Total Posts:234|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Mac vs Ram in evolution thread

Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 4:36:43 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Ram and I decided to make a 1 on 1 thread between him and me. Ram can set the rules of how he wants to engage. But I have one question, can other people chime in because otherwise why don't we PM each other?
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 4:48:29 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 4:36:43 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Ram and I decided to make a 1 on 1 thread between him and me. Ram can set the rules of how he wants to engage. But I have one question, can other people chime in because otherwise why don't we PM each other?

I'd prefer this to be a public thread; and I'm sure that it would be beneficial for other people to see both our arguments. Other people can chime in; but you and I will only reply to each other

Okay, so here are the rules that I described in the other thread.

1.) The burden of proof is SOLELY on me.
2.) I will start by establishing what elements of science we agree upon.
3.) I will raise a single point at a time, and if you agree we move on; if we disagree we have a discussion about that point until either you concede and we move on; or I concede the point and forfeit the argument.
4.) In the process, I will deal with every objection you can raise against evolution in the process of raising these points; I may not answer them directly, but either show they are either not objections to evolution, or irrelevant to it.
5.) I will try, but obviously cannot promise, to keep things to a single point, and try and keep the questions I raise, and arguments I present as concise as I can; you don"t need to quote them in full.
6.) ANY accusations of a logical fallacy, must be supported by an argument justifying why it is a logical fallacy.

Here"s what you need to do:

1.) Stay on topic; don"t raise new or additional points not specifically and directly relevant to the point I am raising.
2.) Answer the questions I pose to you; they may not always seem relevant, but I promise the questions will all build upon each other.
3.) I will not be posting citations for every fact that I state; however if there is any fact you feel is not a fact you can feel free to fact check me.
4.) DO NOT reply to anyone else in the thread but me, and I will do the same, other people can comment, but our responses should be just between you and me.
5.) If you disagree with a point I raise, I would like you to present a justification of why you feel I am wrong.
6.) Be patient, you may want to ask a question about some aspect of evolution, but I need to raise a number of points first to get to the point where we I can deal with it; in (4) above, I will deal with everything you want to raise. Evolution is also a complex topic with a LOT of background I will need to establish.

Okay, here are my list of questions to establish our existing level of agreement.

Please state: YES or NO as to whether you agree with the following statements and I can proceed from there.

1.) Explanations that cannot be falsified should not be considered as arguments against a supported explanation which can be falsified.
2.) You can never be 100% certain about whether something is true, but you can establish things beyond any reasonable doubt.
3.) It is unreasonable to reject something if it is established beyond any reasonable doubt.
4.) A logical argument, with assumptions that necessarily leads to a given conclusion; is true if the assumptions can be demonstrated to be true.
5.) Radiometric dating is valid.
6) The fossil record is valid.
7.) Life can be arranged into an unviolated nested hierarchy.

I'm hoping that the first 4 are reasonable to you, and the last 3 are not.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 5:15:38 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 4:48:29 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/9/2015 4:36:43 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Ram and I decided to make a 1 on 1 thread between him and me. Ram can set the rules of how he wants to engage. But I have one question, can other people chime in because otherwise why don't we PM each other?

I'd prefer this to be a public thread; and I'm sure that it would be beneficial for other people to see both our arguments. Other people can chime in; but you and I will only reply to each other

Okay, so here are the rules that I described in the other thread.

1.) The burden of proof is SOLELY on me.
2.) I will start by establishing what elements of science we agree upon.
3.) I will raise a single point at a time, and if you agree we move on; if we disagree we have a discussion about that point until either you concede and we move on; or I concede the point and forfeit the argument.
4.) In the process, I will deal with every objection you can raise against evolution in the process of raising these points; I may not answer them directly, but either show they are either not objections to evolution, or irrelevant to it.
5.) I will try, but obviously cannot promise, to keep things to a single point, and try and keep the questions I raise, and arguments I present as concise as I can; you don"t need to quote them in full.
6.) ANY accusations of a logical fallacy, must be supported by an argument justifying why it is a logical fallacy.

Here"s what you need to do:

1.) Stay on topic; don"t raise new or additional points not specifically and directly relevant to the point I am raising.
2.) Answer the questions I pose to you; they may not always seem relevant, but I promise the questions will all build upon each other.
3.) I will not be posting citations for every fact that I state; however if there is any fact you feel is not a fact you can feel free to fact check me.
4.) DO NOT reply to anyone else in the thread but me, and I will do the same, other people can comment, but our responses should be just between you and me.
5.) If you disagree with a point I raise, I would like you to present a justification of why you feel I am wrong.
6.) Be patient, you may want to ask a question about some aspect of evolution, but I need to raise a number of points first to get to the point where we I can deal with it; in (4) above, I will deal with everything you want to raise. Evolution is also a complex topic with a LOT of background I will need to establish.



Okay, here are my list of questions to establish our existing level of agreement.

Please state: YES or NO as to whether you agree with the following statements and I can proceed from there.

1.) Explanations that cannot be falsified should not be considered as arguments against a supported explanation which can be falsified.

Yes.
2.) You can never be 100% certain about whether something is true, but you can establish things beyond any reasonable doubt.

Yes
3.) It is unreasonable to reject something if it is established beyond any reasonable doubt.

Yes
4.) A logical argument, with assumptions that necessarily leads to a given conclusion; is true if the assumptions can be demonstrated to be true.
Yes
5.) Radiometric dating is valid.

No
6) The fossil record is valid.
No
7.) Life can be arranged into an unviolated nested hierarchy.
No

I'm hoping that the first 4 are reasonable to you, and the last 3 are not.

Yep you're right. So how about you start with your first argument?
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 5:42:20 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 5:15:38 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/9/2015 4:48:29 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/9/2015 4:36:43 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Ram and I decided to make a 1 on 1 thread between him and me. Ram can set the rules of how he wants to engage. But I have one question, can other people chime in because otherwise why don't we PM each other?

I'd prefer this to be a public thread; and I'm sure that it would be beneficial for other people to see both our arguments. Other people can chime in; but you and I will only reply to each other

Okay, so here are the rules that I described in the other thread.

1.) The burden of proof is SOLELY on me.
2.) I will start by establishing what elements of science we agree upon.
3.) I will raise a single point at a time, and if you agree we move on; if we disagree we have a discussion about that point until either you concede and we move on; or I concede the point and forfeit the argument.
4.) In the process, I will deal with every objection you can raise against evolution in the process of raising these points; I may not answer them directly, but either show they are either not objections to evolution, or irrelevant to it.
5.) I will try, but obviously cannot promise, to keep things to a single point, and try and keep the questions I raise, and arguments I present as concise as I can; you don"t need to quote them in full.
6.) ANY accusations of a logical fallacy, must be supported by an argument justifying why it is a logical fallacy.

Here"s what you need to do:

1.) Stay on topic; don"t raise new or additional points not specifically and directly relevant to the point I am raising.
2.) Answer the questions I pose to you; they may not always seem relevant, but I promise the questions will all build upon each other.
3.) I will not be posting citations for every fact that I state; however if there is any fact you feel is not a fact you can feel free to fact check me.
4.) DO NOT reply to anyone else in the thread but me, and I will do the same, other people can comment, but our responses should be just between you and me.
5.) If you disagree with a point I raise, I would like you to present a justification of why you feel I am wrong.
6.) Be patient, you may want to ask a question about some aspect of evolution, but I need to raise a number of points first to get to the point where we I can deal with it; in (4) above, I will deal with everything you want to raise. Evolution is also a complex topic with a LOT of background I will need to establish.



Okay, here are my list of questions to establish our existing level of agreement.

Please state: YES or NO as to whether you agree with the following statements and I can proceed from there.

1.) Explanations that cannot be falsified should not be considered as arguments against a supported explanation which can be falsified.

Yes.
2.) You can never be 100% certain about whether something is true, but you can establish things beyond any reasonable doubt.

Yes
3.) It is unreasonable to reject something if it is established beyond any reasonable doubt.

Yes
4.) A logical argument, with assumptions that necessarily leads to a given conclusion; is true if the assumptions can be demonstrated to be true.
Yes
5.) Radiometric dating is valid.

No
6) The fossil record is valid.
No
7.) Life can be arranged into an unviolated nested hierarchy.
No

I'm hoping that the first 4 are reasonable to you, and the last 3 are not.

Yep you're right. So how about you start with your first argument?

Okay, lets start at the beginning with a theoretical question:

If I am performing radiometric dating on a sample; if radioactive decay rates have never changed since that sample was formed, and if no daughter isotopes were present in the sample; if I calculate the age of the sample using radiometric methods, would the date given be accurate to the precision of the devices I use to measure it?
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 6:30:39 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
In theory yes. If we know for a fact that it dacayed the same rate ever since it died, if we know, that it wasn't contaminated, and we know that there wasn't more of whatever method we used in the surrounding environment when it was living or being laid then it should work.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 7:11:04 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 6:30:39 PM, Maccabee wrote:
In theory yes. If we know for a fact that it decayed the same rate ever since it died, if we know, that it wasn't contaminated, and we know that there wasn't more of whatever method we used in the surrounding environment when it was living or being laid then it should work.

Okay good; just so I can reference it later, you agree with the statement:

7.) Ignoring the validity of the assumptions, the logic behind radiometric dating is sound.

Okay, moving on:

Do you agree that there are more than one method of radiometric dating; and that different isotopes are used, with different types and rates of decay, and each method uses slightly different assumptions; but all are valid if those assumptions are true; as with the example I gave.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 7:40:36 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 7:11:04 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:30:39 PM, Maccabee wrote:
In theory yes. If we know for a fact that it decayed the same rate ever since it died, if we know, that it wasn't contaminated, and we know that there wasn't more of whatever method we used in the surrounding environment when it was living or being laid then it should work.

Okay good; just so I can reference it later, you agree with the statement:

7.) Ignoring the validity of the assumptions, the logic behind radiometric dating is sound.

Yes I agree that the logic behind dating methods is sound.

Okay, moving on:

Do you agree that there are more than one method of radiometric dating; and that different isotopes are used, with different types and rates of decay, and each method uses slightly different assumptions; but all are valid if those assumptions are true; as with the example I gave.

Yep. I have no argument that the logic behind any form of dating is sound. And yes I do agree that there are deferent types of dating methods.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 7:44:22 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 7:40:36 PM, Maccabee wrote:

Lets for the moment keep assuming that the decay rates are constant and do not change.

And lets also bear in mind that geology and geochemistry can be highly complex, with different geological products in different conditions.

Given this:

We know that contamination of samples can occur leading to incorrect dates under specific conditions; IF we can tell when those specific conditions have occurred in a sample and when they haven"t; if you were measuring the age of the earth (whatever that actually is) with multiple samples, there will be incorrect dates generated, and correct dates generated; but we would be able to separate the dates which are valid with those that weren"t.

IE: to summarise:

9.) Good dates and bad dates are to be expected because the earth is complex; but IF we can accurately tell whether a sample is contaminated in some way or not; we can separate which dates are good, and which dates are bad.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 7:57:40 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 7:44:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/9/2015 7:40:36 PM, Maccabee wrote:

Lets for the moment keep assuming that the decay rates are constant and do not change.
Ok.

And lets also bear in mind that geology and geochemistry can be highly complex, with different geological products in different conditions.

Don't know that for a fact myself but I'll assume this too.

Given this:

We know that contamination of samples can occur leading to incorrect dates under specific conditions; IF we can tell when those specific conditions have occurred in a sample and when they haven"t; if you were measuring the age of the earth (whatever that actually is) with multiple samples, there will be incorrect dates generated, and correct dates generated; but we would be able to separate the dates which are valid with those that weren"t.

I argree since I'm assuming that the decay rate has always been the same.


IE: to summarise:

9.) Good dates and bad dates are to be expected because the earth is complex; but IF we can accurately tell whether a sample is contaminated in some way or not; we can separate which dates are good, and which dates are bad.

Agreed.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 8:01:56 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 7:57:40 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/9/2015 7:44:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/9/2015 7:40:36 PM, Maccabee wrote:

Lets for the moment keep assuming that the decay rates are constant and do not change.
Ok.

And lets also bear in mind that geology and geochemistry can be highly complex, with different geological products in different conditions.

Don't know that for a fact myself but I'll assume this too.

Given this:

We know that contamination of samples can occur leading to incorrect dates under specific conditions; IF we can tell when those specific conditions have occurred in a sample and when they haven"t; if you were measuring the age of the earth (whatever that actually is) with multiple samples, there will be incorrect dates generated, and correct dates generated; but we would be able to separate the dates which are valid with those that weren"t.

I argree since I'm assuming that the decay rate has always been the same.


IE: to summarise:

9.) Good dates and bad dates are to be expected because the earth is complex; but IF we can accurately tell whether a sample is contaminated in some way or not; we can separate which dates are good, and which dates are bad.

Agreed.

Continuing with contamination; and this is going to get a little more detailed.

Lets keep assuming, for the moment, that rates of radioactive decay are constant, and say that you have a collection of samples that you can date two different ways. Let say Potassium-Argon (Nobel Gas), And Uranium-Lead (metal)

These elements have different rates of decay; this means that given a particular age; the ratio of P:A and U:Pb would be different.

To illustrate what I mean, with simple numbers; if the half life of P is 500k years; and the half life of U is 1m years.

If you date a million year old sample, if it is indeed 1 million years; P will undergo 2 half-lives and thus there will be 25% P, and 75% A, and the uranium will have undergone one half life, and therefore there will be 50% U and 50% Pb. (I"m assuming this is uncontentious).

If the sample is contaminated with additional uranium after formation; U-Pb dating it will give earlier dates than formation. Additional Lead, it will give older dates with formation; the same goes for P-A dating.

If the sample is contaminated only with additional U, Pb, P or A but not combinations; the dates given by both measurements cannot be the same (when detectable outside of margins for error).

However, for them both to give the same dates, the amount of contamination for two completely different elements has to be just right.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 8:28:44 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Ok. I think what I got out of it so far is that there is ways to destingish between an contaminated sample and a in contaminated sample. Am I correct?
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 8:33:20 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Not to interrupt the dialogue, which I'm enjoying, but I'd like to voice a note of thanks to Maccabee and Ramshutu for having this discussion in this format.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 8:34:06 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 8:28:44 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Ok. I think what I got out of it so far is that there is ways to destingish between an contaminated sample and a in contaminated sample. Am I correct?

No. That isn't what I am trying to talk about at the moment. Statement (9) is stating that if we did have some way of telling, we could separate good dates or bad dates, but I haven't got as far as to state how.

The question above is going into more detail about how contamination would affect a sample.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 8:38:29 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 8:34:06 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:28:44 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Ok. I think what I got out of it so far is that there is ways to destingish between an contaminated sample and a in contaminated sample. Am I correct?

No. That isn't what I am trying to talk about at the moment. Statement (9) is stating that if we did have some way of telling, we could separate good dates or bad dates, but I haven't got as far as to state how.

The question above is going into more detail about how contamination would affect a sample.
Ok, continue.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 8:40:11 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 8:38:29 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:34:06 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:28:44 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Ok. I think what I got out of it so far is that there is ways to destingish between an contaminated sample and a in contaminated sample. Am I correct?

No. That isn't what I am trying to talk about at the moment. Statement (9) is stating that if we did have some way of telling, we could separate good dates or bad dates, but I haven't got as far as to state how.

The question above is going into more detail about how contamination would affect a sample.
Ok, continue.

Sorry, just to be clear; do you mean that you agree with my assessment in my previous post about how contamination affects a sample, and that "for [two dating methods] to both to give the same dates, the amount of contamination for two completely different elements has to be just right?"

I just want to make sure we're clear before I continue.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 9:21:48 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 8:40:11 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:38:29 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:34:06 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:28:44 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Ok. I think what I got out of it so far is that there is ways to destingish between an contaminated sample and a in contaminated sample. Am I correct?

No. That isn't what I am trying to talk about at the moment. Statement (9) is stating that if we did have some way of telling, we could separate good dates or bad dates, but I haven't got as far as to state how.

The question above is going into more detail about how contamination would affect a sample.
Ok, continue.

Sorry, just to be clear; do you mean that you agree with my assessment in my previous post about how contamination affects a sample, and that "for [two dating methods] to both to give the same dates, the amount of contamination for two completely different elements has to be just right?"

Yes, I think. What I was saying is that you were saying that there are ways to tell if something is contaminated or not. If you're asking that then yes I agree.

I just want to make sure we're clear before I continue.
I hope I cleared it up.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 9:25:30 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 9:21:48 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:40:11 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:38:29 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:34:06 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:28:44 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Ok. I think what I got out of it so far is that there is ways to destingish between an contaminated sample and a in contaminated sample. Am I correct?

No. That isn't what I am trying to talk about at the moment. Statement (9) is stating that if we did have some way of telling, we could separate good dates or bad dates, but I haven't got as far as to state how.

The question above is going into more detail about how contamination would affect a sample.
Ok, continue.

Sorry, just to be clear; do you mean that you agree with my assessment in my previous post about how contamination affects a sample, and that "for [two dating methods] to both to give the same dates, the amount of contamination for two completely different elements has to be just right?"

Yes, I think. What I was saying is that you were saying that there are ways to tell if something is contaminated or not. If you're asking that then yes I agree.

I just want to make sure we're clear before I continue.
I hope I cleared it up.

This wasn't about how to tell whether something is contaminated; but what effects contamination would have. This is quite important to how this conversation is going to progress, so I need to make sure we agree.

IE: contamination of lead or uranium would affect the first date, but not the second. Contamination of argon or potassium, would affect the other date, but not the first.

If a sample were contaminated, for it to give the same date; it would have to be contaminated by both lead/uranium and argon/potassium in exactly the right proportions given how the dating method works.

Right?
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 9:30:16 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 9:25:30 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/9/2015 9:21:48 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:40:11 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:38:29 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:34:06 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:28:44 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Ok. I think what I got out of it so far is that there is ways to destingish between an contaminated sample and a in contaminated sample. Am I correct?

No. That isn't what I am trying to talk about at the moment. Statement (9) is stating that if we did have some way of telling, we could separate good dates or bad dates, but I haven't got as far as to state how.

The question above is going into more detail about how contamination would affect a sample.
Ok, continue.

Sorry, just to be clear; do you mean that you agree with my assessment in my previous post about how contamination affects a sample, and that "for [two dating methods] to both to give the same dates, the amount of contamination for two completely different elements has to be just right?"

Yes, I think. What I was saying is that you were saying that there are ways to tell if something is contaminated or not. If you're asking that then yes I agree.

I just want to make sure we're clear before I continue.
I hope I cleared it up.

This wasn't about how to tell whether something is contaminated; but what effects contamination would have. This is quite important to how this conversation is going to progress, so I need to make sure we agree.

IE: contamination of lead or uranium would affect the first date, but not the second. Contamination of argon or potassium, would affect the other date, but not the first.

If a sample were contaminated, for it to give the same date; it would have to be contaminated by both lead/uranium and argon/potassium in exactly the right proportions given how the dating method works.

Right?

I guess so.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 9:43:20 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 9:30:16 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/9/2015 9:25:30 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/9/2015 9:21:48 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:40:11 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:38:29 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:34:06 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/9/2015 8:28:44 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Ok. I think what I got out of it so far is that there is ways to destingish between an contaminated sample and a in contaminated sample. Am I correct?

No. That isn't what I am trying to talk about at the moment. Statement (9) is stating that if we did have some way of telling, we could separate good dates or bad dates, but I haven't got as far as to state how.

The question above is going into more detail about how contamination would affect a sample.
Ok, continue.

Sorry, just to be clear; do you mean that you agree with my assessment in my previous post about how contamination affects a sample, and that "for [two dating methods] to both to give the same dates, the amount of contamination for two completely different elements has to be just right?"

Yes, I think. What I was saying is that you were saying that there are ways to tell if something is contaminated or not. If you're asking that then yes I agree.

I just want to make sure we're clear before I continue.
I hope I cleared it up.

This wasn't about how to tell whether something is contaminated; but what effects contamination would have. This is quite important to how this conversation is going to progress, so I need to make sure we agree.

IE: contamination of lead or uranium would affect the first date, but not the second. Contamination of argon or potassium, would affect the other date, but not the first.

If a sample were contaminated, for it to give the same date; it would have to be contaminated by both lead/uranium and argon/potassium in exactly the right proportions given how the dating method works.

Right?

I guess so.

Okay, great. Moving on:

If you have a sample that is measured by two different methods, and those two methods give the same dates (within margins of error); it is much less likely that it has been contaminated in some way; in that contamination can be expected to change one or more parameters by differing amounts, but for contamination to occur in exactly the right relative amounts to provide the same dates is unlikely given what we understand about the chemistry of the two different elements in question.

Correct?

If you measured a sample by 3, or 4 different methods, and all those dates agree, the likelihood of contamination having occurred becomes so implausible, it can be discarded beyond reasonable doubt; as for such contamination to produce the same date, 4 different elements with different chemical properties all have to be have added contamination in just the right amounts to give the same date; whereas it would instead be expected for the rates of contamination to not be related to each other and thus produce discordant answers.

Right?

IE: would you agree with this statement:

10.) If multiple dating methods on multiple different samples are all concordant with one another, because of how any contamination would affect the sample, it is reasonable to conclude no contamination has occurred for that sample.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 10:00:49 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 9:43:20 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

Okay, great. Moving on:

If you have a sample that is measured by two different methods, and those two methods give the same dates (within margins of error); it is much less likely that it has been contaminated in some way; in that contamination can be expected to change one or more parameters by differing amounts, but for contamination to occur in exactly the right relative amounts to provide the same dates is unlikely given what we understand about the chemistry of the two different elements in question.

Correct?

Correct. Can you provide a link that demonstrate that different dating methods came up with the same date?


If you measured a sample by 3, or 4 different methods, and all those dates agree, the likelihood of contamination having occurred becomes so implausible, it can be discarded beyond reasonable doubt; as for such contamination to produce the same date, 4 different elements with different chemical properties all have to be have added contamination in just the right amounts to give the same date; whereas it would instead be expected for the rates of contamination to not be related to each other and thus produce discordant answers.

Right?
Right. Unless they're all getting the wrong number. What if we got 20 different calculators and they all came up with 2+2=5?

IE: would you agree with this statement:

10.) If multiple dating methods on multiple different samples are all concordant with one another, because of how any contamination would affect the sample, it is reasonable to conclude no contamination has occurred for that sample.

I agree.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 10:15:22 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 10:00:49 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Correct. Can you provide a link that demonstrate that different dating methods came up with the same date?

Yes, I will; at the moment I am still talking theoretically; I am trying to establish the things I will need to show first.

However, I want to stay specifically talking about contamination, what it entails.

With contamination, specifically; there are two primary ways for "contamination" to occur.

Firstly, the sample contains more of a daughter isotope than is assumed. (Most are comparing ratios of parent to daughter isotopes; so the initial amount of parent isotope is not assumed)

Secondly, the sample formed, but parent/daughter isotopes leaked; IE: the sample is closed.

IE: the only way for contamination to be an issue; is if more daughter isotope is in the sample; and it could have gotten there while the sample was formed, or after.

Is that fair and accurate.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 10:47:34 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 10:15:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:00:49 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Correct. Can you provide a link that demonstrate that different dating methods came up with the same date?

Yes, I will; at the moment I am still talking theoretically; I am trying to establish the things I will need to show first.

However, I want to stay specifically talking about contamination, what it entails.

With contamination, specifically; there are two primary ways for "contamination" to occur.

Firstly, the sample contains more of a daughter isotope than is assumed. (Most are comparing ratios of parent to daughter isotopes; so the initial amount of parent isotope is not assumed)

Secondly, the sample formed, but parent/daughter isotopes leaked; IE: the sample is closed.

IE: the only way for contamination to be an issue; is if more daughter isotope is in the sample; and it could have gotten there while the sample was formed, or after.

Is that fair and accurate.

I think so.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 11:03:03 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 10:47:34 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:15:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:00:49 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Correct. Can you provide a link that demonstrate that different dating methods came up with the same date?

Yes, I will; at the moment I am still talking theoretically; I am trying to establish the things I will need to show first.

However, I want to stay specifically talking about contamination, what it entails.

With contamination, specifically; there are two primary ways for "contamination" to occur.

Firstly, the sample contains more of a daughter isotope than is assumed. (Most are comparing ratios of parent to daughter isotopes; so the initial amount of parent isotope is not assumed)

Secondly, the sample formed, but parent/daughter isotopes leaked; IE: the sample is closed.

IE: the only way for contamination to be an issue; is if more daughter isotope is in the sample; and it could have gotten there while the sample was formed, or after.

Is that fair and accurate.

I think so.

Okay, moving on.

Given that, most of the minerals that are used for dating are solid; and many of them are crystalline. These are well studied materials; zircons, tektites, etc; and we can see a great many form today; meaning that we can analyze their properties now.

All have what is called a closure temperature, the temperature at which the elements involved in radiometric dating can no longer move in, or out of the sample, IE: it is a closed system. This is based on the chemical properties of the mineral in question and can be measured with samples today.

In these cases, provided that the sample isn't heated beyond this "closure temperature", it will retain the radiometric isotopes that were contained within it when it "closed".

These temperatures range from a few hundred degrees, up to a thousand.

Would it be fair to conclude that in these examples, one can reasonably exclude the second type of contamination if the temperature of the sample didn't exceed this temperature?
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 12:09:13 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 11:03:03 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:47:34 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:15:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:00:49 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Correct. Can you provide a link that demonstrate that different dating methods came up with the same date?

Yes, I will; at the moment I am still talking theoretically; I am trying to establish the things I will need to show first.

However, I want to stay specifically talking about contamination, what it entails.

With contamination, specifically; there are two primary ways for "contamination" to occur.

Firstly, the sample contains more of a daughter isotope than is assumed. (Most are comparing ratios of parent to daughter isotopes; so the initial amount of parent isotope is not assumed)

Secondly, the sample formed, but parent/daughter isotopes leaked; IE: the sample is closed.

IE: the only way for contamination to be an issue; is if more daughter isotope is in the sample; and it could have gotten there while the sample was formed, or after.

Is that fair and accurate.

I think so.

Okay, moving on.

Given that, most of the minerals that are used for dating are solid; and many of them are crystalline. These are well studied materials; zircons, tektites, etc; and we can see a great many form today; meaning that we can analyze their properties now.

All have what is called a closure temperature, the temperature at which the elements involved in radiometric dating can no longer move in, or out of the sample, IE: it is a closed system. This is based on the chemical properties of the mineral in question and can be measured with samples today.

In these cases, provided that the sample isn't heated beyond this "closure temperature", it will retain the radiometric isotopes that were contained within it when it "closed".

These temperatures range from a few hundred degrees, up to a thousand.

Would it be fair to conclude that in these examples, one can reasonably exclude the second type of contamination if the temperature of the sample didn't exceed this temperature?
I think so. Unless you've already demonstrate (or will demonstrate) that you can prove that the sample never reach those temperatures, then it's still an assumption.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 12:11:21 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/10/2015 12:09:13 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/9/2015 11:03:03 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:47:34 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:15:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:00:49 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Correct. Can you provide a link that demonstrate that different dating methods came up with the same date?

Yes, I will; at the moment I am still talking theoretically; I am trying to establish the things I will need to show first.

However, I want to stay specifically talking about contamination, what it entails.

With contamination, specifically; there are two primary ways for "contamination" to occur.

Firstly, the sample contains more of a daughter isotope than is assumed. (Most are comparing ratios of parent to daughter isotopes; so the initial amount of parent isotope is not assumed)

Secondly, the sample formed, but parent/daughter isotopes leaked; IE: the sample is closed.

IE: the only way for contamination to be an issue; is if more daughter isotope is in the sample; and it could have gotten there while the sample was formed, or after.

Is that fair and accurate.

I think so.

Okay, moving on.

Given that, most of the minerals that are used for dating are solid; and many of them are crystalline. These are well studied materials; zircons, tektites, etc; and we can see a great many form today; meaning that we can analyze their properties now.

All have what is called a closure temperature, the temperature at which the elements involved in radiometric dating can no longer move in, or out of the sample, IE: it is a closed system. This is based on the chemical properties of the mineral in question and can be measured with samples today.

In these cases, provided that the sample isn't heated beyond this "closure temperature", it will retain the radiometric isotopes that were contained within it when it "closed".

These temperatures range from a few hundred degrees, up to a thousand.

Would it be fair to conclude that in these examples, one can reasonably exclude the second type of contamination if the temperature of the sample didn't exceed this temperature?
I think so. Unless you've already demonstrate (or will demonstrate) that you can prove that the sample never reach those temperatures, then it's still an assumption.

Okay.

When the sample is above closure temperature; chemically speaking; the isotopes of interest within in it can diffuse. How this works, depends on the temperature and it"s chemical properties, which can be analyzed for a given type of mineral.

In such scenarios; chemically speaking; when the individual atoms can diffuse if the sample melts or gets close to melting, the sample tends towards equilibrium with it"s surroundings; IE: the number and type of atoms inside and outside of the sample will tend towards a balance.

Right?

In terms of the chemistry; when the atoms can diffuse because the sample is above closure, at ANY temperature ; one of three things can happen:

Firstly, the sample will "pull in" a particular type of element because of some form of chemical attraction.

Secondly, the sample will "push out" a particular type of element because of some form of chemical repulsion.

Thirdly, the sample neither pushes or pulls, and a particular type of element will simply be diffuse into the material.

This may happen at different rates for different elements. Would you agree with this?
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 1:32:34 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/10/2015 12:11:21 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/10/2015 12:09:13 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/9/2015 11:03:03 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:47:34 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:15:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:00:49 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Correct. Can you provide a link that demonstrate that different dating methods came up with the same date?

Yes, I will; at the moment I am still talking theoretically; I am trying to establish the things I will need to show first.

However, I want to stay specifically talking about contamination, what it entails.

With contamination, specifically; there are two primary ways for "contamination" to occur.

Firstly, the sample contains more of a daughter isotope than is assumed. (Most are comparing ratios of parent to daughter isotopes; so the initial amount of parent isotope is not assumed)

Secondly, the sample formed, but parent/daughter isotopes leaked; IE: the sample is closed.

IE: the only way for contamination to be an issue; is if more daughter isotope is in the sample; and it could have gotten there while the sample was formed, or after.

Is that fair and accurate.

I think so.

Okay, moving on.

Given that, most of the minerals that are used for dating are solid; and many of them are crystalline. These are well studied materials; zircons, tektites, etc; and we can see a great many form today; meaning that we can analyze their properties now.

All have what is called a closure temperature, the temperature at which the elements involved in radiometric dating can no longer move in, or out of the sample, IE: it is a closed system. This is based on the chemical properties of the mineral in question and can be measured with samples today.

In these cases, provided that the sample isn't heated beyond this "closure temperature", it will retain the radiometric isotopes that were contained within it when it "closed".

These temperatures range from a few hundred degrees, up to a thousand.

Would it be fair to conclude that in these examples, one can reasonably exclude the second type of contamination if the temperature of the sample didn't exceed this temperature?
I think so. Unless you've already demonstrate (or will demonstrate) that you can prove that the sample never reach those temperatures, then it's still an assumption.

Okay.

When the sample is above closure temperature; chemically speaking; the isotopes of interest within in it can diffuse. How this works, depends on the temperature and it"s chemical properties, which can be analyzed for a given type of mineral.

In other words the material being used to date the sample will start to go away as temperature increase. Right?

In such scenarios; chemically speaking; when the individual atoms can diffuse if the sample melts or gets close to melting, the sample tends towards equilibrium with it"s surroundings; IE: the number and type of atoms inside and outside of the sample will tend towards a balance.

Right?

Right, or at least close to it.

In terms of the chemistry; when the atoms can diffuse because the sample is above closure, at ANY temperature ; one of three things can happen:

Firstly, the sample will "pull in" a particular type of element because of some form of chemical attraction.

Secondly, the sample will "push out" a particular type of element because of some form of chemical repulsion.

Thirdly, the sample neither pushes or pulls, and a particular type of element will simply be diffuse into the material.

Other than whether there's less or more of the material in the sample, is there any way to tell that the chemical makeup changed? Like when granite melts and cools down it turn into something else.

This may happen at different rates for different elements. Would you agree with this?
Yes I agree.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 3:06:16 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/10/2015 1:32:34 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/10/2015 12:11:21 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/10/2015 12:09:13 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/9/2015 11:03:03 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:47:34 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:15:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/9/2015 10:00:49 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Correct. Can you provide a link that demonstrate that different dating methods came up with the same date?

Yes, I will; at the moment I am still talking theoretically; I am trying to establish the things I will need to show first.

However, I want to stay specifically talking about contamination, what it entails.

With contamination, specifically; there are two primary ways for "contamination" to occur.

Firstly, the sample contains more of a daughter isotope than is assumed. (Most are comparing ratios of parent to daughter isotopes; so the initial amount of parent isotope is not assumed)

Secondly, the sample formed, but parent/daughter isotopes leaked; IE: the sample is closed.

IE: the only way for contamination to be an issue; is if more daughter isotope is in the sample; and it could have gotten there while the sample was formed, or after.

Is that fair and accurate.

I think so.

Okay, moving on.

Given that, most of the minerals that are used for dating are solid; and many of them are crystalline. These are well studied materials; zircons, tektites, etc; and we can see a great many form today; meaning that we can analyze their properties now.

All have what is called a closure temperature, the temperature at which the elements involved in radiometric dating can no longer move in, or out of the sample, IE: it is a closed system. This is based on the chemical properties of the mineral in question and can be measured with samples today.

In these cases, provided that the sample isn't heated beyond this "closure temperature", it will retain the radiometric isotopes that were contained within it when it "closed".

These temperatures range from a few hundred degrees, up to a thousand.

Would it be fair to conclude that in these examples, one can reasonably exclude the second type of contamination if the temperature of the sample didn't exceed this temperature?
I think so. Unless you've already demonstrate (or will demonstrate) that you can prove that the sample never reach those temperatures, then it's still an assumption.

Okay.

When the sample is above closure temperature; chemically speaking; the isotopes of interest within in it can diffuse. How this works, depends on the temperature and it"s chemical properties, which can be analyzed for a given type of mineral.

In other words the material being used to date the sample will start to go away as temperature increase. Right?

In such scenarios; chemically speaking; when the individual atoms can diffuse if the sample melts or gets close to melting, the sample tends towards equilibrium with it"s surroundings; IE: the number and type of atoms inside and outside of the sample will tend towards a balance.

Right?

Right, or at least close to it.

In terms of the chemistry; when the atoms can diffuse because the sample is above closure, at ANY temperature ; one of three things can happen:

Firstly, the sample will "pull in" a particular type of element because of some form of chemical attraction.

Secondly, the sample will "push out" a particular type of element because of some form of chemical repulsion.

Thirdly, the sample neither pushes or pulls, and a particular type of element will simply be diffuse into the material.

Other than whether there's less or more of the material in the sample, is there any way to tell that the chemical makeup changed? Like when granite melts and cools down it turn into something else.

This may happen at different rates for different elements. Would you agree with this?
Yes I agree.

Okay.

If the sample expels the parent isotope more than the daughter; it would make the sample look older, but this would happen when any sample forms and therefore ALL such samples would look old, including brand new ones; and thus could not be used for dating at all (we know this doesn't happen)

If the sample expels the daughter isotope more than the parent; it would make the sample look younger; which could happen, but is therefore highly unlikely to have happened with rocks that can be dated to be extremely old.

If the sample pulls in more of the parent; again it would make the sample look younger, so is highly unlikely to have happened with rocks dated to be old.

If the sample pulls in more of the daughter; it would make the sample look older, but when any sample forms; and therefore ALL such samples would look old, including brand new ones and thus could never be used for dating at all (we know this doesn't happen)

Would you concurr with this?
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 5:54:53 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/10/2015 3:06:16 PM, Ramshutu wrote:


Okay.

If the sample expels the parent isotope more than the daughter; it would make the sample look older, but this would happen when any sample forms and therefore ALL such samples would look old, including brand new ones; and thus could not be used for dating at all (we know this doesn't happen)

I agree to a point that it doesn't happen with every sample but with if I gave you a sample that we know for a fact that its 2000 years old and another sample that's is 50 years old but lost the so much parent isotopes that it looked like its only 2000 years old can you tell the difference? If so how?

If the sample expels the daughter isotope more than the parent; it would make the sample look younger; which could happen, but is therefore highly unlikely to have happened with rocks that can be dated to be extremely old.

I think I agree here.

If the sample pulls in more of the parent; again it would make the sample look younger, so is highly unlikely to have happened with rocks dated to be old.

I don't think I have any argument against samples looking younger than it should be. My objection is things that look OLDER than it should be.

If the sample pulls in more of the daughter; it would make the sample look older, but when any sample forms; and therefore ALL such samples would look old, including brand new ones and thus could never be used for dating at all (we know this doesn't happen)

Would you concurr with this?

I concurr if you can demonstrate that we can tell if the sample didnt lost too much of the parent isotope than its supposed to.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 6:27:46 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/10/2015 5:54:53 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/10/2015 3:06:16 PM, Ramshutu wrote:


Okay.

If the sample expels the parent isotope more than the daughter; it would make the sample look older, but this would happen when any sample forms and therefore ALL such samples would look old, including brand new ones; and thus could not be used for dating at all (we know this doesn't happen)

I agree to a point that it doesn't happen with every sample but with if I gave you a sample that we know for a fact that its 2000 years old and another sample that's is 50 years old but lost the so much parent isotopes that it looked like its only 2000 years old can you tell the difference? If so how?

If the sample expels the daughter isotope more than the parent; it would make the sample look younger; which could happen, but is therefore highly unlikely to have happened with rocks that can be dated to be extremely old.

I think I agree here.

If the sample pulls in more of the parent; again it would make the sample look younger, so is highly unlikely to have happened with rocks dated to be old.

I don't think I have any argument against samples looking younger than it should be. My objection is things that look OLDER than it should be.

If the sample pulls in more of the daughter; it would make the sample look older, but when any sample forms; and therefore ALL such samples would look old, including brand new ones and thus could never be used for dating at all (we know this doesn't happen)

Would you concurr with this?

I concurr if you can demonstrate that we can tell if the sample didnt lost too much of the parent isotope than its supposed to.

I think the only contentious point is the first one.

If a mineral expels a parent isotope because of it's chemistry; any time this mineral is formed, it will undergo that expulsion whether it's 50 years old, 2000, or 1 million. If the mineral of that chemistry is formed, one would expect it not to contain much of the parent isotope ever; so it couldn't be used for dating as a result.

Importantly, this chemical process can also be tested for; to show whether the chemistry of the sample is such that it rejects a particular type of element from it's matrix as it's formed.

Indeed, Zircons, and many crystalline materials allow for certain elements to be included in the matrix, but not others. For example, we know that as Zircons form, the crystalline structure can incorporate Uranium, rather than rejecting it, and very strongly rejects lead from it's matrix as it's forming.

The first part of this statement is the most important; that if the chemistry rejected the parent isotope, it couldn't ever be used for dating for this very reason.

We also know this isn't the case for Zircons, and other minerals being dated.

Moreover, most of the conditions we are talking about, diffusion, inclusion and exclusion of isotopes can be tested for experimentally.

Would you agree?