Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

49 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Well (4, Funny)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 11 years ago | (#5504958)

This is obviously wrong, the earth is only a little more than 5000 [creator-creation.com] years old.

Re:Well (1)

aster_ken (516808) | more than 11 years ago | (#5505209)

I am not a physicist (IANAP?), but from what I do know about the subject shows that he is... well...

fscking nuts.

You think he is nuts (1)

Lord_Of_The_Beer (527765) | more than 11 years ago | (#5505990)

Did you read the flat earth link a couple of days back...

At least these people belive the earth is round.

Re:Well (1)

aster_ken (516808) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511126)

Hehe... Indeed...

I'd love to live on a flat earth. Maybe something that sits on the back of four (five?) giant elephants riding on the back of a big, slow space turtle... ;)

Re:Well (1)

jsse (254124) | more than 11 years ago | (#5509858)

This is obviously wrong, the earth is only a little more than 5000 [creator-creation.com] years old.

This is a series of science paradox which show one scientific estimation is in contradiction with another. They may look very funny at the first glance, but they actually help us reconsider the validity of commonly adopted scientific assumptions.

I can't really comment on the earth rotation part as I'm not expert in this field, but his comment on electromagnetic decay is already answered by recent(not really recent) discovery of the fact that earth magnetic field will actually 'switch' over, i.e. North pole become South pole and vice versa, periodically. They 'swtich' will happen so rapid that (~100 years) will cause catastrophic effect on all species on earth. That explain why the decay in electromagnetic field and it's not like his assumption that the electromagnetic field will eventually decay away.

In related news... (4, Funny)

tchdab1 (164848) | more than 11 years ago | (#5504963)

The Onion reports the oldest evidence ever found for athlete's foot.

Re:In related news... (1)

Icculus (33027) | more than 11 years ago | (#5506091)

I must be just as twisted as you because that's the very first thing I thought.

Remember it said HUMAN (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5504967)

not nigger

and beside the footprints... (3, Funny)

MarvinMouse (323641) | more than 11 years ago | (#5504971)

They found a strange building they've called "the worlds oldest Chinese Mann's Theatre", and also in the ground they found the cryptic words:

"Charles Heston"
and two handprints.

Scientists are trying to decode this strange oddity.

Re:and beside the footprints... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5506826)

Damn dirty heidelbergensis!

You maniacs! You blew it up! I'm calling my agent! Damn you! Damn you all to hell!

Charles Heston? (1)

barakn (641218) | more than 11 years ago | (#5507941)

Perhaps if you had said Charlton Heston [thecattbox.com] , it would have been funnier. Don't forget the footprints.

GET IT IN YOU!!! UUHHHHHNNN! (-1)

sithkhan (536425) | more than 11 years ago | (#5504972)

Dirty South! Frosty first post pist! Uhhhnnn! I claim this post in the name of all geeks n the Internet NOW!! First post! Yeah! Get it in you!

I failed! I FAILED!!!! (-1)

sithkhan (536425) | more than 11 years ago | (#5504997)

Yes, I FAILED! So don't even bother trolling my troll. Moderators, please let me go, since I failed so miserably. I have learned my lesson. Really. I promise. No crosses. On my mother's grave. Stick a needle in my eye. FAILED! FAILED!

Re:I failed! I FAILED!!!! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5506297)

Fuck off troll.

Actually ... (3, Informative)

Quixotic Raindrop (443129) | more than 11 years ago | (#5504985)

The article points out that footprints in the 3.5 million years old range have been found, these are just the oldest footprints of Stone Age humans.

Re:Actually ... (1)

Quixotic Raindrop (443129) | more than 11 years ago | (#5505010)

oops. Make that the oldest footprints ... my mistake! They were 3.5M yo., but of a pre-human species.

Re:Actually ... (3, Informative)

reverseengineer (580922) | more than 11 years ago | (#5506391)

Well, they're footprints of a recent precursor to modern humans, Homo heidelbergensis, which is believed to be the forerunner of both H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens There are some paleoanthropologists, however, who think that H. heidelbergensis (I just love that name) might only be the direct ancestor of Neanderthals and that the break between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens occurred earlier.

It is also interesting to note that these footprints indicate that they were made by beings which were approximately 4.5ft (1.5m) tall, though H. heidelbergensis remains suggest that adults of the species may have been as tall as 6 feet (1.9m). Thus, as the article suggests, these footprints may have been made by children- or they made be from a completely different hominid species.

Re:Actually ... (1)

smithmc (451373) | more than 11 years ago | (#5507210)


There are some paleoanthropologists, however, who think that H. heidelbergensis (I just love that name)

Do you think they were great swordfighters? I mean, if they all went to Heidelberg...

For a picture... (5, Funny)

tellurian (90659) | more than 11 years ago | (#5505124)


see here [gnome.org] .

Those kids... (2, Funny)

gnovos (447128) | more than 11 years ago | (#5505150)

I TOLD them to keep off the lawn...

This is really... (3, Funny)

ivanandre (265129) | more than 11 years ago | (#5505449)

...the equivalent of the first post!

Who can argue with that?

prehuman? (1)

Jayson (2343) | more than 11 years ago | (#5505483)

How do they know it is from a prehuman species? Is that just speculation taken from the when they are believed to have been formed? There is nothing in the print that points to this, right?

Re:prehuman? (3, Informative)

Bonker (243350) | more than 11 years ago | (#5505882)

You can tell a lot from the footprints, such as the shape of pelvis bones, relative age and weight of the print maker, frequently the gender of the print-maker... all from the angle of the foot prints. If the prints are the correct proportions for 'human' and have the correct angles for a human walker, then scientists can probably narrow it down to being human prints with great accuracy.

From what I have read... (1)

Jayson (2343) | more than 11 years ago | (#5506907)

They said that the prints are probably of children about 4-foot-6 using the standard ratio of foot size to height. The prints done appear of good enough quality to tell any more.

Re:prehuman? (1)

PyroMosh (287149) | more than 11 years ago | (#5526427)

For more on this, may I suggest any of Tom Brown Jr's books [barnesandnoble.com] ? He's written both manuals (which, as you'd expect are rather dry, but highly informative) and biographical story books, which are just as educational, but also very entertaining.

If you've never heard of him (and most people haven't) Tom Brown Jr [trackerschool.com] , is one of the foremost experts on the lost art of tracking. He first started to learn the art as a young boy from his best friend's grandfather, who was a displaced Apache scout.

Today, he's a world renound naturalist and he also runs the finest tracking school [trackerschool.com] in the world. People come from all over to study under him and his students. Other schools [cap.gov] have even copied his techniques. You'd be shocked what you can learn from a track. Or even where you can find a track. Weight, sex, injuries (even old healed ones), mood, how full one's stomach or bladder are, weather one is carrying a load, even where someone is looking, can all be told from a track to a skilled tracker. Fascinating stuff.

Proof positive (1)

Enrico Pulatzo (536675) | more than 11 years ago | (#5505906)

They knew they age of the footprint by the age of the dog crap that was stepped in.

This always happens. (2, Funny)

yo303 (558777) | more than 11 years ago | (#5505935)

You go and pour some fresh concrete or volcano mud, and some idiot goes and writes their initials in it, or steps there. It was the same then as it is now.

Who left the 56 footprints is not clear. But their discoverers suggest either late Homo erectus or Homo heidelbergensis -- two early human species found in Europe during the Paleolithic era, also known as the Stone Age.
When they find the guy that did it, they're going to be MAD!

yo.

Re:This always happens. (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 11 years ago | (#5506740)

They should check all the bathhouses.

How old are they? (0, Interesting)

young-earth (560521) | more than 11 years ago | (#5507464)

The age is an interesting question. First is the comment from one of the researchers
someone made an imprint on a surface, walking in a way you'd expect to see someone in these same conditions walk today
So from the footprints themselves, there is no reason they could not be 100 or 500 or 1500 years old. They appear, according to experts, to be indistinguishable from modern footprints.

So why are they considered to be 325000 to 385000 years old? From volcanic dating. Now how accurate is volcanic dating. That's where this gets interesting. Evolutionists hate to have this brought up, but Steve Austin, a geologist with a PhD from Penn State, did an interesting test a while ago. He picked up some rocks inside the crater of Mt. St. Helens from the lava dome. These rocks were definitely formed less than ten years before he picked them up. He sent them to be radiometrically dated, and the results of K-Ar dating of one "whole rock" sample was 345000 to 355000 years. Another was 334000 to 346000.

So what we have here is two known-age (less than ten years) rocks were given dates comparable to the footprint rocks. What scientific basis is there for believing the footprints are any more accurately dated than the known-age rocks? None, since there is no known-age rock from thousands or millions of years ago, no one put one in a time vault with a label on it.

The standard answer by evolutionists and long-age defenders to this set of facts is that Steve Austin is incompetent (note they include no references from his PhD committee defending that point of view) and that he made mistakes selecting the rocks. Even if that were the case, the same mistakes could have been made in the footprint rock selections, yet since the dates come out to be in the same range, no one would think twice about questioning the methodology involved.

Bottom line: science is about doing repeatable experiments to determine things. Radiometric dating is not science, since given known-age rocks, the best labs around return wildly wrong results. If a supposedly scientific method produces known false results, it's not scientific and should be rejected.

Too bad Steve's been debunked (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5508148)

Yawn. Look here [talkorigins.org] troll.

Re:How old are they? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5508179)

whole rock K-Ar dating on rocks only 10 years old is NEVER going to give you interpretable results.

1) whole rock dating is, as it sounds, dating a rock without regard to the specific mineral phases within it. this is a major point because different minerals have different diffusivities (and therefore closure temperatures) with respect to loss of radiogenic 40Ar.

2) K-Ar dating, while useful, gives results with large uncertainties. for example, a 10 million year old K-Ar date typically has uncertainties on the order of 1-2 million years. with more modern 40Ar/39Ar dating (a variant of K-Ar dating), those uncertanites are more like 0.1 to 0.5 million years.

3) THE SAMPLES ARE ONLY 10 YEARS OLD!!!! that is (by a long shot) not enough time to accumulate radiogenic 40Ar in the sample. the half-life of 40K is just too damn long and given the state of the art in mass spectrometry, there is no way to get a high enough signal to noise (e.g. count enough 40Ar atoms) to calcualate an age (let alone a reliable one). even if you analyze tens of kilograms of sample (which is not practical).

what were the uncertainties of mr. austin's K-Ar dates? geochronologic results without uncertainties are useless.

i hear this crap argument about 10 year old mt. st. helens rocks being dated as hundreds of thousands of years old all the time. it's a load. first (as i discussed above) you can't expect to be able to date a rock that young anyway (at least not with K-Ar, 40Ar/39Ar or any other common isotopic system).

second, this argument takes no account of the geologic context of the samples austin dated. are they indeed volcanic rocks that cooled from a magma 10 years prior to their collection? or were they much older rocks that were blown out of the volcano in the recent eruption. rocks that crystallized from a lava not 10 years prior, but, rather in a much older eruption. say 300 thousand years ago?

>Radiometric dating is not science, since given known-age rocks, the best labs around return wildly wrong results.

you have no clue what you are talking about.

Re:How old are they? (1)

young-earth (560521) | more than 11 years ago | (#5509910)

The key point, which seems to have been missed, is that when rocks of known ages are radiometrically dated, the results are extremely wrong. As a simple double-blind calibration of experimental methodology, this shows that radiometric dating methods currently in use are fatally flawed.

If you run a double-blind test in medicine and prove something is completely ineffective, the medication never sees the market (well, that's how it's supposed to work; thalidomide and other examples indicate that even that process is not without tragic flaws).

Similarly tests run using rocks of known ages produce results for geologists (not just for creationists) that show the methodology is wrong. Whatever the reason, if a method is flawed, it needs to be either fixed or discarded.

One of the most vocal anti-creationist geologists around is G. Brent Dalrymple. He testified against Gentry in the court case about teaching evolution a few years ago, and has written extensively against creationism. Yet his article (Dalrymple, G. B., 1969. 40Ar/36Ar analyses of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6:47-55) showed five cases of known date rocks producing results that (my conclusion, not his) should disqualify radiometric dating as it is currently practiced.

Hualalai basalt (Hawaii, AD 1800-1801) 1.6 ± 0.16 Ma, 1.41 ± 0.08 Ma

Mt. Etna basalt (Sicily, 122 BC) 0.25 ± 0.08 Ma

Mt. Etna basalt (Sicily, AD 1792) 0.35 ± 0.14 Ma

Mt. Lassen plagioclase (California, AD 1915) 0.11 ± 0.3 Ma

Sunset Crater basalt (Arizona, AD 1064-1065) 0.27 ± 0.09 Ma, 0.25 ± 0.15 Ma

What justification can there be for continuing to use a method known to be wrong? Aside from preserving the jobs and income of those whose livelihood depends on maintaining the intellectual status quo, none occurs to me - anybody out there got a less uncharitable idea?

Re:How old are they? (3, Insightful)

fluffy666 (582573) | more than 11 years ago | (#5510238)

But given that K-Ar dating is typically used for age ranges in the 10s or 100s of millions of years, these results show that the uncertanty due to primordial argon is small, and hence the method is accurate. Thanks for demonstrating that radiometric dating is reliable.

Re:How old are they? (1)

young-earth (560521) | more than 11 years ago | (#5513782)

Your assertion
But given that K-Ar dating is typically used for age ranges in the 10s or 100s of millions of years, these results show that the uncertanty due to primordial argon is small, and hence the method is accurate.
does not agree with sources that believe in K-Ar dating. For example, from here [palomar.edu] you see
Potassium-argon dates usually have comparatively large plus or minus factors--they may be on the order of ¼ million years for a 2 million year old date. In addition, this dating technique usually is of use only where there is rock rich in potassium. Essentially, it is used only where there has been local volcanic activity. Theoretically, however, it can be used for samples that date from the beginning of the earth (4.6 billion years) down to
100,000 years ago or even more recently. (emphasis added)
And from here [otago.ac.nz] :
Potassium/Argon Dating (K/Ar):
Based on the radioactive decay of 40K
Age is a function of the 40K/40Ar ratio
Application restricted by the formation of potassium
Used mainly for dating basalts.
Age range 100,000 -> 3,000,000 yrs (emphasis added)
And from here [usgs.gov] is an even more interesting range:
40-Potassium/40-Argon Geochronology - 40-K/39-Ar geochronology is one of the most widely used absolute-dating methods. The method relies on samples rich in mineral grains containing potassium, typically an igneous volcanic rock rich in sanidine feldspar. 40-K undergoes natural radiogenic decay through time (converting to argon-40 at a known rate). As the potassium gradually decays to argon, the naturally inert gas accumulates, confined within the mineral crystal lattice. As a result, the ratio of 40-K to 40-Ar derived from mineral grains is compared with the known rate of radiogenic decay of 40-K. By eliminating possible sources of error, this absolute dating method can be used of on selected rock samples typically ranging in ages from
~10,000 years on back in time to billions of years. The USGS maintains a 40-K/39-Ar laboratory (sample extraction equipment and mass spectrometer) in Menlo Park, CA (emphasis added)
So in conclusion, K-Ar dating is widely accepted for a far younger age than the age supposedly found in the Mt. St. Helens or the other sites.

Re:How old are they? (1)

pyr0 (120990) | more than 11 years ago | (#5514436)

However, none of those sources agree that you could date a rock 10 years old.

Re:How old are they? (1)

young-earth (560521) | more than 11 years ago | (#5514510)

Quite true none of them claim that. But since the confidence intervals in both Dalrymple's results and Austin's results are in the 300K+ range, that's still awfully inaccurate. Would you accept measurements off by four orders of magnitude in something else?

Re:How old are they? (1)

svyyn (530783) | more than 11 years ago | (#5517511)

The problem here is simple. If you believe that the Earth is only 5000 or so years old, then any test that relies on the rocks in question being an order of magnitude or two older is invalid. Such people have no concept of 'geological time', since they cannot understand that the beginning of history does not mean the beginnig of time.

This argument is futile -- no matter how scientific creationists try to sound, their world view is so dramatically different from the agnostic scientific model that a concensus is unable to be reached. I am glad, however, that the scientists haven't began attempting to appeal to the creationists with quotes from Genesis.

Re:How old are they? (1)

pyr0 (120990) | more than 11 years ago | (#5513340)

"The key point, which seems to have been missed..."

I think *YOU* have missed the key point in this case, and that is that radiometric dating does not work for very young rocks. I believe the parent post's point 3 accounts for the problem that you seem to have. I'll even cut and paste it so you can read it again:

"3) THE SAMPLES ARE ONLY 10 YEARS OLD!!!! that is (by a long shot) not enough time to accumulate radiogenic 40Ar in the sample. the half-life of 40K is just too damn long and given the state of the art in mass spectrometry, there is no way to get a high enough signal to noise (e.g. count enough 40Ar atoms) to calcualate an age (let alone a reliable one). even if you analyze tens of kilograms of sample (which is not practical)."

Another point to mention is the mixing of magmas with differing initial isotopic ratios can give you a bogus age as well. This is especially true in the strontium isotopic system. I happen to know very young basalts in the East African Rift yield very old dates due to this.

My point is that these bogus ages that you claim shows radiometric dating doesn't work can and are explained by other factors that people like you don't take into account.

Re:How old are they? (1)

young-earth (560521) | more than 11 years ago | (#5513866)

Allowing for the sake of discussion that everything you state is absolutely true, the problem that I originally stated still exists. Yes some of the samples were ten years old (Dalrymple's were older); yet when samples of UNKNOWN age are tested, it is not possible to screen out "too young to be tested" rocks as unknown age rocks are of, well, unknown age.

The point being that if you submit using double-blind techniques both known and unknown age rocks, you will get results which invalidate the radiometric dating techniques. Doing double-blind studies is a way to prove scientifically whether a process actually does produce results that can be relied upon. Until any process has been validated, it should not be accepted as accurate. Would you give your child a medicine that had not been double-blind tested? Why then rely upon a measurement method that has not been so validated?

Re:How old are they? (2, Informative)

Bowling Moses (591924) | more than 11 years ago | (#5515593)

I took a slightly extended lunch break today and went down to the university library to grab the original paper. There's some truly interesting things about your citing of Dalrymple. First off, you (or whoever your source is--in my experience creationists rarely read the original) didn't read the table right. The numbers that you present are actually the concentration of Ar-40 found in the sample, in 10^-12 mol Ar-40/g sample. The apparent age is in the third column of table 2 on page 51--I won't give them here (you'll have to look it up yourself) but they are much higher than the known age of the rock sample. However in the very first page of the article, Dalrymple states "The use of historic samples for these studies has two important advantages: (1) the ages of the flows are unambiguous, and (2) the material is so young that it is not necessary to make any correction for the 40Ar that is generated by the decay of 40K since the rock formed(emphasis mine)." The point of the study was a check of the methodology for K-Ar dating by looking at original levels of 40Ar present in the sample, not to date the rock sample itself. This is obvious--the half life of K-40 to Ar-40 is ~1.3 billion years so there should be very little Ar-40 in the sample produced by radioactive decay, which is exactly what we find. The most anomolously elevated level of Ar-40 is in the Hualalai sample, with 1.60x10^-12 mol Ar-40/g sample. In table 1 on page 50 we see that that the total amount of Ar-40 in this sample is 115x10^-12 moles, meaning that in this sample there is 1.4% more Ar-40 than is expected. What Dalrymple says about dating young rocks is this: "...anomalous 40Ar/36Ar ratios could be a problem in dating very young rocks. If the present data are representative, argon of slightly anomalous composition can be expected in approximately one out of three volcanic rocks (emphasis mine)." on page 52, meaning that the method would be inappropriate to apply to young samples--thus the USGS' 10,000-year limit (and I imagine the error bars here are still large). However as the rock grows older more Ar-40 will build up as K-40 decays. The more Ar-40 there is, the less that initial anomalous amount of Ar-40 will matter as its percentage of the total Ar-40 present in the rock drops--meaning that (to quote Dalrymple again on pg 52): "...the amounts of excess 40Ar and 36Ar found in the flows with anomalous 40Ar/36Ar ratios were too small to cause serious errors in potassium-argon dating of rocks a few million years old or older." (pg 52) ie. for old samples, the method is perfectly valid.

Re:How old are they? (1)

pyr0 (120990) | more than 11 years ago | (#5515885)

Exactly!! And in fact, most radiometric dating techniques become far more robust as the age of the rock increases. Also, I don't think that people realize that +- a few million years isn't that much compared next to 4.6 billion years of Earth's history. We're also always coming up with ways to decrease the error. One example is separating out the mineral of interest, and then abrading the edges of that mineral away to get to the core of the mineral. If that mineral ever had undergone weathering or alteration by a fluid, the core of the mineral should be the last thing to alter if at all, right? By dating the cores of minerals, it is possible to get rid of a lot of error.

The funny thing (with respect to creationists) is for rock samples that pass the assumptions for radiometric dating, the most important being maintaining a closed system (ie, no fluid passing through or metamorphism/deformation occurring, all of which would reset the age to be the age of the altering event), multiple dating methods come within remarkable agreement of each other. You always see creationists citing all the examples where it doesn't work (usually explainable by other means), yet never citing examples where it does work. True scientists report all data, and then come up with theories to explain anamolous results.

Hell, for using Uranium in dating there are *three* different Lead daughter isotopes (originating from Uranium 235, 238, and Thorium 234). Typically in carefully selected samples, the dates from the different decay paths in this system come out very close to each other. I would cite a specific example right here, however I can't find my isotope geochemistry book at the moment.

Then, I've had people try to tell me that you can't assume a closed system on Earth due to all the weathering that occurs. I think most people would agree that the moon has to have been in Earth's orbit from since very close to the formation of the Earth. Ok then, let's go to the moon...oh wait, we have already! Moon rocks (never having been exposed to weathering processes as on Earth) very nicely yield dates in the 4.5 to 4.6 billion year range using multiple dating methods. This stuff *does* really work.

Re:How old are they? (1)

young-earth (560521) | more than 11 years ago | (#5516966)

Of course the problem with the anomalous dates is excess Ar, what else could it be? But knowing the cause of a ratio being incorrect in a rock of known age does not justify greater accuracy to be assigned to unknown age rocks. The topic of this /. story is about footprints found in volcanic material which was dated to be roughly the same as the Mt. St. Helens rocks. So my point is that there could be just as much anomalous Ar in the Roccamonfina samples as there was in the Mt. St. Helens samples. There is no way to prove or disprove the age of the rocks unless there were a reliable observer present at the time who certified the amount of Ar at the formation of the rocks, and then monitored conditions to ensure no other contamination or alteration occurred.

Re:How old are they? (1)

Bowling Moses (591924) | more than 11 years ago | (#5518186)

"Of course the problem with the anomalous dates is excess Ar, what else could it be?"

Interestingly three of Dalrymple's samples have lower levels of Ar40 relative to Ar36 than expected producing dates that are too young. You (our more likely your source--whichever) completely failed to mention this. Indeed a major point of the article was to investigate the range of Ar40/Ar36 ratios and to give us an idea of the error bars that a K-Ar date may give us. This renders your "point" about there being as much anomalous Ar in the Roccamonfina samples as there was in the Mt. St. Helens samples irrelevant (even if it were true): due to this and similar studies on rock types the initial deviation in Ar40/Ar36 ratios compared to the expected ratio from natural abundance is already factored in. What's more, again as the rock sample ages the importance of this initial Ar40/Ar36 ratio spread decreases. This simply cannot be made more obvious than in my previous message. We know the processes that bring about Ar40, we know the natural abundance of argon isotopes, and we know how samples might be contaminated (again on the order of that 1.4%!) and what evidence to look for for that contamination and naturally all of this is considered when applying a date to a sample; no omnipresent observer is required. Indeed it is nothing short of insulting to geologists to suggest that they wouldn't know to look for this--akin to telling a mechanic how to use a wrench. I suggest you critically examine your sources--it is obvious that you have been provided with faulty information and I suggest that you not accuse others of intellectual dishonesty until you can ascertain that your own sources are not themselves dishonest.

Re:How old are they? (1)

young-earth (560521) | more than 11 years ago | (#5521121)

I have made no accusations of dishonesty on geologists; read the evolutionists' posts about Steve Austin if you want to see vitriolic attacks. I have questioned the accuracy of certain methods; that's not attacking individuals.

The idea that radiometric dating methods are unrealiable is not limited to creationists, there are evolutionists that have real problems with it as well. For example, William D. Stansfield, Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p.84:
"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock.'"
Other absurdities in dating methods are in index fossils. For example, the "lungfish" (more accurately the coelocanth) is an index fossil for 70-300 MYa, yet live ones are swimming around the Indian Ocean right now.

Bio textbooks written in the last five years still use Haeckel's embryos as a "proof" of evolution. Yet in 1906 he admitted forging the drawings, was convicted of fraud by his peers, and forced into retirement. Ninety years after that, his drawings are still in use. What charitable interpretation can be put on that fact?

Re:How old are they? (1)

Bowling Moses (591924) | more than 11 years ago | (#5521871)

You claim "I have made no accusations of dishonesty on geologists..." but yet earlier you said: "What justification can there be for continuing to use a method known to be wrong? Aside from preserving the jobs and income of those whose livelihood depends on maintaining the intellectual status quo, none occurs to me - anybody out there got a less uncharitable idea? "--meaning geologists who work at radiometric dating are nothing more than charlatans and a clear personal attack. You then present me with a second source (Stansfield) and claim that it argues against the validity of K-Ar dating but this is done without defending your position on the first article. Since I have already shown that you misrepresented your first source why should I believe you when you present a second? Your other "examples" aren't even relevant to the validity of K-Ar dating techniques! I have better things to do than play along with your dishonest bait-and-switch arguing style especially since I am certain you don't read your own cited sources. You want to argue then defend your misinterpretation of Dalrymple or don't bother to respond at all.

Re:How old are they? (1)

Graspee_Leemoor (302316) | more than 11 years ago | (#5513409)

"whole rock dating is, as it sounds, dating a rock"

I dated a rock once. It was a pet rock. It raised many issues.

The worst thing was the rock never paid for itself in restaurants.

Next time I'm going to try computer dating.

graspee

Oldest human footprint? (1)

sethaw (598206) | more than 11 years ago | (#5515112)

Slashdot title:
World's Oldest Human Footprints

From the article:
Other scientists said that while the prints appear well-preserved, they add little to knowledge about human evolution, since footprints of far older human ancestors have been found.

Seems like a contradiction to me.

Re:Oldest human footprint? (1)

TummyX (84871) | more than 11 years ago | (#5527916)


World's Oldest Human Footprints



Other scientists said that while the prints appear well-preserved, they add little to knowledge about human evolution, since footprints of far older human ancestors have been found.

elle pee! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5585040)

last post you godless motherfucking atheist pigs!

no more post for you!

\/\/[][]7!

suck it!
-ac
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>