It is unusual to respond to posts which need to be removed, but I did desire to thank Linear for part of the post.
If the assumptions and extrapolations for long-lived isotope decay curves are so inaccurate, why are they accurate in providing dates for things that we can verify through means other than radioactive decay?
If you mean events verified by history, your claim is absolutely false. Never have they been tested successfully against anything of a known date.
Accurate dating of rocks from:
Pompeii last paragraph in this articleThanks for the lead. I had encountered a couple of claims about Vesuvius in the past, but was unable to find any confirmation whatsoever, and none was ever provided before.
The story is dubious for a few reasons, not the least of which is the lack of publicity.
The link (which I bookmarked) says
With the new dating system it should be possible to date even younger samples, perhaps a mere 1,000 years old with 10 percent accuracy.
"Dating things that are really young has always been the Holy Grail of potassium-argon and argon-argon dating," Renne says.
Such an important innovation, if valid, would be quite newsworthy, and should be easy to track down. If it really works, we would expect it to be used left & right. This is dated 1997, and we still do not hear of the technique being used to "confirm" any of the other dates it surely could. I'm confident I can eventually discover how come the "scientific community" itself is so reluctant to employ this "holy grail".
My investigation has only begun, and already I notice this
Mission Statement from entity conducting the test(s).
http://www.bgc.org/Our Mission ....
geo-chro-nol-o-gy
\je-o-kre-nal-e-je\ n (1863)
1. the history of the earth
2. the science of determining the ages of earth materials
...decoding the 4.5 billion-year history of our planet and solar system
It is good when sources are open about their biases and goals. I don't think we need to add bold to that number. It stands right out on its own.
The post was removed for the following text, which is in violation of current forum rules.
You make the claim that the assumptions of the physicists invalidate the decay curves. All I am asking is for you to quantify that statement and show that their assumptions are excessive enough to make their decay estimates 6 orders of magnitude in error.
Do you plan on actually supporting your assertions?
Common sense, COMMON SENSE fer cryin' out loud tells each and every person who's even capable of reading this that conclusions are
contingent upon the validity of their underlying assumptions. Anyone who employs the term 'if' understands the principle of contingency.
Yet we see it not only assumed that I and the general readership are too stupid to grasp contingency, but it is falsely claimed I have made an assertion contrary thereunto.
The decision to remove the post is subject to review by the forum staff, and the post may be reinstated.
