The Big Bang

[ted]

Is there flaws in the dating methods used to determine the age of rocks, fossils, and other matter? I have heard several theories about this topic.

SA- maybe you could shed some light on these flaws in such methods as carbon dating and others.

Thanks.

t.

[Bread_of_Life]

Ted,

A flaw is defined, by the Collins English Dictionary as:

n 1. an imperfection or blemish

2. a mistake in something that makes it invalid; Example: a flaw in the system

Now, I wouldn't say that dating methods are perfect. There are sources of error in all of them (just as there are in all other experiments that scientists perform, and methods that scientists use). Therefore, if you're using the first meaning of flaw, an imperfection or blemish, I would have to say that radiometric dating methods are not perfect, no method is, and therefore there are flaws in this sense.

However, radiometric dating methods do not contain mistakes that would make them invalid. This is the second definition of flaw, I think this is probably the definition of "flaw" that you were using - and if so, then the answer is no, they have no flaws, since each can be used to give true and valid results.

If you want to ask any specific questions about supposed flaws in radiometric dating techniques, then please feel free to do so, either on this topic, or on another thread of your own making.

Thanks,

Nik

[ted]

Is there a difference in certain methods that produce opposing or conflicting results while studying the same subject?

For example could using carbon dating produce conflicting results from another type of system when trying to determine the age of a bone found in a desert?

Just wondering. I'm not too familiar with various methods of dating old things. There seems to be some opposing views when it come to the dates of things found and I was wondering if the confusion is due to results of using varying methods or is it people reading the results of one type in different ways.

Thanks.

t.

PS- Feel free to PM me if the discussion will draw from the original point of this thread. I'm interested in basic differences in the systems used to determine dates of things that are found such as bones, and also the methods used today to determine the age of the universe.

[Guest Calamity]

Like a bumper sticker I used to have says:

"I believe in the Big Bang Theory . . . God said it, and 'BANG'! it happened."

Sorry, couldn't resist :x: - carry on. :il:

[Bread_of_Life]

Ted,

A good place to start would be my first thread on this bulletin board, which was dedicated to explaining the most popularly used ways of dating things:

How Old is the Earth:

http://www.worthyboards.com/forums/index.p...topic=8179&st=0

If that sparks your interest, then you may want to read a couple of more detailed follow up posts, like:

Age of the Earth 2:

http://www.worthyboards.com/forums/index.p...topic=8320&st=0

Half Lives Havn't Changed:

http://www.worthyboards.com/forums/index.p...topic=8796&st=0

I would only recommend either of the latter two after you've read the first one, or else they won't make a great deal of sense. Also, don't get disheartened if you don't fully understand the latter two - especially Age of the Earth 2 - because they do get quite technical - and the basics are in How Old is the Earth.

Is there a difference in certain methods that produce opposing or conflicting results while studying the same subject?

There are possible sources of error in all methods of radiometric dating, that can produce conflicting results between methods. However, on the whole (in the majority) results do agree within bounds of experimental error margins.

For example could using carbon dating produce conflicting results from another type of system when trying to determine the age of a bone found in a desert?

I'm afraid I don't know a huge ammount about carbon dating - other than how it is calibrated, so I couldn't tell you a great deal about carbon dating samples from a desert.

C-14 dating is not used to date the age of the earth - in fact, it isn't used on anything over 50,000 years old.

There seems to be some opposing views when it come to the dates of things found and I was wondering if the confusion is due to results of using varying methods or is it people reading the results of one type in different ways.

Usually there is very little confusion as to how old a sample is, especially when two or more methods are used, because they will usually confirm one another.

PS- Feel free to PM me if the discussion will draw from the original point of this thread.

Not my thread, so it's not my call to say! If you are genuinely interested, do take a look at the links that I've given above, and come back with questions on those threads, or even on a thread of your own if you so desire.

[ted]

Thanks, SA.

t.

[His son]

Ted,

I would suggest you go to some true scientists for your research. Dr. Carl Baugh Has a web site. And Dr. D James Kennedy also has a mass of information on the origions of science and facts about creation. You will find the truth their, and that Truth will be compatable with The Bible which is the ultimate authority on all things. It tells us many times over that God worked 6 days and rested the 7th. That's the ultimate truth, and secular science don't like truth because it makes fools of them, and prooves The Truth about science written in The Bible.

[ted]

t.

[Bread_of_Life]

I would suggest you go to some true scientists for your research

*rolls eyes*, don't pull your punches now

and secular science don't like truth because it makes fools of them,

Is this what you say every time you can't answer scientific questions?

Also, do you know the meaning of the word "secular", and that it is different to the meaning of the word "atheist"?

Edited June 23, 2004 by ScientificAtheist

[Guest homesteader]

Of course there was a BIG BANG on the 7th. day God was checking out what He had done said YA!!! and clapped his hands. It don't get any bigger than that.

Peace and Blessing

Homesteader