... continuing with Shane Wilson : very short overview of Dating Methods + Flaws

1) ... to League of Nerds and Realistic Opportunist on Hovind (part 1) · 2) ... continuing a Real Oldie For you! · 3) ... continuing with Shane Wilson : very short overview of Dating Methods + Flaws

Shane Wilson

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
N a m e l y ...?

The fact that we can accuratley measure the distance of stars to far more than 6000 light years away. This means that it would take more time for the light to get her than you think the universe has been around.

Radiometric dating methods.

Dendrochronology

Using the elements that the sun is composed to to test the age.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The fact that we can accuratley measure the distance of stars to far more than 6000 light years away. This means that it would take more time for the light to get her than you think the universe has been around."

If I say (just as a hypothesis) that all the fixed stars and exoplanets are in a sphere of fixed stars one light day above us (one light day above centre of Earth or one light day above surface of Earth, whichever) and the distances "4 light years", "6000 light years" and "13.5 billion light years" simply don't exist in the universe, how would you try to refute that?

"Radiometric dating methods."

• 1) Shorter halflives than C14 with (Cambridge half life rather than Libby's) 5730 years are irrelevant. You don't test the age of the earth with smoke detectors.
  
  
  • 2) C14 is non-conclusive, since a remainder of C14 in an object of organic material of 12.5% can be explained two ways :
    
    
  • a) you would say it lived in an athmosphere having about 100% of the present level of C14 and has thus halved its C14 content about three entire times, is about three half lives old;
    
    
  • b) I would counter (and do counter) that if it lived in an athmosphere with 21% of present level, the remaining 12.5% of present level are actually just a full 59% of original C14 content, 3/4 of a halflife, well after Biblical Flood (LXX chronology), and so on for any other possible level of C14 which will still square with Biblical timeline and other undisputable facts.
  
  
  
• 3) Longer half lives than C14 cannot be tested by calibration against known historic dates (91% of C14 can be tested against objects historically dated to 730 or fewer years ago), and so the half lives are conjectures, and on top of that you have a conjecture that the content of daughter element of your sample (Lead with U-Pb, Th-Pb, U-Th-Pb of Zircons; Argon with Ka-Ar) comes only or with determinable exceptions from radioactive parent element, assumptions that cannot be tested, except in the case of Ka-Ar, where Mount Saint Helen's gave a VERY negative test for accuracy.

"Dendrochronology"

Used to impress me when I was a teen. I even considered pushing in some Silmarillion like scenario into some kind of gap theory (theory of times gap between two first verses of Genesis) in order to accomodate with the extra years before Adamic genealogies start.

No more so.

I actually took the trouble to look up - and typically me forgot the reference or mislaid it by self mailing to a mail account which went down or by a short link I forgot or which went down - and saw that European pine ring datings have a few bottlenecks. The reference I did find (and mislay!) showed a diagramme of how close the overlap between rings actually was.

After seeing that one, I am very positive dendrochronologists accept too loose fittings of patterns for dendrochronology to be really useful.

Most items "dated by dendrochronology" also typically use series where dendro gives only relative dates within series, while series as a whole is "placed" by C14 (see above).

"Using the elements that the sun is composed to to test the age."

In other words, assuming a certain process gave rise to the elements of the Sun OTHER than God creating it in its present shape or very close. In other words, this method suffers logically from an assumption of naturalism. A k a "atheistic methodology".

Very Late Update

Shane Wilson

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
If I say (just as a hypothesis) that all the fixed stars and exoplanets are in a sphere of fixed stars one light day above us (one light day above centre of Earth or one light day above surface of Earth, whichever) and the distances "4 light years", "6000 light years" and "13.5 billion light years" simply don't exist in the universe, how would you try to refute that?

They aren't fixed though. They move. We can track their movement.

1) Shorter halflives than C14 with (Cambridge half life rather than Libby's) 5730 years are irrelevant. You don't test the age of the earth with smoke detectors.

The other methods are much longer than C14

*2) C14 is non-conclusive, since a remainder of C14 in an object of organic material of 12.5% can be explained two ways :
a) you would say it lived in an athmosphere having about 100% of the present level of C14 and has thus halved its C14 content about three entire times, is about three half lives old; b) I would counter (and do counter) that if it lived in an athmosphere with 21% of present level, the remaining 12.5% of present level are actually just a full 59% of original C14 content, 3/4 of a halflife, well after Biblical Flood (LXX chronology), and so on for any other possible level of C14 which will still square with Biblical timeline and other undisputable facts.*

Except we can actually do ice core dating, and use other methods which we can use to calibrate the levels of C14 in the atmosphere throughout the centuries.

3) Longer half lives than C14 cannot be tested by calibration against known historic dates (91% of C14 can be tested against objects historically dated to 730 or fewer years ago), and so the half lives are conjectures, and on top of that you have a conjecture that the content of daughter element of your sample (Lead with U-Pb, Th-Pb, U-Th-Pb of Zircons; Argon with Ka-Ar) comes only or with determinable exceptions from radioactive parent element, assumptions that cannot be tested, except in the case of Ka-Ar, where Mount Saint Helen's gave a VERY negative test for accuracy.

No, because we can cross date them with other decay rates and conclude and get the same age. As far as the Mount Saint Helen's test, it wasn't pure samples. Hell, the samples tested were tested likely knowing that they would be bad.

In other words, assuming a certain process gave rise to the elements of the Sun OTHER than God creating it in its present shape or very close. In other words, this method suffers logically from an assumption of naturalism. A k a "atheistic methodology".

This isn't an assumption, we know how elements are made. Hell, we have even had successful fusion tests on earth.

But you know what, you want to be willfully ignorant, then by willfully ignorant, I'm tired of dealing with morons.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

« They aren't fixed though. They move. We can track their movement. »

Right. Go for the detail which is a manner of speaking and which is least relevant for my argument.

Except for one detail : heliocentrism would have been far better proven if they HAD been fixed onto a perfectly solid shell.

« The other methods are much longer than C14 »

As you may have noticed later, I was doing an enumeration. I was coming to them.

[She could also have concluded it from fact of my putting a numeral 1 before.]

« Except we can actually do ice core dating, and use other methods which we can use to calibrate the levels of C14 in the atmosphere throughout the centuries. »

For centuries back to 500 BC where the historical narratives and styles of artefacts and geographical coordinates are the method, granted. For ice core dates, not granted.

« No, because we can cross date them with other decay rates and conclude and get the same age. »

And quietly discard the results that don't match ?

« As far as the Mount Saint Helen's test, it wasn't pure samples. Hell, the samples tested were tested likely knowing that they would be bad. »

Is that your latest ? Actually, it is one we used to do about the Shroud of Turin – and me too, until finding out that there the computer giving the results could have been hacked.

« This isn't an assumption, we know how elements are made. Hell, we have even had successful fusion tests on earth. »

Tests which presumably did not take millions of years ? And you are STILL assuming that God needed to go through same process, or simply denying His existence, when using this argument. That remains an assumption. The one I was talking about.

« But you know what, you want to be willfully ignorant, then by willfully ignorant, I'm tired of dealing with morons. »

OK, creationism is « wilful ignorance » and « being a moron ». Debating climate has gone sharply downhill, hasn't it ?