3
3
0
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/. I came across this article about radiometric dating. It's on a Creationist website so there may or may not be some bias. I wanted to make this an unbiased research project so I am inviting people from a variety of different schools of thought. Atheists agnostics, deists and Creationists are invited to do a research paper on the following questions:
Religion
Research
Science
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 14
5
5
0
Andrew Snelling - RationalWiki
Andrew A. Snelling is an Australian geologist and young-Earth creationist. He is also the first, only, and hopefully last, editor of the Answers Research Journal.[1] He is the founder of the Journal of Creation and author of the two-volume Earth's Catastrophic Past — 1100 pages of creationist twaddle.
(5)
(0)
SPC Nathan Freeman
I read the study from Princeton. I find it interesting that it says that zircon crystalyzation occurs during magma events (volcanoes). This it doesn't protect the specimen until it is being erupted which would be after the damage of fission decay have already taken their toll. This could lead to an interesting experiment that could prove my theory. In order to for the results to be verified, I would want a double blind study done.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
SPC Nathan Freeman, how would damage occur to the crystal before the crystal formed? The crystal doesn't form around a specimen, the crystal itself IS the specimen...
And remember from earlier (and the paper), if you had an old crystal with sufficient radiation damage that it was no longer a "closed system", it would indicate an excessively young age due to lead loss, as opposed to registering as older than it really is. Having new crystal form around the older, damaged one, would effectively only serve to start the clock at the new point. The crystal would indicate younger than it actually is, playing into the biases of creationists. And despite so many opportunities for a crystal to become damaged and indicate an excessively young age, we still abundantly find ones that indicate they are billions of years old.
Also, magma is the term for molten rock when it's underground. Once it erupts it's referred to as lava. This is why the paper discusses the problem of significant percentages of zircons in a sample being older than the others, or being older than the rock/ash they're embedded in. Zircons can form anytime while they're underground in a magma chamber or whatever, up to and during eruptions. If a crystal forms 1 billion years before it gets erupted, then it will be 1 billion years older than the rock it's in. And because more crystal can form around an original crystal at any time up to and during eruption, the core of a crystal is older than the outer parts. They discuss all that to explain why it's important to take a lot of samples, and determine the age of different parts of crystals, so they can find the youngest ages (which would be most associated with the eruption time).
And remember from earlier (and the paper), if you had an old crystal with sufficient radiation damage that it was no longer a "closed system", it would indicate an excessively young age due to lead loss, as opposed to registering as older than it really is. Having new crystal form around the older, damaged one, would effectively only serve to start the clock at the new point. The crystal would indicate younger than it actually is, playing into the biases of creationists. And despite so many opportunities for a crystal to become damaged and indicate an excessively young age, we still abundantly find ones that indicate they are billions of years old.
Also, magma is the term for molten rock when it's underground. Once it erupts it's referred to as lava. This is why the paper discusses the problem of significant percentages of zircons in a sample being older than the others, or being older than the rock/ash they're embedded in. Zircons can form anytime while they're underground in a magma chamber or whatever, up to and during eruptions. If a crystal forms 1 billion years before it gets erupted, then it will be 1 billion years older than the rock it's in. And because more crystal can form around an original crystal at any time up to and during eruption, the core of a crystal is older than the outer parts. They discuss all that to explain why it's important to take a lot of samples, and determine the age of different parts of crystals, so they can find the youngest ages (which would be most associated with the eruption time).
SPC Nathan Freeman
I find it interesting that when they find a sample that indicates a young age, they assume there must be an error and this discard it. They listed a dozen ways you can have errors and toward the end they mentioned that zircon dating is in it's infancy.
The problem I was stating is that the accelerated aging of Ur would occur during a fission or fusion process before the zircon coating. Another article I read which will be in the paper suggests that the earth might have a fusion process in the core which would be another confounding variable. It is likely that the reason the are getting such a variation of readings is that fission and fusion are recycling some of the lesser elements while accelerating the decay of Ur. (If there is fusion, it wouldn't be powerful enough to make Uranium but it would certainly break it down at an accelerated rate). Uranium and plutonium in the core would power the fusion reaction. I need to study more on nuclear fusion/ fission to see what the rate is in a reactor and if there's empirical evidence of different rates observed in nature.
@1st Lt Matt A.
The problem I was stating is that the accelerated aging of Ur would occur during a fission or fusion process before the zircon coating. Another article I read which will be in the paper suggests that the earth might have a fusion process in the core which would be another confounding variable. It is likely that the reason the are getting such a variation of readings is that fission and fusion are recycling some of the lesser elements while accelerating the decay of Ur. (If there is fusion, it wouldn't be powerful enough to make Uranium but it would certainly break it down at an accelerated rate). Uranium and plutonium in the core would power the fusion reaction. I need to study more on nuclear fusion/ fission to see what the rate is in a reactor and if there's empirical evidence of different rates observed in nature.
@1st Lt Matt A.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
SPC Nathan Freeman ???? We already covered the fact that decay rates are constants, and that external forces do not affect those rates. We get a variation of ages of zircon crystals because some are older and some are newer. And uranium and plutonium don't power fusion reactions, they power fission reactions. FYI, fission is the purposeful splitting of atoms by shooting neutrons at them, whereas decay is the natural breaking up of an atom. The rate of fission in a reactor is very controlled, results in different isotopes than decay, and requires a different isotope of U (235) than we use for dating
What paper is this about fusion in the core? The current understanding is that there is no fusion occurring in the core, because there is not nearly enough pressure/heat to facilitate it (i.e. overcome the Coulomb Barrier). Even massive Jupiter doesn't have fusion occurring inside it, fusion only happens in stars and thermonuclear bombs. I can't find anything on the internet confirming fusion in the Earth's core. Fission is another story though: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080515/full/news.2008.822.html
The only "erroneously young" samples they discarded are ones with so much radiation damage that lead has leeched out, which they did away with before even testing them. And in cases where there was too much radiation damage in the outer layers but not the core, they'd shave those down to get at the center. They didn't get the age, assume a bad crystal, and then discard. They determined whether a crystal was bad before testing/knowing its age. And remember "young" for these guys was on the order of magnitude of 1-10 million years too young, in the context of overall sample ages of hundreds of millions of years and older.
Yes, they listed all the ways you can have errors (erring younger AND older), and discussed all the ways these errors are identified and mitigated. And no, they mentioned U-Pb dating, as applied to stratigraphy in particular, is a relatively new thing. The dating technique itself is not new at all, it's been around for decades. This is just towards the beginning of using it in conjunction with studying rock layering (stratigraphy). Infancy nonetheless, they boast accuracy of a tenth of a percent.
Nevermind once again, that decay rates are constants: if the Uranium to be captured had already aged (i.e. become a completely different element), before becoming part of a zircon crystal (not coated by it, they become part of the crystalline structure, via occasionally substituting for zirconium)...it would not have become part of the zircon crystal to begin with. Uranium atoms in particular can substitute for zirconium atoms in the crystal structure, the daughter isotopes can't. This is why there is radiation damage when the U decays: because the new element it has become doesn't "fit" in the crystal structure, and yet the atom cannot escape, the structure in that isolated area will fracture. So if uranium decayed before a crystal started forming near it, then being that it is no longer uranium, it will not get incorporated into the newly forming crystal.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/152243/dating/69769/Importance-of-zircon-in-uranium-lead-dating
What paper is this about fusion in the core? The current understanding is that there is no fusion occurring in the core, because there is not nearly enough pressure/heat to facilitate it (i.e. overcome the Coulomb Barrier). Even massive Jupiter doesn't have fusion occurring inside it, fusion only happens in stars and thermonuclear bombs. I can't find anything on the internet confirming fusion in the Earth's core. Fission is another story though: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080515/full/news.2008.822.html
The only "erroneously young" samples they discarded are ones with so much radiation damage that lead has leeched out, which they did away with before even testing them. And in cases where there was too much radiation damage in the outer layers but not the core, they'd shave those down to get at the center. They didn't get the age, assume a bad crystal, and then discard. They determined whether a crystal was bad before testing/knowing its age. And remember "young" for these guys was on the order of magnitude of 1-10 million years too young, in the context of overall sample ages of hundreds of millions of years and older.
Yes, they listed all the ways you can have errors (erring younger AND older), and discussed all the ways these errors are identified and mitigated. And no, they mentioned U-Pb dating, as applied to stratigraphy in particular, is a relatively new thing. The dating technique itself is not new at all, it's been around for decades. This is just towards the beginning of using it in conjunction with studying rock layering (stratigraphy). Infancy nonetheless, they boast accuracy of a tenth of a percent.
Nevermind once again, that decay rates are constants: if the Uranium to be captured had already aged (i.e. become a completely different element), before becoming part of a zircon crystal (not coated by it, they become part of the crystalline structure, via occasionally substituting for zirconium)...it would not have become part of the zircon crystal to begin with. Uranium atoms in particular can substitute for zirconium atoms in the crystal structure, the daughter isotopes can't. This is why there is radiation damage when the U decays: because the new element it has become doesn't "fit" in the crystal structure, and yet the atom cannot escape, the structure in that isolated area will fracture. So if uranium decayed before a crystal started forming near it, then being that it is no longer uranium, it will not get incorporated into the newly forming crystal.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/152243/dating/69769/Importance-of-zircon-in-uranium-lead-dating
In geology, determining a chronology or calendar of events in the history of Earth, using to a large degree the evidence of organic evolution in the sedimentary rocks accumulated...
4
4
0
SPC Nathan Freeman -- Did you really say "there may or may not be some bias" on a Creationist website? I don't think it's possible to be any more biased!
That doesn't mean I disagree with your linked source.
Assumptions are actually what got me to question evolution in the first place. I grew up believing in evolution. I grew up in utter fascination with a Time/Life book on the earth's origins my grandmother had at her house. But the assumptions...
The beginning of the end for me was the question, "How do they know that?" I became a creationist long before I ever became a practicing Christian. Ultimately, I believe that is why evolutionists are so invested in the idea of evolution -- they don't want to deal with the implication that there might be a creator, because then they might have to be accountable to someone greater than themselves, so they glom onto the theory which makes it not necessary.
The problem with that approach is it leads to crappy science. People accept absurd ideas and use inane reasoning, even if the science points in the other direction. Evolutionists make fun of the church in the middle ages (and rightly so IMO) for being the self-appointed arbiters of all knowledge & truth and suppressors of contrary viewpoints, yet this is exactly the role they have placed themselves in over the last couple of centuries.
The conflicting data regarding dating is exactly the kind of thing that is not addressed in schools, even though it is a perfectly legitimate science topic. Why? Because questioning the legitimacy of data impedes the indoctrination process. Evolutionists don't want people asking those types of questions until long after the people asking them have completely sold out to evolution. (They'd prefer people not asking such questions ever, but some people just don't follow the script. I submit myself as an example.)
Regarding the dates of rocks, I think it is pretty self evident that the layers of rock on top of a stack of strata should be younger than the layers of rock on the bottom. When the radiometric dating shows otherwise, it is either disregarded and hidden, or explained away by "overthrust" (regardless of whether there is any other supporting evidence for such overthrust).
That doesn't mean I disagree with your linked source.
Assumptions are actually what got me to question evolution in the first place. I grew up believing in evolution. I grew up in utter fascination with a Time/Life book on the earth's origins my grandmother had at her house. But the assumptions...
The beginning of the end for me was the question, "How do they know that?" I became a creationist long before I ever became a practicing Christian. Ultimately, I believe that is why evolutionists are so invested in the idea of evolution -- they don't want to deal with the implication that there might be a creator, because then they might have to be accountable to someone greater than themselves, so they glom onto the theory which makes it not necessary.
The problem with that approach is it leads to crappy science. People accept absurd ideas and use inane reasoning, even if the science points in the other direction. Evolutionists make fun of the church in the middle ages (and rightly so IMO) for being the self-appointed arbiters of all knowledge & truth and suppressors of contrary viewpoints, yet this is exactly the role they have placed themselves in over the last couple of centuries.
The conflicting data regarding dating is exactly the kind of thing that is not addressed in schools, even though it is a perfectly legitimate science topic. Why? Because questioning the legitimacy of data impedes the indoctrination process. Evolutionists don't want people asking those types of questions until long after the people asking them have completely sold out to evolution. (They'd prefer people not asking such questions ever, but some people just don't follow the script. I submit myself as an example.)
Regarding the dates of rocks, I think it is pretty self evident that the layers of rock on top of a stack of strata should be younger than the layers of rock on the bottom. When the radiometric dating shows otherwise, it is either disregarded and hidden, or explained away by "overthrust" (regardless of whether there is any other supporting evidence for such overthrust).
(4)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
As an addition to SGT James Elphick , proof that speciation does not occur would falsify evolution. Evidence that rabbits existed 3 million years ago in their present forms would falsify evolution. I say this only to illustrate that evolution is some immutable doctrine. Evolution (which happens) as it is currently understood (called the theory of evolution) isn't some competing religion. It's a model of the universe. You propose no alternative.
SSgt Christopher Brose
see you later, Mr. Brose.
SSgt Christopher Brose
see you later, Mr. Brose.
(0)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
SGT James Elphick Fair point about the end of the OP's linked article. I would not have worded my conclusion that way, but in fairness, I think that article was intended only for a Christian audience. I'm pretty sure if he was addressing a mixed crowd or specifically addressing people who believe in evolution, his conclusion would probably have read quite differently. My entire approach in these discussions is to avoid any theological specifics, because really, the only relevant part is the bit about a creator/intelligence. Looking at the science and seeing evidence of intelligent design is not necessarily going to point to a specific creator. That is a separate question, and needs to be addressed separately.
Your statement that even non-beneficial mutations are evidence of evolution at work is a statement of rather profound faith, and it actually misses the point of evolution altogether. As a concept, evolution is not based on the idea that the current stable species will out-survive the non-beneficially mutated versions of itself. It is based on the idea that something new will develop and replicate and out-survive the current stable species.
What do we actually see in the world around us? The mutated versions of complex organisms die far earlier than the non-mutated versions. What do evolutionists conclude? All mutations are evidence of evolution at work. I hope you realize just how much religious-type faith is involved in that belief.
The basic premise of evolution has not proven to hold true. Everywhere you look on this planet, you see stability within a set genetic range. That range can be quite wide in some cases, like dogs and cats, and to a lesser extent humans. Variations within that inherent genetic range are not mutations. And when there are mutations, those mutations almost universally have a negative impact on the mutated individual's ability to survive. (I say "almost" to be generous.)
Humans have the benefit of hospitals, and some animals have the benefit of veterinary care. That reduces the impact of survival-of-the-fittest, and so many people with mutations who would otherwise die a lot sooner are able to live happier, healthier lives. But in a naturalistic sense, the healthiest people, the ones most likely to survive and thrive and reproduce, are the least mutated ones. And for those wanting empirical evidence, that is completely empirical, observable, and verifiable.
The fossil record is another area of study where, like with dating methods (and for the same reasons), inconsistencies are never mentioned in school, and preferably never mentioned at all. It would detract from the image of a nice, neat, consistent, scientifically proven image of evolution. But really, it is an area where the desire to prove evolution has resulted in accidental misinterpretations, deliberate misinterpretations, and outright fraud. Of course, that happens in all areas of life, so it's not anything peculiar to evolutionary circles -- but the fact that it doesn't get discussed in school leads to the common perception that the fossil record unquestionably supports evolution 100%. Like most other things, it only supports evolution 100% when the person doing the interpreting tries really hard to make it support evolution 100%, and ignores the inconvenient stuff.
Your statement that even non-beneficial mutations are evidence of evolution at work is a statement of rather profound faith, and it actually misses the point of evolution altogether. As a concept, evolution is not based on the idea that the current stable species will out-survive the non-beneficially mutated versions of itself. It is based on the idea that something new will develop and replicate and out-survive the current stable species.
What do we actually see in the world around us? The mutated versions of complex organisms die far earlier than the non-mutated versions. What do evolutionists conclude? All mutations are evidence of evolution at work. I hope you realize just how much religious-type faith is involved in that belief.
The basic premise of evolution has not proven to hold true. Everywhere you look on this planet, you see stability within a set genetic range. That range can be quite wide in some cases, like dogs and cats, and to a lesser extent humans. Variations within that inherent genetic range are not mutations. And when there are mutations, those mutations almost universally have a negative impact on the mutated individual's ability to survive. (I say "almost" to be generous.)
Humans have the benefit of hospitals, and some animals have the benefit of veterinary care. That reduces the impact of survival-of-the-fittest, and so many people with mutations who would otherwise die a lot sooner are able to live happier, healthier lives. But in a naturalistic sense, the healthiest people, the ones most likely to survive and thrive and reproduce, are the least mutated ones. And for those wanting empirical evidence, that is completely empirical, observable, and verifiable.
The fossil record is another area of study where, like with dating methods (and for the same reasons), inconsistencies are never mentioned in school, and preferably never mentioned at all. It would detract from the image of a nice, neat, consistent, scientifically proven image of evolution. But really, it is an area where the desire to prove evolution has resulted in accidental misinterpretations, deliberate misinterpretations, and outright fraud. Of course, that happens in all areas of life, so it's not anything peculiar to evolutionary circles -- but the fact that it doesn't get discussed in school leads to the common perception that the fossil record unquestionably supports evolution 100%. Like most other things, it only supports evolution 100% when the person doing the interpreting tries really hard to make it support evolution 100%, and ignores the inconvenient stuff.
(0)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
Damn! SPC (Join to see) I am trying to read your "wall of text" because I wanted to respond to it, but for some reason, the site won't show the whole thing to me, and doesn't give me the [see more] option. I tried in Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox, and neither one will let me see it, so I'm guessing it has something to do with the site. I hate to do this, but could you repost it? Or if someone has the magic formula that lets me see into the past on this site, that will do as well.
Doh! Never mind. Something about posting this post unlocked all the others, so now I can read it all. Response will follow.
Doh! Never mind. Something about posting this post unlocked all the others, so now I can read it all. Response will follow.
(0)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
a small point before I get started. "As a concept, evolution is not based on the idea that the current stable species will out-survive the non-beneficially mutated versions of itself. It is based on the idea that something new will develop and replicate and out-survive the current stable species. " Could be both, or neither. segments of the population that develop characteristics randomly that seem to allow that segment to reproduce more successfully than the rest will see those genes/attributes become more widely distributed within the whole population.
-------
"inconsistencies are never mentioned in school, and preferably never mentioned at all." If you're talking about high school, you're mostly correct. But this is not so at universities. Are where the magic of science really happen. That's the fun stuff. What happens inside black holes? How do we/should we fight viruses? In the past it was: What the hell is lightening, anyway? Why does molten rock spew out of mountains sometimes?
I think a lot of what you and I are talking about can be smoothed out by speaking more clearly. Evolution, change over time, happens. It is self-evident, but doesn't need to be taken for granted or on faith. These changes are observable when parents have children, dogs and horses are bread, etc. We are not exact copies, I think you agree. Evolution commonly is also thought of as speciation, or when a segment of the population of an organism is incapable of reproducing with a similar organism-population who share a direct descendant. (macro, micro, it's really all the same. the difference is usually attribute-able to either time or geography)
The 'theory of evolution' is an attempt by scientists to understand this basic observation, and explore its workings as well as its outcomes. By taking evidence gained thorough multiple specialties of scientific study, namely medicine, genetics, paleontology, taxonomy (just a few of my favorites), an overall picture can be formed that links all of these disciplines under a common understanding. This understanding is less flawed and incomplete as the individual studies themselves because it incorporates research from all of these disciplines. The really cool thing about 'the theory of evolution' is that it has also been around quite a long time, and is better understood than a lot of fields of studies most people take as common knowledge like gravitational theory and germ theory.
In fact, the theory of evolution sparked new areas of study, and has itself evolved :P to incorporate new evidence. It's not magic, or some doctrine anyone, ESPECIALLY scientists, are stuck with. It's a natural outgrowth of our understanding of the universe. It could be wrong, like any theory. It's definitely incomplete, and there's debate today. genetic drift, punctuated equilibrium, etc. But ignorance in one are doesn't belie empirical observations already made.
The really cool thing is you don't have to take ANYTHING on faith. Science only works on one assumption: that the universe is capable of being understood at all. Beyond that, anything goes. It might go quicker if you assume people are right, but the only right way is to verify yourself. That's what scientists do.
If you'd like references for any of these claims I'm making, just leave a quick response, and I'll get back to you at COB today.
-------
"inconsistencies are never mentioned in school, and preferably never mentioned at all." If you're talking about high school, you're mostly correct. But this is not so at universities. Are where the magic of science really happen. That's the fun stuff. What happens inside black holes? How do we/should we fight viruses? In the past it was: What the hell is lightening, anyway? Why does molten rock spew out of mountains sometimes?
I think a lot of what you and I are talking about can be smoothed out by speaking more clearly. Evolution, change over time, happens. It is self-evident, but doesn't need to be taken for granted or on faith. These changes are observable when parents have children, dogs and horses are bread, etc. We are not exact copies, I think you agree. Evolution commonly is also thought of as speciation, or when a segment of the population of an organism is incapable of reproducing with a similar organism-population who share a direct descendant. (macro, micro, it's really all the same. the difference is usually attribute-able to either time or geography)
The 'theory of evolution' is an attempt by scientists to understand this basic observation, and explore its workings as well as its outcomes. By taking evidence gained thorough multiple specialties of scientific study, namely medicine, genetics, paleontology, taxonomy (just a few of my favorites), an overall picture can be formed that links all of these disciplines under a common understanding. This understanding is less flawed and incomplete as the individual studies themselves because it incorporates research from all of these disciplines. The really cool thing about 'the theory of evolution' is that it has also been around quite a long time, and is better understood than a lot of fields of studies most people take as common knowledge like gravitational theory and germ theory.
In fact, the theory of evolution sparked new areas of study, and has itself evolved :P to incorporate new evidence. It's not magic, or some doctrine anyone, ESPECIALLY scientists, are stuck with. It's a natural outgrowth of our understanding of the universe. It could be wrong, like any theory. It's definitely incomplete, and there's debate today. genetic drift, punctuated equilibrium, etc. But ignorance in one are doesn't belie empirical observations already made.
The really cool thing is you don't have to take ANYTHING on faith. Science only works on one assumption: that the universe is capable of being understood at all. Beyond that, anything goes. It might go quicker if you assume people are right, but the only right way is to verify yourself. That's what scientists do.
If you'd like references for any of these claims I'm making, just leave a quick response, and I'll get back to you at COB today.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Here's my first impression of the webpage. This will likely be a fun forum and I look forward to the results. Hopefully, my jobs won't be too time-consuming.
Anyway, all of the observations seem to be accurate, and come from reputable scientific journals, which presumably means someone will, or already has, confirmed the results of the observations. We can't really tell, because the website lists none of these sources, only the analyses of these observations by admittedly creationist authors. Does this mean they are necessarily incorrect? No. But I doubt any material that doesn't properly list its sources. I have access to a couple of the journals collected works, and for the ones I don't, I have friends attending nearby universities that likely would help me out.
I won't be an authority on the subject without years of study, and can contribute very little on a discussion on the efficacy of radiometric dating (You've seen how many dating methods there are, right?). I will say that scientists aren't ignoring these results, like 'contamination' in samples from seabeds, radiometric dating does require an understanding of the environmental forces at work. But it seems you wish to discuss the "Constant Decay Rate" problem specifically.
Sure, let me run out and take a few classes on advance calculus and quantum physics. Be right back.
SPC Nathan Freeman
Side note: possible biases by the author ARE relevant.
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
Anyway, all of the observations seem to be accurate, and come from reputable scientific journals, which presumably means someone will, or already has, confirmed the results of the observations. We can't really tell, because the website lists none of these sources, only the analyses of these observations by admittedly creationist authors. Does this mean they are necessarily incorrect? No. But I doubt any material that doesn't properly list its sources. I have access to a couple of the journals collected works, and for the ones I don't, I have friends attending nearby universities that likely would help me out.
I won't be an authority on the subject without years of study, and can contribute very little on a discussion on the efficacy of radiometric dating (You've seen how many dating methods there are, right?). I will say that scientists aren't ignoring these results, like 'contamination' in samples from seabeds, radiometric dating does require an understanding of the environmental forces at work. But it seems you wish to discuss the "Constant Decay Rate" problem specifically.
Sure, let me run out and take a few classes on advance calculus and quantum physics. Be right back.
SPC Nathan Freeman
Side note: possible biases by the author ARE relevant.
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
(2)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
Damnit, SSG John Thornton , you're right. I guess I'll give up on understanding anything and just surrender my free will and intelligence to Loki. /s
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SSG John Thornton
" You know? You die, you go to St. Peter:
"Did you believe in dinosaurs?"
"Well, yeah. There were fossils everywhere. (trapdoor opens) Aaaaarhhh!"
"You f-in' idiot! Flying lizards? You're a moron. God was f-ing' with you!"
"It seemed so plausible, aaaaaahh!"
"Enjoy the lake of fire, f-ker!"
" You know? You die, you go to St. Peter:
"Did you believe in dinosaurs?"
"Well, yeah. There were fossils everywhere. (trapdoor opens) Aaaaarhhh!"
"You f-in' idiot! Flying lizards? You're a moron. God was f-ing' with you!"
"It seemed so plausible, aaaaaahh!"
"Enjoy the lake of fire, f-ker!"
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Oh Lord please don't burn us don't kill or toast your flock Don't put us on the barbecue or simmer us in stock, Don't bake or baste or boil us or stir-fry us in a wok- Monty Python
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
ANYTHING from Answers in Genesis is NOT science. Plain and simple. Its religion, and religion with an agenda only wrapped in pseudoscience babble. Dismissed out of hand.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I'm no geologist but I know a little bit about a few things so I will address his contentions:
1. Conditions at time zero: His argument here is weak. Of course no one knows how much was there to see how much material was in the rock but that is how the dating process works - taking known quantities of each substance and solving for x=time by using a known decay rate (I'll address this further). Second, he says that young lava flows show unexpectedly high ages but lava is melted rock being redeposited on the surface so all we are really seeing is "old" rock in melted form coming to the surface. So if the sample shows that it is 350,000 years old then that is likely when the rock was first melted. He also claims that the method is unreliable because of vast differences in the age determined from basalts at the Grand Canyon yet both yield ages much older than the 6000 years he would have us believe.
2. No contamination: Scientists will readily agree that contamination happens as soils shift, volcanoes erupt, and the earth moves. However, based on the equation above (2 known substances/amounts with a known decay rate; solve for x=time) it is still determined that there are sufficient isotopes to date the earth itself to millions or billions of years old, not 6000 years. So therefore, although it might not be possible to accurately date the age at which that rock formed, it is possible to determine the age of the earth.
3. Constant decay rate: The rate of decay is constant, it's a law of nature. One example showing unusual circumstances is not sufficient to throw out the entire body of work. Also, his wording there is troublesome. The site produced abundant helium but only 6000 years worth leaked out. Does that mean that the rest is still trapped in the rock? Or was lost because it had leaked out? Also, he says in the first paragraph that research has shown that decay rates are constant and are not changed by heat, pressure, or the like. So again, one example is not sufficient to change the basic premise.
The thing about scientific research is that one can not go in with an assumed answer or they will invariably skew the data in favor of what they hope to find (this happens more frequently than it should). He is taking a body of research and attempting to bend it to his own perceptions thus his logic has holes and weaknesses that cannot stand up to scrutiny.
1. Conditions at time zero: His argument here is weak. Of course no one knows how much was there to see how much material was in the rock but that is how the dating process works - taking known quantities of each substance and solving for x=time by using a known decay rate (I'll address this further). Second, he says that young lava flows show unexpectedly high ages but lava is melted rock being redeposited on the surface so all we are really seeing is "old" rock in melted form coming to the surface. So if the sample shows that it is 350,000 years old then that is likely when the rock was first melted. He also claims that the method is unreliable because of vast differences in the age determined from basalts at the Grand Canyon yet both yield ages much older than the 6000 years he would have us believe.
2. No contamination: Scientists will readily agree that contamination happens as soils shift, volcanoes erupt, and the earth moves. However, based on the equation above (2 known substances/amounts with a known decay rate; solve for x=time) it is still determined that there are sufficient isotopes to date the earth itself to millions or billions of years old, not 6000 years. So therefore, although it might not be possible to accurately date the age at which that rock formed, it is possible to determine the age of the earth.
3. Constant decay rate: The rate of decay is constant, it's a law of nature. One example showing unusual circumstances is not sufficient to throw out the entire body of work. Also, his wording there is troublesome. The site produced abundant helium but only 6000 years worth leaked out. Does that mean that the rest is still trapped in the rock? Or was lost because it had leaked out? Also, he says in the first paragraph that research has shown that decay rates are constant and are not changed by heat, pressure, or the like. So again, one example is not sufficient to change the basic premise.
The thing about scientific research is that one can not go in with an assumed answer or they will invariably skew the data in favor of what they hope to find (this happens more frequently than it should). He is taking a body of research and attempting to bend it to his own perceptions thus his logic has holes and weaknesses that cannot stand up to scrutiny.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
SGT James Elphick -- So you are saying that the reason for new lava flow showing old age radiometric result is that it is just re-melted old rock? And the reason it would show 350K years old is that was likely when it was first melted? On a billions-of years old planet? How could you possible know that? The answer of course is that you can't know that. It is a conclusion of convenience, because assuming that allows you to gloss over problems and continue to believe in the absolute legitimacy of the dating methods.
According to your theory, there's really no such thing as "new rock". It's an artful dodge, but all you're doing is backing the problem up 350K years.
Out of sight, out of mind.
According to your theory, there's really no such thing as "new rock". It's an artful dodge, but all you're doing is backing the problem up 350K years.
Out of sight, out of mind.
(0)
(0)
SPC Nathan Freeman
SSgt Christopher Brose SGT James Elphick If indeed rock does not change during the melting process, then paleantology has a huge problem. They use radiometric dating to prove the fossil record since carbon 14 dating has it's problems. If all the rock was billions of years old before the earth was formed, radiometric dating can't confirm or deny the rate of sedimentation or prove ANY THING about the fossil record.
(0)
(0)
SGT James Elphick
SSgt Christopher Brose and SPC Nathan Freeman as I stated, I am not a geologist, so that was a poor guess on my part. However, since that is the only part you refuted is it safe to assume you agree with the rest of my argument? Also, what is your position here SSgt Christopher Brose? Do you agree with the article that the earth is only 6000 years old or are you in the billions of years old camp?
(0)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
SGT James Elphick I'll put it this way -- if I had to bet my life on it, I think a 5-digit number is a more accurate estimation than a 10-digit number.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
When you change the molecular composition of a cell you cause death and any kind of radiation does that.
(1)
(0)
SPC Nathan Freeman
Every cell dies, not every cell truly lives! jk
It may not completely die but if you apply the first and second laws of thermodynamics (I'll admit that I'm not sure you can but it seems plausible) it would definitely cause deterioration. The more chemical reactions in a given time would theoretically accelerate the decomposition. MAJ (Join to see) SSgt (Join to see)
It may not completely die but if you apply the first and second laws of thermodynamics (I'll admit that I'm not sure you can but it seems plausible) it would definitely cause deterioration. The more chemical reactions in a given time would theoretically accelerate the decomposition. MAJ (Join to see) SSgt (Join to see)
(0)
(0)
SPC Nathan Freeman
This is why radiometric dating is almost certainly flawed. Any fusion powerful enough to make uranium is also powerful enough to start teRing it apart. As long as there is gamma radiation, the Ur is decaying at an accelerated rate. The size of the explosion dictates the decay far more than daily oxidation.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Whats the point?
You're inviting opinions not based on of scientific training, just weekend research, and for what?
Veiled religious undertones that frankly are getting out of hand in RP.
You're inviting opinions not based on of scientific training, just weekend research, and for what?
Veiled religious undertones that frankly are getting out of hand in RP.
(0)
(0)
SPC Nathan Freeman
I've met some very intelligent and well read people on RP. You don't have to participate if you don't want to.
(0)
(0)
SGT Hector Rojas, AIGA, SHA
So have I, but I don't ask them to write research papers on the night raid strategies of Boadicea and their comments on what were her mistakes.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Carbon 14 dating has been used for a long time to measure the age of things in our world. Look beyond our world and solar system you are looking back in time. Hubble has seen back to about 14 Billion years ago. In this grand scheme of things we are less than a speck of dust.
Faith and science are often at odds with each other but that is OK, you can choose one or the other, or even both. It is a personal choice and leave it at that.
Faith and science are often at odds with each other but that is OK, you can choose one or the other, or even both. It is a personal choice and leave it at that.
(0)
(0)
SPC Nathan Freeman
Carbon 14 dating has it's limits. It is only fairly accurate up to 70,000 years and even then it can be confounded by fire. The Hubble telescope can see a lot of stars but there's no magical dial that says how far away the stars are or how old they are. That much is mostly theory for anything outside our galaxy.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
We know and understand a great deal about radiometric dating, and even this criminal justice major can refute all three of Dr Snelling's claims, courtesy of the internet:
1. Conditions at time zero need not be known, courtesy of isochron dating and fission track dating. Also, with U-Pb dating utilizing zircon crystals, the conditions at time zero ARE known, as zircon crystals do not form with lead as part of the crystalline structure, but they do incorporate uranium. Thus, lead content at the time of formation can be assumed to be zero.
2. Contamination is not an issue when using zircon as the vessel of uranium. Aside from being very durable and being able to survive while its parent rock melts, zircon crystals do not form with lead as part of their crystalline structure. Thus, any damage to the crystal will only result in a younger age, due to lead loss.
3. I think that we can reasonably agree that one experiment which Dr Snelling and other creationists executed, very likely suffers from confirmation bias. But the real nail in the coffin for the assertion that we only have a century of observations for radioactive decay rates, is that we can - and do - observe past radioactive decay rates via decay in the luminosity (on various wavelengths) of supernovae. SN1987A is a commonly studied supernova, which has produced significant data to support constant decay rates. SN1987A is also nearly 170,000 light-years away, and by that alone we know the universe is older than 6,000 years, because otherwise we couldn't even see it.
1. Conditions at time zero need not be known, courtesy of isochron dating and fission track dating. Also, with U-Pb dating utilizing zircon crystals, the conditions at time zero ARE known, as zircon crystals do not form with lead as part of the crystalline structure, but they do incorporate uranium. Thus, lead content at the time of formation can be assumed to be zero.
2. Contamination is not an issue when using zircon as the vessel of uranium. Aside from being very durable and being able to survive while its parent rock melts, zircon crystals do not form with lead as part of their crystalline structure. Thus, any damage to the crystal will only result in a younger age, due to lead loss.
3. I think that we can reasonably agree that one experiment which Dr Snelling and other creationists executed, very likely suffers from confirmation bias. But the real nail in the coffin for the assertion that we only have a century of observations for radioactive decay rates, is that we can - and do - observe past radioactive decay rates via decay in the luminosity (on various wavelengths) of supernovae. SN1987A is a commonly studied supernova, which has produced significant data to support constant decay rates. SN1987A is also nearly 170,000 light-years away, and by that alone we know the universe is older than 6,000 years, because otherwise we couldn't even see it.
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google