The scientific dating techniques.

[gtrsgrls]

How do we know the actuall age of the earth if the dating techniques are so off?At one point they were going to date some igneous rock(volcanic rock)from an eruption that was 200 years old.(they were going to see what the age came out to be since they knew the exact age of the rock)Do you know what that age came out to be?Millions of years old!Why do we put so much faith into something so faulty?I'm not saying that the techniques are off every time but one can't say this doesn't raise a question.

p.s.
Please don't get off task when dabating on this thread.Stick to what we're talking about.

 

[michel]

Without knowing too much about the subject, I think you will find that various dating techniques are used, and a 'mean value' is given at the end. Nothing is perfect in this world.

 

[Malus 12:9]

Why do we put so much faith into something so faulty?

Well, the same could be said for religion

But, seeing as you put this in the GENERAL DISCUSSION section rather than a DEBATE section, and asked so nicely, I will attempt to stay on topic.

Most of the other measurements for the age of the Earth rest upon calculating an age for the solar system by dating objects which are expected to have formed with the planets but are not geologically active.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I would say the technique used was wrong.
they probably got the date of the previous rock, before it became molten.
Scientists are not perfect nor are all the techniques.

I would not chose an obvious error to prove anything.

Terry____________________-
Blessed are the merciful, mercy shall be shown unto them.

 

[Fluffy]

I fully agree with you, gtrsgrl, in that often too much blind faith is placed on scientific ideas to the extent of dismissing everything else out of hand.

However, given this fact, challenging an existing and accepted scientific concept requires a good deal of logic and work. Writing a thread opener using such vagaries as you have used, will not be taken seriously by most people and will often form a thread that is filled with people shouting you down.

For example, this instance, somebody whose faith in science was unshakable would merely look at what you have said and claim, rightly so, that you have produced no evidence that such failings in scientific dating actually occur. You might be accused of lying or passing on hearsay neither of which, as I'm sure you will agree, are terribly productive.

So I would ask you, what evidence is there that scientific dating techniques are unreliable or innaccurate?

 

[gtrsgrls]

I would not chose an obvious error to prove anything.


.

I'm just saying it does raise a question.Does it not?

 

[gtrsgrls]

So I would ask you, what evidence is there that scientific dating techniques are unreliable or innaccurate?

I'm not saying that they're wrong all of the time but when you know the age of a rock, and you date it,and it comes out to be really off,it raises a question as to why we put so much faith in it.Does it not?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Please don't get off task when dabating on this thread.Stick to what we're talking about.

... a none too easy to accomplish when "what we're talking about" is an unreferenced, i.e., typically irresponsible, claim.

 

[Fluffy]

I'm not saying that they're wrong all of the time but when you know the age of a rock, and you date it,and it comes out to be really off,it raises a question as to why we put so much faith in it.Does it not?

Again I must agree with you fully. However, when such a situation could easily be mythical with no evidence to back it up, how do you propose to formulate a discussion based on anything other than blind trust in your word?

Edit: Might I further add, 'unreliable' and 'inaccurate' do not imply that scientific dating is wrong all of the time nor even most of the time since the degree to which each is the case is totally unspecified.

 

[gtrsgrls]

... a none too easy to accomplish when "what we're talking about" is an unreferenced, i.e., typically irresponsible, claim.

I have no right to tell you that you don't know what you're talking about if I don't know.I'd appreciate you doing the same for me.Thank you!

 

[gtrsgrls]

Again I must agree with you fully. However, when such a situation could easily be mythical with no evidence to back it up, how do you propose to formulate a discussion based on anything other than blind trust in your word?


.

I see what you're saying now.I read that on a Christian website.Why do I believe it enough to share it?Because any Christian who believes in a cause enough to put stuff about it on a website isn't going to sit there and lie about it.I know that this isn't going to be good enough for everybody.Also I've heard the man speak numerous times and he knows what he's talking about.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have no right to tell you that you don't know what you're talking about if I don't know.I'd appreciate you doing the same for me.Thank you!

Learn to read. I did not say that "you don't know what you're talking about", although that is readily apparent. What I said was

1. you made a claim without supplying any substantiation, and
2. I find such an approach irresponsible and typical of YECs.

I'm still waiting for substantiation so that we can properly evaluate your claim.

 

[Fluffy]

I see what you're saying now.I read that on a Christian website.Why do I believe it enough to share it?Because any Christian who believes in a cause enough to put stuff about it on a website isn't going to sit there and lie about it.

He needn't lie about it. He could merely be mistaken. Or he could be right. However, we have no way of telling unless we can look at the specific incident where a mistake was claimed.

I know that this isn't going to be good enough for everybody.Also I've heard the man speak numerous times and he knows what he's talking about.

You are right it isn't good enough for me. Surely there is no difference between what you are doing and those who blindly put faith in science?

 

[michel]

I must admit that a quick search on Googgle about the efficacy of carbon dating led to such sites as www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp- I think I gave up then.

 

[Fluffy]

The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:


The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).


Decay rates have always been constant.


Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

This is from www.answersingenesis.org. However, if we examine this from a slightly more objective viewpoint, are the three criticisms of radiometric dating fair ones? If they are, how have they been solved?

Edit: Other accusations are normally what one would expect to find levelled at creationists; of scientists disregarding results that do not fit in with an "old earth" theory.

 

[Malus 12:9]

Hey I don't know what I and others are talking about, and get scolded for it constantly. Just
continue with your debate

 

[Scuba Pete]

Much of science is trial and error. That's a given. Most who question carbon dating's accuracy usually have an agenda in trying to disprove scientists. The problem is that the Bible was never meant to be a geological time line, a science text or a world history text. It was designed to introduce the Isrealites to the God that created them. Conversely, Science is incapable of devining the spiritual. Both sides are equally guilty of fabricating disengenuous erratta to discredit the "other side". This is tragic, since they are not in competition to begin with.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Both sides are equally guilty of fabricating disengenuous erratta to discredit the "other side". This is tragic, since they are not in competition to begin with.

Where has science "fabricating disengenuous erratta to discredit" the Bible?

 

[Ryan2065]

I don't get this...

If you have water, it stays water for 10 years... then you freeze it... and keep it froze for 4 years.. Is the frozen substance not 14 years old? This is exactly what is going on in the situation present...

You had liquid rock (aka, lava). The lava cooled into hard rock... Wouldn't the age of the rock be both the time it was liquid and the time it was solid?

Please tell me if im wrong... But I am pretty positive that is how it happens...

 

[painted wolf]

actually in dating rocks it is the decay rate of isotopes... those isotopes will only begin to decay once the rock is cooled... decay is dependant on exposure.
Just like something vaccume sealed will be preserved longer than if it were left out on the counter.

I have to say I havent heard any convincing evidence that isotopic dating is flawed.
Certenly samples for particular tests can be flawed, as can the operation of the machines used.
This is why multiple samples and multiple tests by mulitiple labs are done.. to make sure that the best, most accurate methods are used.

Most often the evidence of 'falce dates' is the simple misunderstanding of how the dating process is done... many of these are misrepresntations of inclusions of younger rocks into older strata due to volcanic activity.

wa:do