, it's shameless self-promotion.

"The Earth is >10,000 years old"

Anyone who believe that garbage, as does a relative of mine, needs serious medical attention. There is enough evidence to prove that the world is much, much older, imo.

Nah. As creationists rightly point out, as long as one doesn't have knowledge of the starting amount of radioactive elements present in rocks then all estimates of Earth's age are at best a guess.

You obviously don't really understand radiometric dating. Get at least a bit of education and give it a try.

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

You're just being stubborn.

Uh, no, I'm being reasonable and logical, choosing to accept the evidence that has been presented over time that these techniques are valid and rejecting those few outliers that challenge the science fallaciously time and again. As I said, get a little education and give it a try.
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 4:43:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 7:45:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
Some of you might be interested in reading this. Yes, it's shameless self-promotion.

"The Earth is >10,000 years old"

I am kinda curious of your response to the 3 "presuppositions" (Initial Isotope Ratios, Lack of Contamination, and Constant Decay Rate) he said you have to make for radiometric dating. I am wondering because I only really see those made in the last round of any debate on the topic (when the poster goes last) to avoid being rebutted.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 4:49:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 4:43:56 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/8/2015 7:45:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
Some of you might be interested in reading this. Yes, it's shameless self-promotion.

"The Earth is >10,000 years old"

I am kinda curious of your response to the 3 "presuppositions" (Initial Isotope Ratios, Lack of Contamination, and Constant Decay Rate) he said you have to make for radiometric dating. I am wondering because I only really see those made in the last round of any debate on the topic (when the poster goes last) to avoid being rebutted.

I didn't mind in this case since I already pre-emoted those rebuttals...
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 4:52:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 4:49:17 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/9/2015 4:43:56 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/8/2015 7:45:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
Some of you might be interested in reading this. Yes, it's shameless self-promotion.

"The Earth is >10,000 years old"

I am kinda curious of your response to the 3 "presuppositions" (Initial Isotope Ratios, Lack of Contamination, and Constant Decay Rate) he said you have to make for radiometric dating. I am wondering because I only really see those made in the last round of any debate on the topic (when the poster goes last) to avoid being rebutted.

I didn't mind in this case since I already pre-emoted those rebuttals...

Well, I guess I should reread and pay attention to your debate, lol. I usually don't vote on these debates or read them that in depth (not usually interested enough).
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 5:37:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 4:43:41 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/9/2015 2:39:52 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 2/8/2015 7:45:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
Some of you might be interested in reading this. Yes, it's shameless self-promotion.

"The Earth is >10,000 years old"

Anyone who believe that garbage, as does a relative of mine, needs serious medical attention. There is enough evidence to prove that the world is much, much older, imo.

Nah. As creationists rightly point out, as long as one doesn't have knowledge of the starting amount of radioactive elements present in rocks then all estimates of Earth's age are at best a guess.

Just like germ theory and other scientific claims. But, that doesn't mean that if its not 100%, we should ignore it. It's called accuracy, not 100%.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 7:51:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 4:34:31 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/9/2015 4:32:47 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:54:06 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/9/2015 4:43:41 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/9/2015 2:39:52 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 2/8/2015 7:45:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
Some of you might be interested in reading this. Yes, it's shameless self-promotion.

"The Earth is >10,000 years old"

Anyone who believe that garbage, as does a relative of mine, needs serious medical attention. There is enough evidence to prove that the world is much, much older, imo.

Nah. As creationists rightly point out, as long as one doesn't have knowledge of the starting amount of radioactive elements present in rocks then all estimates of Earth's age are at best a guess.

You obviously don't really understand radiometric dating. Get at least a bit of education and give it a try.

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

You're just being stubborn.

Uh, no, I'm being reasonable and logical, choosing to accept the evidence that has been presented over time that these techniques are valid and rejecting those few outliers that challenge the science fallaciously time and again. As I said, get a little education and give it a try.

Nah. You're being illogical and stubborn. As I stated earlier, as long as mankind was absent at the making of the rocks, then ALL radiometric dating are at best guesses. The reason is obvious to the LOGICAL person: the daughter products could have been present during the formation of the rocks. I've not seen any convincing counter-argument to this.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 7:53:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 5:37:02 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/9/2015 4:43:41 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/9/2015 2:39:52 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 2/8/2015 7:45:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
Some of you might be interested in reading this. Yes, it's shameless self-promotion.

"The Earth is >10,000 years old"

Anyone who believe that garbage, as does a relative of mine, needs serious medical attention. There is enough evidence to prove that the world is much, much older, imo.

Nah. As creationists rightly point out, as long as one doesn't have knowledge of the starting amount of radioactive elements present in rocks then all estimates of Earth's age are at best a guess.

Just like germ theory and other scientific claims. But, that doesn't mean that if its not 100%, we should ignore it. It's called accuracy, not 100%.

Germs have been observed in real-time, I can't say the same for the Earth's age. BTW, you've not rebutted my argument.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:26:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 7:51:13 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/9/2015 4:34:31 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/9/2015 4:32:47 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:54:06 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/9/2015 4:43:41 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/9/2015 2:39:52 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 2/8/2015 7:45:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
Some of you might be interested in reading this. Yes, it's shameless self-promotion.

"The Earth is >10,000 years old"

Anyone who believe that garbage, as does a relative of mine, needs serious medical attention. There is enough evidence to prove that the world is much, much older, imo.

Nah. As creationists rightly point out, as long as one doesn't have knowledge of the starting amount of radioactive elements present in rocks then all estimates of Earth's age are at best a guess.

You obviously don't really understand radiometric dating. Get at least a bit of education and give it a try.

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

You're just being stubborn.

Uh, no, I'm being reasonable and logical, choosing to accept the evidence that has been presented over time that these techniques are valid and rejecting those few outliers that challenge the science fallaciously time and again. As I said, get a little education and give it a try.

Nah. You're being illogical and stubborn. As I stated earlier, as long as mankind was absent at the making of the rocks, then ALL radiometric dating are at best guesses. The reason is obvious to the LOGICAL person: the daughter products could have been present during the formation of the rocks. I've not seen any convincing counter-argument to this.

Read the debate then, that has all be addressed at length. It's only 2 rounds as well.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:26:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 7:53:33 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/9/2015 5:37:02 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/9/2015 4:43:41 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/9/2015 2:39:52 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 2/8/2015 7:45:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
Some of you might be interested in reading this. Yes, it's shameless self-promotion.

"The Earth is >10,000 years old"

Anyone who believe that garbage, as does a relative of mine, needs serious medical attention. There is enough evidence to prove that the world is much, much older, imo.

Nah. As creationists rightly point out, as long as one doesn't have knowledge of the starting amount of radioactive elements present in rocks then all estimates of Earth's age are at best a guess.

Just like germ theory and other scientific claims. But, that doesn't mean that if its not 100%, we should ignore it. It's called accuracy, not 100%.

Germs have been observed in real-time, I can't say the same for the Earth's age. BTW, you've not rebutted my argument.

Yes and it's because of observing those germs that we have established Germ Theory which is still a theory.

Germ Theory: The germ theory of disease states that some diseases are caused by microorganisms. These small organisms, too small to see without magnification, invade humans, animals, and other living hosts. Their growth and reproduction within their hosts can cause a disease.

I am not trying to rebute your argument, but I am pointing out EVERY science is based on assumptions from experience. The same scientific method for dating carbon is the same to test the accuracy of medicines. It's why some people can't take certain medications. I may be able to take Depakote (which helps with my eplilepsy), but I can no longer take certain pain killer medications because if I did, then it would negate the effect of my Depakote and I would possibly have a seizure. This has been determined by testing or experience from past patients that other doctors have faced. So a mistake can be made with your doctor and he uses his mistake to learn more about the patient and symptoms the patient has. This helps us tackle it in the future.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 9:04:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:26:14 PM, Envisage wrote:


Read the debate then, that has all be addressed at length. It's only 2 rounds as well.

I don't think it was, with you forfeiting rounds and all. The only point of note was the one you made concerning zircons preventing leaching and that hardly tampers with my argument.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 9:08:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 9:04:59 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:26:14 PM, Envisage wrote:


Read the debate then, that has all be addressed at length. It's only 2 rounds as well.

I don't think it was, with you forfeiting rounds and all. The only point of note was the one you made concerning zircons preventing leaching and that hardly tampers with my argument.

If you read the whole debate it would have been obvious I didn't ff a round. On top of the use of zircon crystals (which do much more than just controlling for leeching, which you seem to have ignored I argued in the final round for being able to test for the presence of any non radiogenic lead.

Thus your argument is false both in practice and in principle.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 9:23:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:26:36 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:


Yes and it's because of observing those germs that we have established Germ Theory which is still a theory.

True.


Germ Theory: The germ theory of disease states that some diseases are caused by microorganisms. These small organisms, too small to see without magnification, invade humans, animals, and other living hosts. Their growth and reproduction within their hosts can cause a disease.

OK.


I am not trying to rebute your argument, but I am pointing out EVERY science is based on assumptions from experience. The same scientific method for dating carbon is the same to test the accuracy of medicines. It's why some people can't take certain medications. I may be able to take Depakote (which helps with my eplilepsy), but I can no longer take certain pain killer medications because if I did, then it would negate the effect of my Depakote and I would possibly have a seizure. This has been determined by testing or experience from past patients that other doctors have faced. So a mistake can be made with your doctor and he uses his mistake to learn more about the patient and symptoms the patient has. This helps us tackle it in the future.

Sure they depend on assumptions. And in this dating case, it's the assumptions that are flawed. I have stated that flaw.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 9:29:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 9:23:35 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:26:36 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:


Yes and it's because of observing those germs that we have established Germ Theory which is still a theory.

True.


Germ Theory: The germ theory of disease states that some diseases are caused by microorganisms. These small organisms, too small to see without magnification, invade humans, animals, and other living hosts. Their growth and reproduction within their hosts can cause a disease.

OK.


I am not trying to rebute your argument, but I am pointing out EVERY science is based on assumptions from experience. The same scientific method for dating carbon is the same to test the accuracy of medicines. It's why some people can't take certain medications. I may be able to take Depakote (which helps with my eplilepsy), but I can no longer take certain pain killer medications because if I did, then it would negate the effect of my Depakote and I would possibly have a seizure. This has been determined by testing or experience from past patients that other doctors have faced. So a mistake can be made with your doctor and he uses his mistake to learn more about the patient and symptoms the patient has. This helps us tackle it in the future.

Sure they depend on assumptions. And in this dating case, it's the assumptions that are flawed. I have stated that flaw.

In case I can't remember, explain in detail what these "flaws" are.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 9:38:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 9:08:21 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/10/2015 9:04:59 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:26:14 PM, Envisage wrote:


Read the debate then, that has all be addressed at length. It's only 2 rounds as well.

I don't think it was, with you forfeiting rounds and all. The only point of note was the one you made concerning zircons preventing leaching and that hardly tampers with my argument.

If you read the whole debate it would have been obvious I didn't ff a round. On top of the use of zircon crystals (which do much more than just controlling for leeching, which you seem to have ignored I argued in the final round for being able to test for the presence of any non radiogenic lead.

Thus your argument is false both in practice and in principle.

Technically, you forfeited a round after Con did. I don't see how non-radiogenic lead rebuts my argument. My argument is the same is the assumption #1 made by your opponent in the final round which you didn't have a chance to respond to. Again, my argument, like his, is that the daughter products could have been formed at the rocks formation.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 5:04:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 9:38:11 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/10/2015 9:08:21 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/10/2015 9:04:59 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:26:14 PM, Envisage wrote:


Read the debate then, that has all be addressed at length. It's only 2 rounds as well.

I don't think it was, with you forfeiting rounds and all. The only point of note was the one you made concerning zircons preventing leaching and that hardly tampers with my argument.

If you read the whole debate it would have been obvious I didn't ff a round. On top of the use of zircon crystals (which do much more than just controlling for leeching, which you seem to have ignored I argued in the final round for being able to test for the presence of any non radiogenic lead.

Thus your argument is false both in practice and in principle.

Technically, you forfeited a round after Con did. I don't see how non-radiogenic lead rebuts my argument.

Your argument IS that non-radiogenic lead is in the samples, giving false ages. Thus demonstrating that there are mechanisms by which it is both excluded and controlled for rebuts your argument.

My argument is the same is the assumption #1 made by your opponent in the final round which you didn't have a chance to respond to. Again, my argument, like his, is that the daughter products could have been formed at the rocks formation.

If it did then it would have been excluded in the crystallisation process, since lead is incompatible with the zircon crystal lattice. It's completely the wrong size, charge and bonding geometry. It has been tested for too, zircon has been made under a plethora of conditions, including high lead concentrations, and essentially without exception the lead is completely excluded while uranium and thorium is included.

Also if that lead was included in the crystalisation process then lead-204, a non-radiogenic isotope, would have also been included in the crystal lattice, since there is no way for geological processes to differentiate between lead 204 and lead 206/207. Again, we hardly ever see any lead-204 at all in zircon crystals, and if we do, then it can be trivially corrected for. We know lead-204 is always present since it is present in other minerals that co-crystallize in the same rocks are the zircon crystals exist in.

So to summarise:

1. Virtually all the lead measured in zircon crystals must be radiogenic in origin - since non-radiogenic lead is excluded
2. If non-radiogenic lead was included, then it would be trivially detected

Also, if there were non-standard processes occurring then the discord plot between U-235/Pb-207 and U-238/206 would be erratic, since it would have to be a statistical fluke for them to line up the way we find they do.

Also, no I didn't forfeit, I passed the round back. Seems the most likely explanation is you thought I FF a round instead of creationtruth and are making up post-hoc reasons.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 9:05:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 7:51:13 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/9/2015 4:34:31 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/9/2015 4:32:47 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:54:06 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/9/2015 4:43:41 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/9/2015 2:39:52 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 2/8/2015 7:45:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
Some of you might be interested in reading this. Yes, it's shameless self-promotion.

"The Earth is >10,000 years old"

Anyone who believe that garbage, as does a relative of mine, needs serious medical attention. There is enough evidence to prove that the world is much, much older, imo.

Nah. As creationists rightly point out, as long as one doesn't have knowledge of the starting amount of radioactive elements present in rocks then all estimates of Earth's age are at best a guess.

You obviously don't really understand radiometric dating. Get at least a bit of education and give it a try.

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

You're just being stubborn.

Uh, no, I'm being reasonable and logical, choosing to accept the evidence that has been presented over time that these techniques are valid and rejecting those few outliers that challenge the science fallaciously time and again. As I said, get a little education and give it a try.

Nah. You're being illogical and stubborn. As I stated earlier, as long as mankind was absent at the making of the rocks, then ALL radiometric dating are at best guesses. The reason is obvious to the LOGICAL person: the daughter products could have been present during the formation of the rocks. I've not seen any convincing counter-argument to this.

Only because you don't want to. In the case of Uranium/Lead dating, for example, the primary material used easily accepts uranium but strongly rejects lead. There are also two different isotopes in most cases and they have different half-lives so there is a built in double check. There is much more, if you care to actually look instead of insist that it's all guesswork. Did you even read the link I posted?
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2015 10:38:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 9:05:41 AM, dhardage wrote:

Only because you don't want to. In the case of Uranium/Lead dating, for example, the primary material used easily accepts uranium but strongly rejects lead. There are also two different isotopes in most cases and they have different half-lives so there is a built in double check. There is much more, if you care to actually look instead of insist that it's all guesswork. Did you even read the link I posted?

If it strongly rejects lead and lead loss is a problem won't that cast doubt on the ages derived from it ? I'd say yes. Moreover, I think my argument is much stronger in K-Ar dating and Rb-Sr dating since these are more liable to contamination, the former from excess argon from magma and the latter from the mobility and reactivity of both) and) and Sr.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2015 10:45:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/13/2015 10:38:46 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/11/2015 9:05:41 AM, dhardage wrote:

Only because you don't want to. In the case of Uranium/Lead dating, for example, the primary material used easily accepts uranium but strongly rejects lead. There are also two different isotopes in most cases and they have different half-lives so there is a built in double check. There is much more, if you care to actually look instead of insist that it's all guesswork. Did you even read the link I posted?

If it strongly rejects lead and lead loss is a problem won't that cast doubt on the ages derived from it ? I'd say yes. Moreover, I think my argument is much stronger in K-Ar dating and Rb-Sr dating since these are more liable to contamination, the former from excess argon from magma and the latter from the mobility and reactivity of both) and) and Sr.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Get some updated information and stop reading creationist web sites.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2015 11:49:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 5:04:37 AM, Envisage wrote:

Your argument IS that non-radiogenic lead is in the samples, giving false ages. Thus demonstrating that there are mechanisms by which it is both excluded and controlled for rebuts your argument.

That isn't my argument.


If it did then it would have been excluded in the crystallisation process, since lead is incompatible with the zircon crystal lattice. It's completely the wrong size, charge and bonding geometry. It has been tested for too, zircon has been made under a plethora of conditions, including high lead concentrations, and essentially without exception the lead is completely excluded while uranium and thorium is included.

If it highly incompatible with zircon how come radiogenic lead is present ? The fact that even radiogenic lead is usually found in low concentrations in zircon crystals suggests that some may have been ejected. Besides, it is said zircon readily incorporates uranium and thorium into its structure, is there any factor preventing their incorporation after crystallization ?


Also if that lead was included in the crystalisation process then lead-204, a non-radiogenic isotope, would have also been included in the crystal lattice, since there is no way for geological processes to differentiate between lead 204 and lead 206/207. Again, we hardly ever see any lead-204 at all in zircon crystals, and if we do, then it can be trivially corrected for. We know lead-204 is always present since it is present in other minerals that co-crystallize in the same rocks are the zircon crystals exist in.

Nah. Lead-204 is hardly present, it is a rare lead isotope with a natural abundance of just 1.4%. Lead-206/207 are far more common which explains their presence in zircon crystals.


So to summarise:

1. Virtually all the lead measured in zircon crystals must be radiogenic in origin - since non-radiogenic lead is excluded
2. If non-radiogenic lead was included, then it would be trivially detected

1) Lead could be leached due to radiation damage, this much is said in the Wikipedia article on Ur-Pb dating. (Check 'the interaction between mineralogy and radioactive breakdown' subheading)
2) The non-radiogenic lead you specify is rare.


Also, if there were non-standard processes occurring then the discord plot between U-235/Pb-207 and U-238/206 would be erratic, since it would have to be a statistical fluke for them to line up the way we find they do.

Maybe non-standard processes don't need to occur then.


Also, no I didn't forfeit, I passed the round back. Seems the most likely explanation is you thought I FF a round instead of creationtruth and are making up post-hoc reasons.

Fine then, you didn't FF a round.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2015 12:58:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/13/2015 10:45:54 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/13/2015 10:38:46 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/11/2015 9:05:41 AM, dhardage wrote:

Only because you don't want to. In the case of Uranium/Lead dating, for example, the primary material used easily accepts uranium but strongly rejects lead. There are also two different isotopes in most cases and they have different half-lives so there is a built in double check. There is much more, if you care to actually look instead of insist that it's all guesswork. Did you even read the link I posted?

If it strongly rejects lead and lead loss is a problem won't that cast doubt on the ages derived from it ? I'd say yes. Moreover, I think my argument is much stronger in K-Ar dating and Rb-Sr dating since these are more liable to contamination, the former from excess argon from magma and the latter from the mobility and reactivity of both) and) and Sr.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Get some updated information and stop reading creationist web sites.

Your article rebuts challenges to nuclear decay rates. I'm not questioning decay rates. I'm asking if lead loss could affect Ur-Pb dating. Answer that.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2015 1:16:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 4:43:41 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/9/2015 2:39:52 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 2/8/2015 7:45:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
Some of you might be interested in reading this. Yes, it's shameless self-promotion.

"The Earth is >10,000 years old"

Anyone who believe that garbage, as does a relative of mine, needs serious medical attention. There is enough evidence to prove that the world is much, much older, imo.

Nah. As creationists rightly point out, as long as one doesn't have knowledge of the starting amount of radioactive elements present in rocks then all estimates of Earth's age are at best a guess.

Ah, so creationists don't understand radiometric dating, which would explain their ridiculous point.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2015 1:27:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/14/2015 1:16:35 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
.

Ah, so creationists don't understand radiometric dating, which would explain their ridiculous point.

Nah. They understand that 3 assumptions are vital to radiometric dating.

1) Decay rates are constant: Actually a fact, but in rare cases and in artifiicial conditions they slightly change.
2) The system is closed: hence there was no leaching of daughter or parent products. The sample being dated wasn't contaminated. This one is more amenable to criticism.
3) The original amount of parent or parent-daughter ratio is known: Another weak assumption.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 8:35:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/14/2015 1:27:50 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/14/2015 1:16:35 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
.

Ah, so creationists don't understand radiometric dating, which would explain their ridiculous point.

Nah. They understand that 3 assumptions are vital to radiometric dating.

1) Decay rates are constant: Actually a fact, but in rare cases and in artifiicial conditions they slightly change.
2) The system is closed: hence there was no leaching of daughter or parent products. The sample being dated wasn't contaminated. This one is more amenable to criticism.
3) The original amount of parent or parent-daughter ratio is known: Another weak assumption.

Try again. There are numerous checks and cross checks to dating that are used to minimize the potential for improper dating.

http://www.talkorigins.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 8:44:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/16/2015 8:35:18 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/14/2015 1:27:50 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/14/2015 1:16:35 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
.

Ah, so creationists don't understand radiometric dating, which would explain their ridiculous point.

Nah. They understand that 3 assumptions are vital to radiometric dating.

1) Decay rates are constant: Actually a fact, but in rare cases and in artifiicial conditions they slightly change.
2) The system is closed: hence there was no leaching of daughter or parent products. The sample being dated wasn't contaminated. This one is more amenable to criticism.
3) The original amount of parent or parent-daughter ratio is known: Another weak assumption.

Try again. There are numerous checks and cross checks to dating that are used to minimize the potential for improper dating.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

The article you post doesn't mention the cross-checks. Neither did the article deal with the assumptions I have problem with (ie system being closed and parent-parent/daughter isotope ratios known). I would prefer it if you made your points here.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.