by tornapart 427 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I have not the slightest idea what it is you just said - what's more I'm certain you don't either.
Scientists can date rocks with amazing precision and confirm the answer with multiple independent radiometric clocks. I explained all that to you above. What part didn't you understand?
James Brown, how about ice?
http://www.psmag.com/science-environment/core-of-the-problem-4036/
There are annual layers of ice and dust that are laid down every season. These annual layers can be counted, one year at a time, all the way back as deep as a scientist can go, from present day.
In addition, an electrical charge is run through the sample every millimeter to measure the electro-conductivity. These two methods are cross-compared for accuracy.
So man can know how old an old piece of ice is.
There was a story on NPR yesterday about a billion + years old water found in a Canadian gold mine.
The story is here:
http://www.npr.org/2013/05/16/183950854/water-trapped-for-1-5-billion-years-could-hold-ancient-life
When Mt. St Helens errupted they took the lava to be dated and it was dated sever hundred thousand years when it
was only 5 or sol years. There are other intances on the net also.
When man knows the date of the rock they cant date it.
Or I'll make it more clear for you. They date it wrong by a lot.
When they dont know the date of the rock they can date it.
I'll make it clear for you when they don't know the age of the rock and no one can
catch them they claim they can date the rock.
How can you trust them to date something you dont know the age of
when they cant date something they know the age of?
Cofty, you say you are familiar with Kent Hovind and his videos.
What you dont understand me telling you is a major point of his.
I doubt you are familiar with Kent Hovind or his videos.
JB
Is this to what you are referring?
Claim CD013.1:
The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens, Washington. The whole-rock age was 0.35 +/- 0.05 million years (Mya). Ages for component minerals varied from 0.34 +/- 0.06 Mya to 2.8 +/- 0.6 Mya. These ages show that the K-Ar method is invalid.
Source:
Austin, Steven A., 1996. Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens volcano. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 10(3): 335-343. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_sa_r01
Response:
Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable. Since Austin misused the measurement technique, he should expect inaccurate results, but the fault is his, not the technique's. Experimental error is a possible explanation for the older date.
Austin's samples were not homogeneous, as he himself admitted. Any xenocrysts in the samples would make the samples appear older (because the xenocrysts themselves would be old). A K-Ar analysis of impure fractions of the sample, as Austin's were, is meaningless.
Links:
Henke, Kevin R. n.d. Young-earth creationist 'dating' of a Mt. St. Helens dacite: The failure of Austin and Swenson to recognize obviously ancient minerals. http://noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html
S
What you dont understand me telling you is a major point of his. I doubt you are familiar with Kent Hovind or his videos.
I have listened to hours of his bullshit. The problem is I can't decipher your grammar.
So you didn't bother to read Wien's article then. If you had you would have found the precise answer to your question.
What you are basically saying is that because somebody can move the hands on a clock clocks don't work for telling the time.
14. A young-Earth research group reported that they sent a rock erupted in 1980 from Mount Saint Helens volcano to a dating lab and got back a potassium-argon age of several million years. This shows we should not trust radiometric dating.
There are indeed ways to "trick" radiometric dating if a single dating method is improperly used on a sample. Anyone can move the hands on a clock and get the wrong time. Likewise, people actively looking for incorrect radiometric dates can in fact get them. Geologists have known for over forty years that the potassium-argon method cannot be used on rocks only twenty to thirty years old. Publicizing this incorrect age as a completely new finding was inappropriate. The reasons are discussed in the Potassium-Argon Dating section above. Be assured that multiple dating methods used together on igneous rocks are almost always correct unless the sample is too difficult to date due to factors such as metamorphism or a large fraction of xenoliths.
Some young-Earth proponents recently reported that rocks were dated by the potassium-argon method to be a several million years old when they are really only a few years old. But the potassium-argon method, with its long half-life, was never intended to date rocks only 25 years old. These people have only succeeded in correctly showing that one can fool a single radiometric dating method when one uses it improperly. The false radiometric ages of several million years are due to parentless argon, as described here, and first reported in the literature some fifty years ago. Note that it would be extremely unlikely for another dating method to agree on these bogus ages. Getting agreement between more than one dating method is a recommended practice.
I admire those who are willing to teach and explain science to people. I don't have the patience for it. Once I read and understand and "get it" I have trouble exercising patience for those who still don't. Kudos to you.
There is very little connection between evolution and number of population.
Population number is instead determined by life expectancy, which in itself is dependent on many factors (healthcare, living conditions, nutrition, etc etc). The only reason why there are 7 billion people on earth today is because of life expectancy, not because we evolved from another living being.
I admire those who are willing to teach and explain science to people. I don't have the patience for it. Once I read and understand and "get it" I have trouble exercising patience for those who still don't. Kudos to you.
Mad I know exactly where you are coming from with that statement. I cetainly don't want to waste time with people who don't want to learn.
