[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You can not use radio-isotope dating on objects that are only 20 years old. It was never designed to be used on such "young" objects, so stating that is completely irrelevant to the testing system. The eruption of Mount Saint Helens is not a valid test.

In which case there are no truly valid tests of the method, as historical records cease to become useful for such things after times that are still "young" in terms of testing radioscopic methods . . . which would imply that you are taking all the radioscopic dataing methods on faith. Wouldn't that make you religious, Fyron?

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Radio-isotope dating is not meant to work on "young" objects. There are always inaccuracies in the levels of isotopes in any object. When there has been a very long time since the object was buried, these inaccuracies tend to average out, so you get relatively more accurate results. But, you can not accurately use any radio-isotope dating on objects that are less than a few thousand years old (this threshhold changes depending on what the half-life of the particular element is). That is not how the testing is designed to work. An example of this is that if an object is exposed to fire, it gets a lot more Carbon-14 in it, so it throws off the calculated age based off of Carbon-14 dating. This is part of the reason why Carbon-14 is not a good isotope to use. Another reason would be that its half-life is only a few thousand years, so it can not be used to test the age of objects that are millions of years old. This is why elements like Uranium are used for older objects; Uranium isotopes ahve very long half-lives. But, Uranium can not be used for dating of objects that are less than a few hundred thousand years old, because of the inherent inaccuracies of radio-isotope dating. This is why legitimate scientists do not use it to date "young" objects. There are some other elements that can be used for objects of different possible ages, but I do not remember what they are at the moment.

There are about a dozen that are used, essentially anything that decays in a radioactive fashon could theoretically be used for radioscopic dating. However, besides each specific method's individual problems, they all have a particular set of problematic assumptions lying at their cores:

1) Initial values of parent and daughter elements
These values haven't been observed in the distant past that the object comes from. Without these, determining the age via the half-life and the amounts of present parent and daughter products is impossible. These values are assumed, although normally based off of modern values (which may or may not be valid, but there is no way to tell)

2) Non-migration of both the parent and daughter elements.
More of the parent element produces a false young age, less produces a false old age. More of the daughter element produces a false old age, less produces a false young age. If you assume that a rock has been around for a long time, not being observed, how can anyone be certain that this migration hasn't happend? You can't.
While specimin collectors try to get samples from the field where this assumption is reasonable, the testing facility virtually always throws out much of the data from every sample because the ages resulting from that data are essentially zero. They levy charges of leaching or contamination on that portion, and throw it out. However, if the specimine collectors can't tell a contaminated sample from an uncontaminated sample, how can one tell in the lab which sample is not contaminated? They differentiate based on assumed old ages, and throw out any results that don't match that assumption. Accepting their assumption is an act of faith, yet these methods are commonly used as valid. That would make the people doing this people of faith, and thus religious (after a fashion) wouldn't it?

[ March 14, 2003, 21:33: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

[Fyron]

In which case there are no truly valid tests of the method, as historical records cease to become useful for such things after times that are still "young" in terms of testing radioscopic methods . . . which would imply that you are taking all the radioscopic dataing methods on faith. Wouldn't that make you religious, Fyron?

No, as they are based off of sound scientific principles. We have no direct evidence of the existence of electrons. But, we still know that they exist. This has nothign to do with faith, or being religious in any sense of the word.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No, as they are based off of sound scientific principles. We have no direct evidence of the existence of electrons. But, we still know that they exist. This has nothign to do with faith, or being religious in any sense of the word.

You appear to have missed the second half of my post.
Let me quote myself:

There are about a dozen that are used, essentially anything that decays in a radioactive fashon could theoretically be used for radioscopic dating. However, besides each specific method's individual problems, they all have a particular set of problematic assumptions lying at their cores:

1) Initial values of parent and daughter elements
These values haven't been observed in the distant past that the object comes from. Without these, determining the age via the half-life and the amounts of present parent and daughter products is impossible. These values are assumed, although normally based off of modern values (which may or may not be valid, but there is no way to tell)

2) Non-migration of both the parent and daughter elements.
More of the parent element produces a false young age, less produces a false old age. More of the daughter element produces a false old age, less produces a false young age. If you assume that a rock has been around for a long time, not being observed, how can anyone be certain that this migration hasn't happend? You can't.
While specimin collectors try to get samples from the field where this assumption is reasonable, the testing facility virtually always throws out much of the data from every sample because the ages resulting from that data are essentially zero. They levy charges of leaching or contamination on that portion, and throw it out. However, if the specimine collectors can't tell a contaminated sample from an uncontaminated sample, how can one tell in the lab which sample is not contaminated? They differentiate based on assumed old ages, and throw out any results that don't match that assumption. Accepting their assumption is an act of faith, yet these methods are commonly used as valid. That would make the people doing this people of faith, and thus religious (after a fashion) wouldn't it?

[ March 14, 2003, 21:38: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

[spoon]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:


1) Initial values of parent and daughter elements
These values haven't been observed in the distant past that the object comes from.

2) Non-migration of both the parent and daughter elements.
While specimin collectors try to get samples from the field where this assumption is reasonable, the testing facility virtually always throws out much of the data from every sample because the ages resulting from that data are essentially zero.

You will likely find a better argument over at talkorigins.org. I think your three points are addressed here:
isocron dating

In the future, after you make one of these Posts, you can do a search on talkorigins and cut-n-paste your findings in a reply to your own post. Not only will it save others the time from having to look it up themselves, but it will inflate your post count! Everyone wins!

-spoon

[CEO TROLL]

quote:

Accepting their assumption is an act of faith, yet these methods are commonly used as valid. That would make the people doing this people of faith, and thus religious (after a fashion) wouldn't it?

I am a Troll of faith. I believe the refrigerator light turns off when I shut the door. I believe it because I have tested the door switch and peaked by prying the magnet strip aside. I rest easy with this faith.

Those of little faith have limited themselves. My faith has led to believing in things working when I can not see them. My faith has led to building complex computer chips.

[Andr�s]

You cannot measure the diameter of a hair with a measuring tape with lines every centimeter.
Different instruments must be used to measure different orders of magnitude, and every measure has an error interval.

Scientists know Radio-isotope dating is not an accurate measure and can only give an approximate result. They admit that, that is honest and gives more value to the result.

It's not a matter of faith to say "We estimate this rock is 10,000,000 y.o."

It would be a matter of faith it they said "It is written this rock was created 10,000,000 years ago.

[Fyron]

You appear to have missed the second half of my post.

No, I was on my way out, and did not write a full reply. I was just clarifying that it had nothing to do with faith as used in a religious sense.

Jack:

Originally posted by Andr&eacutes Lescano:
You cannot measure the diameter of a hair with a measuring tape with lines every centimeter.
Different instruments must be used to measure different orders of magnitude, and every measure has an error interval.

Scientists know Radio-isotope dating is not an accurate measure and can only give an approximate result. They admit that, that is honest and gives more value to the result.

It's not a matter of faith to say "We estimate this rock is 10,000,000 y.o."

It would be a matter of faith it they said "It is written this rock was created 10,000,000 years ago.

Actually, there is little more to say after what Andres said. No legitimate science has ever claimed that radio-isotope dating is an exact science. It is an estimation, based off of thorough experimentation and calculation as to the half-lives of the relevant isotopes. This is why using radio-isotope dating is not a matter of faith; it is based off of verifiable data. It is not a matter of: the Bible says so, so it is true. That is accepting something on religious faith. You are trying to use the connotations of the word faith to equate "believing in" science to believing in religion. This does not work, because there is no ground of comparison between science and religion. Scientific belief is always open to being wrong. If you find evidence contradicting religious beliefs, the evidence has to be wrong. The religious beliefs don't change to reflect accurate new evidence; scientific beliefs do. I do indeed have faith in science, but it is not at all like faith in religion. I can easily look at the data collected by scientists to see if their conclusions make sense. What religion does is to say, "this is how it is, accept it." I do not simply accept scientific suppositions as fact. In order to believe them, you have to accept religions suppositions as fact, as there is no possible evidence or experimentation to prove them. Religious "faith" is accepting something because that is what they say it is like. Scientific "faith" is accepting suppositions that have been based off of careful experimentation. It is accepting that there are people out there with more scientific knowledge than myself, and trusting them to know how to run experiments. It is being able to examine their data, and also to be able to run their experiments myself to see if I get the same results. All of this is lacking in religious "faith", so your argument that by me believing scientific principles equates to me being religious is baseless.

[ March 14, 2003, 23:36: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Cheeze]

I have to make mention of this supposed inability of religion or religious people to accept change or contradictory evidence. If that were true, there would have been no Judaism, since it links to a founder in Abraham as having turned to Yahweh first. Christianity was built on the introduction of "new evidence or theory" to Judaism, and Islam was a radical change from either of those two but also claiming some connection. The Protestant Reformation began with Martin Luther challenging Rome by presenting a series of theses that argued inside of Christendom. Hinduism is replete with examples of individuals changing the religious practices (Krishna stands out), and Buddhism ran counter to much of the prevailing Hindu or other beliefs, whether you talk about Siddhartha, Bodhidharma or Padmasambhava. And there are instances where the leading individuals in one or another religion found reason to change to another through personal conviction, not coercion.

And it also goes to say that many scientists have, in their day, been attacked, ostracized or ignored by the other scientists because what they presented ran counter to whatever the current theories and understandings were. Many scientists, like artists, gained much of their appreciation in times after they first published or made known their ideas, sometimes after their death.

[Fyron]

My point was that religions do not make progress (in the sense of overall advancement, not just a different set of essentially the same thing), whereas science does. Converting to a different religion is not "progress", it is just taking a different set of dieties and stories on faith. Using new religious practices does not equate to changing because of accurate new evidence, it equates to placing your religious faith in a different direction.

I also never once said that all scientists were 100% accepted. Science does not change itself overnight. It takes good solid evidence for theories to change, not just some guy saying, "hey, it's like this!" and then suddenly everyone starts believing him. That would be an act of religious faith, not scientific reasoning.

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
My point was that religions do not make progress (in the sense of overall advancement, not just a different set of essentially the same thing), whereas science does. Converting to a different religion is not "progress", it is just taking a different set of dieties and stories on faith. Using new religious practices does not equate to changing because of accurate new evidence, it equates to placing your religious faith in a different direction.

I also never once said that all scientists were 100% accepted. Science does not change itself overnight. It takes good solid evidence for theories to change, not just some guy saying, "hey, it's like this!" and then suddenly everyone starts believing him. That would be an act of religious faith, not scientific reasoning.

This is a fascinating argument. I see you keep repeating it so I have a question: Do you consider the concept of evolution to be science or faith? It was expounded by a guy named Darwin as a possibility in the 19th century, and immediately accepted by the scientific community -- without proof. Ever since then it has been repeated and repeated as fact and anyone who dares to point out any flaws in it is subjected to the same sort of persecution that you see in religious disputes -- character assassination, blacklisting (getting people fired or breaking contracts), etc. It really looks to me like evolution was the 'new faith' invented to replace the old faith, and that's why it cannot be allowed to fail. Which makes it not science. We had a whole thread about it a while back, you can probably find it with the forum search.

[ March 15, 2003, 17:39: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]