Hawking

[Starman3000m]

Originally Posted by sleuth

From the Answers in Genesis organization website:

"We know that radioisotope dating does not always work because we can test it on rocks of known age. In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices (also referred to as single-sample radioisotope dating). Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years.3

A rock sample from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens was dated using Potassium-Argon dating. The newly formed rock gave ages for the different minerals in it of between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.4 These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified (assumption 1 is false).

Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.5 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated."

Yes, it is an organization promoting Creationism, but they have dozens of examples posted as to why radiometric dating should not be trusted.

A rock sample from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens was dated using Potassium-Argon dating.

BTW: I was fortunate enough to be an "eyewitness" of the events during the eruption of Mount St, Helens, Sunday, May 18, 1980. Still have some ash samples that fell when the ash cloud covered our city of Yakima, WA.
Quite an experience!

[wxtornado]

Originally Posted by sleuth

From the Answers in Genesis organization website:

"We know that radioisotope dating does not always work because we can test it on rocks of known age. In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices (also referred to as single-sample radioisotope dating). Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years.3

A rock sample from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens was dated using Potassium-Argon dating. The newly formed rock gave ages for the different minerals in it of between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.4 These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified (assumption 1 is false).

Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.5 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated."

Yes, it is an organization promoting Creationism, but they have dozens of examples posted as to why radiometric dating should not be trusted.

Your examples have already been debunked - google it if you're interested.

[Silver301]

Originally Posted by sleuth

From the Answers in Genesis organization website:

"We know that radioisotope dating does not always work because we can test it on rocks of known age. In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices (also referred to as single-sample radioisotope dating). Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years.3

A rock sample from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens was dated using Potassium-Argon dating. The newly formed rock gave ages for the different minerals in it of between 0.5 and 2.8 million years. These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified (assumption 1 is false).

Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.5 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated."

Yes, it is an organization promoting Creationism, but they have dozens of examples posted as to why radiometric dating should not be trusted.

There are many methods of carbon dating. The method highlighted by Answers in Genesis...Potassium-Argon dating...is not applicable to determining the age of a rock formed in 1986. Due to the long half-life, the technique is most applicable for dating minerals and rocks more than 100,000 years old. For shorter timescales, it is likely that not enough Argon 40 will have had time to accumulate in order to be accurately measurable. So clearly, whoever performed this experiment didn't know what they were doing. They didn't specify any other methods, so I'll have to assume that all of these tests were performed utilizing the wrong form of carbon dating.

[sleuth]

Originally Posted by Silver301

You respect the scientific method when it serves your purposes...when it says something contrary to your beliefs, you disregard it.

I'm an electrical engineer...that doesn't make me a man of science. What makes me a man of science is that I apply the scientific method to ALL things to which it will apply. It doesn't mean that I can't believe in things outside of what science has proven, but it certainly doesn't allow me to believe things that the scientific method contradicts.

If you say so. But the scientific method is man's creation. Man has been proven imperfect. I think it arrogant and foolish to assume that the scientific method is perfect.

Is it useful? Yeah. Is it perfect?

[sleuth]

Originally Posted by Silver301

There are many methods of carbon dating. The method highlighted by Answers in Genesis...Potassium-Argon dating...is not applicable to determining the age of a rock formed in 1986. Due to the long half-life, the technique is most applicable for dating minerals and rocks more than 100,000 years old. For shorter timescales, it is likely that not enough Argon 40 will have had time to accumulate in order to be accurately measurable. So clearly, whoever performed this experiment didn't know what they were doing. They didn't specify any other methods, so I'll have to assume that all of these tests were performed utilizing the wrong form of carbon dating.

You can review Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics if you wish to review what other radiometric dating methods they explore.

[Silver301]

Originally Posted by sleuth

You can review Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics if you wish to review what other radiometric dating methods they explore.

The problem is that all of their examples have similar flaws...yet they ignore them...and so will you. They've got a point to prove, and they don't care how intellectually dishonest they must be to make it.

[Starman3000m]

Originally Posted by Silver301

The problem is that all of their examples have similar flaws...yet they ignore them...and so will you. They've got a point to prove, and they don't care how intellectually dishonest they must be to make it.

That could also be said of the secular research scientists who depend on their funding (monetary grants) to continue years of research only to come up with new directions and new theories. It really never ends. In all of this, There Is Only One Truth.

[Silver301]

Originally Posted by Starman3000m

That could also be said of the secular research scientists who depend on their funding (monetary grants) to continue years of research only to come up with new directions and new theories. It really never ends. In all of this, There Is Only One Truth.

Yes, but then they are judged based on the fruits of their research. What did they find? Can their results be duplicated? What effect will these results have on existing theories? It's a good process because everyone tries to disprove everyone else with prestige going to those who consistently get reproducible and honest results.

Science corrects itself with more science. Religion isn't corrected...some cling to their beliefs and use bad logic to utterly refute scientific knowledge while others turn scripture into "figurative" truth to avoid this direct confrontation (google cognitive dissonance)...but this isn't correction, it's denial.

[Starman3000m]

Originally Posted by Silver301

Yes, but then they are judged based on the fruits of their research. What did they find? Can their results be duplicated? What effect will these results have on existing theories? It's a good process because everyone tries to disprove everyone else with prestige going to those who consistently get reproducible and honest results.

Science corrects itself with more science. Religion isn't corrected...some cling to their beliefs and use bad logic to utterly refute scientific knowledge while others turn scripture into "figurative" truth to avoid this direct confrontation (google cognitive dissonance)...but this isn't correction, it's denial.

Speaking of "Denial"

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. (Psalm 14:1)

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
(Psalm 53:1)

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. (Colossians 2:8-9)

[Silver301]

Originally Posted by Starman3000m

Speaking of "Denial"

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. (Psalm 14:1)

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
(Psalm 53:1)

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. (Colossians 2:8-9)

The Bible really covered all of it's own bases there. It even foretold of my coming...prophecy! Although I must say that I take exception to the "none that doeth good" part... I know plenty of people who say that there IS a God who do more of what would be considered wrong in God's eyes than I do. Just look at Marie...she sends more people running away from the idea of God with her fanaticism than any atheist I've ever heard of!

Ultimately, all arguments with the religious retreat to this...the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true. You guys always start out with philosophical and scientific "proof" which reinforces what and why you believe...yet when that "proof" is proven false and deceitful you turn against and mock the importance and/or relevance of the very philosophy and science that you unsuccessfully attempted to practice just moments before.