Here's a place to start on radionuclide dating. But my eyes glaze over (MEGO) relatively quickly
http://answersinscience.org/RadiometricDating-Woolf.htm On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:30 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > On 16/08/2014 12:11 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: > > ...It is the inherent unreliability and irreproducibility of the methods > themselves that is causing a lot of controversy. > > I don't know why you think radio-nucleotide dating is unreliable (unless > you only listen to the YECs!). Take a look at figure 1 in the IntCal13 > publication > <https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/16947/pdf> > (and the rest if you are interested). You should appreciate that this is a > *calibration* curve - ie the date is not determined from the C14 ratio, but > the date is determined by *independent* means (ie counting tree rings, > counting varves, measuring distance and assuming constant growth rate, > etc). This is then plotted against the age obtained by blind use of C14 > decay assuming an initial percentage at the current value. Don't you think > it is remarkable that all those thousands of measurements by so many > different methods all agree so well that we can *calibrate* the C14 ratio > vs age from them! > > Would you rather base your world view on one or two outlier points, or on > the overwhelming trend of millions of data points that all fit and are > consistent with each other? The standard approach of science is to trust > the vast body of data that agrees with itself and toss out the few outliers > that cannot be fitted in because something must have been wrong with the > assumptions or measurement in those cases. > > Egregious examples like a piece of leather from a shoe made in the > 1800's dating to 600,000 years ago; > > I wonder if you could provide a reference to this case as it sounds rather > interesting. It is easy to see how contamination can give a young age for > an old sample, but difficult to see what process can produce the opposite > effect! (The person who's shoe it was didn't happen to be abducted by a > UFO by any chance did they?!) > > > really are the reasons why radionucleotide dating techniques can not > trusted. I am not opposed to radionecleotide dating techniques because I > am religious. Au contraire, I am opposed to it because it is so unreliable. > > What if you really took a good look at the bulk of the data - not just the > few YEC outliers - and saw just how amazingly consistent and reliable it > is. Would you still be opposed to it? I suspect you would and I suspect > the reason would be one akin to love. But if you love the truth above all > else then you should have courage to follow even when she would lead you > out of your comfort zone! > >
