Dino Dating Conflicts: Carbon dating suggests less than 40,000 years old.

Started Jan 22, 2013 | Discussions thread
Don_Campbell
Senior MemberPosts: 1,008
Like?
Re: A little more on this..
In reply to PhilPreston3072, Jan 28, 2013

PhilPreston3072 wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

PhilPreston3072 wrote:

Because when we date rocks that we know are no more than 2,500 years old, we're getting back results that claim they're 100,000 to 1.60Mil years old. http://creation.com/more-and-more-wrong-dates-radio-dating-in-rubble

Interesting site. I like this quote 'When dated by the rubidium-strontium isochron method, the Cardenas Basalt yielded an age of 1.07 billion years. Most geologists consider this a ‘good’ date because it agrees with their evolutionary chronology.3 However, we know the date can’t be right, because it conflicts with Biblical chronology.' So, what is 'Biblical chronology'? Does it tell us that Dinosaurs were alive 32000 years ago. How old are these rocks according to 'biblical chronology'. In any case, it seems that you like some kinds of radiometric dating and not others. What are the selection criteria you use? Why do you think that these RC dates are any more accurate than the ones that you dismiss?

Why don't you read the rest of the article? When they tested the lava flow at the top the canyon it gave a date of 1.34 Bil years old. So if the Rb-Sr isochron method is accurate, why are the rocks down below younger than the rocks on top?

And you still haven't answered why we should believe these people, who have lied about their academic qualifications. Why would we believe that they would not also lie about their experiments.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Where have they lied about academic qualifications? Who are you talking about?

I have already told you that. You just ignore it. So tell me, if they lie about their academic qualifications, why should we believe them about anything?

-- hide signature --

Bob

You only questioned what the Paleo group was. It doesn't mean these guys lied about their qualifications.

Qualification for Thomas Seiler and Hugh Owen

Qualification for Pr. Maciej Giertych and Dr. Jean de Pontcharra

Phil, you have no idea what it would take for these guys to be qualified to overturn current scientific understanding of when dinosaurs disappeared from the earth. The "qualifications" on these links do not come close. Nowhere near close to show that they have the knowledge required to credibly overturn modern science. Notice that I don't discount the possibility that someone could overturn modern understanding in some field and be from another. It's just that nothing in their credentials supports their ability to do that. That requires extraordinary data, credible guidance and detailed analysis. It is not likely pass peer review with these flimsy credentials in the area of dinosaur bone dating.

If you want to prove that they lied about the results, you'll have to show it with your own tests.

No, you are really a babe in the woods who doesn't get science at all. Your guys are the ones who have all the "showing" to do. They have to explain in great and credible detail how their results can prevail when they fly in the face of a hundred years of science. There is absolutely no, zero, nada requirement of skeptics to prove them wrong. The burden is entirely, 100.00%, completely on these guys from other specific disciplines to explain how they should be taken as credible. So far I see nothing whatever in their credentials to believe this work.

I have seen in my own field data and conclusions that seemed to be stretching credibility. Very few of those studies have stood the test of time. These guys of the Paleo Christian Science Rewrite Society have given us nothing whatever to convince anyone who isn't already convinced by their religious convictions that what they have is credible.

No credible journal will publish this research in this form. It's incredible and it's unconvincing. And....it's  not up to me to be convincing--it's up to them and they haven't met the test. When they get this published in Science or Nature let me know. Otherwise you're just being their shill on DPReview.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
butNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow