Quote:
Originally Posted by Thumping
Me thinks we are talking in circles. I'm not arguing about half lives of any elements. That is not in question. I'm just arguing about the results. For example:
For argument sake, lets say we have three devices designed to measure distance from point "A" to point "B". All three devices are scientifically accurate and not in dispute. All three devices give different results and when measured a second time with the same three devices the results are different than the first. This is the point I'm making about radiometric and/or radicarbon dating. If all of them are supposedly accurate, then why do they give different results?
|
Because they're not all designed to measure from point A to point B. (Of course, "designed" is the wrong word. The scientists are taking advantage of a well-studied, known fact about the universe.) One measure accurately from, say, point A to about point D. One measure accurately from point C to about point F. And so on. If you try to measure from point A to point B with one that doesn't give accurate results at that distance, why should you expect the right answer? Likewise trying to measure from point E to point F--or point X to point Y--with one that simply doesn't work that far through the alphabet. You
have to know at least a little about half-lives in order to understand it. Namely that, since different elements have different half-lives, different radiometric systems work at different ages. Do you understand now?
Quote:
|
About your argument that the molten lava has crystals that are not melted that could give old dates. I'm really REALLY not trying to be rude or anything, but, does that really make sense? Using your argument, I could say that all lava deposits are not any good for dating. Also, are you saying that all cooled lava deposits that date old and shouldn't, have crystals in them that would date old? I'm seriously not trying to offend, but that doens't make sense to me.
|
There are two options regarding getting incorrect radiometric dates from lava. One is, believe it or not, existing crystals of older materials. (You may not believe it, but geologists have found them, and you clearly don't understand science at all, so I'm going to put my trust in "we've found it" instead of "but it doesn't make sense to me.") Those will give an older date than new rock. Obviously.
The other, again, is using the wrong system. Brand new rock . . . well, doesn't really need to be dated in the first place, since you've seen it put in place. And anyway, C-14 isn't precise enough to give "last Thursday" as a date. But using the abovementioned "point C to point F" system, you're going to get the wrong answer on something that new. That's just how it works. I really don't know how many ways there are left to explain something so simple to you.
But, yes,
all incorrect datings involve either foreign material or using the incorrect system. As to those petrified trees you mentioned earlier, there are several options there, too. Using the resource I've told you
twice will be a good source of information, try
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC331.html. For radiometric dating, try
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html. In fact, I'd recommend that you read all of
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html. It might help you learn something, though given how hard it is to get you to understand the basics, it might not.