Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Radiometric Dating


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
73 replies to this topic

#1
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts

I believe the main form of evidence supporting an old earth is radiometric dating, measured ages of rock are based on very slow rates of decay measured in laboratories. The following links show that radiometric decay slows down slightly when there is more solar radiation:

Decay is affected by the sun's core:

http://www.purdue.ed...JenkinsDec.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0205

Decay is affected by solar flares:
http://news.stanford...sun-082310.html

http://news.stanford...sun-082310.html

Decay drops in July
http://www.purdue.ed...ce-warning.html

http://www.purdue.ed...ce-warning.html

From about 200AD and earlier the earth's protective magnetic field was 1.5 times stronger than today, which would have greatly reducedsolar and cosmic radiation reaching the earth's surface.

Conclusion: If decay slows down slightly when there is a slight increase in solar radiation, its highly probable that decay was significantly faster during the time when the strength of the magnetic field caused a large decrease in solar radiation and cosmic radiation. Thus the main source of evidence for an old earth is based on a logical fallacy.

 

Can anyone fault this logic?


Edited by ARGOSY, 20 January 2014 - 04:54 PM.


#2
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

How do you know this to be true...From about 200AD and earlier the earth's protective magnetic field was 1.5 times stronger than today



#3
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts

How do you know this to be true...From about 200AD and earlier the earth's protective magnetic field was 1.5 times stronger than today

 

 

11-4c71216020.jpghttp://www.academia....uvian_Potsherds

Page 113

 

It differs depending on which studies you look at. Looking backwards in time, the above graph shows the intensity rapidly increasing as we go further back in time from 250BC. It soon reached more than 1.5 times current intensity at about 100BC and was much stronger than 1.5 times at 1000BC.



#4
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts

I see the figure didn't come out clearly. Just click on the link and go to page 113. 



#5
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

The earth's magnetic field is in a constant state of flux, there is always an ebb and flow. 

 

brunhes_geomag_intensity_big.gif



#6
nebula

nebula

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,992 posts

I believe the main form of evidence supporting an old earth is radiometric dating, measured ages of rock are based on very slow rates of decay measured in laboratories.

<snip>

 

Thus the main source of evidence for an old earth is based on a logical fallacy.

 

I only have one comment. Please be careful against disproving the other side as a means of confirming your side. There is also a likelihood that both sides are in error.



#7
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 42,653 posts

I Sit On The Ring Of The Earth And Judge God

 

Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: Romans 11:20

 

Or Do

 

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalms 119:11

 

I

 

That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, Ephesians 3:17

 

~

 

Can anyone fault this logic?

 

:thumbsup:

 

Why

 

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

 

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:15-17

 

Why Yes

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

Yes He Can

 

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:3

 

~

 

Be Blessed

 

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 1 Corinthians 12:3

 

Be Blessed Beloved

 

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

 

Love, Your Brother Joe



#8
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 42,653 posts

One Man's Testimony

 

http://konig.org/testimony.htm

 

And Yet Another Man's Joy In The Word

 

http://www.worthychr...ible-fresnojoe/

 

~

 

How do you know this to be true...From about 200AD and earlier the earth's protective magnetic field was 1.5 times stronger than today

 

~

 

Did

 

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

 

You Know

 

Now when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught.

 

And Simon answering said unto him, Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net. And when they had this done, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes: and their net brake.

 

And they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink.

 

When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord. Luke 5;4-8

 

The Proof Of Matter

 

O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him. Psalms 34:8

 

Lies In The Eye Witnesses To The Resurrection Of Christ

 

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

 

And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

 

After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

 

After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

 

And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

 

Or If One Insists On Only What They Can Directly Observe Today (Leaves Out The TOS, Huh)

 

Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children. Isaiah 66:8

 

Then The Bible's Prophesies

 

The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him. Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it. Zechariah 12:1-3

 

Is Your Ticket

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

If You Will

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

That Is

 

Love, Joe

 

~

 

These 10 Bible prophecies were fulfilled after 1948, when Israel became an independent country for the second time in history. These prophecies foretold of modern Israel's stunning military victories and of its transition from a desert wasteland to a prosperous nation.

 

1. Israel will prevail over its enemies

 

Bible passage: Isaiah 41:12-14

Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC

Fulfilled: late 1900s

 

In Isaiah 41:12-14, the prophet said God would help Israel during times of conflict with enemies (if the people have faith in God). Isaiah said this during a time when the northern kingdom of Israel had already been conquered by the Assyrian Empire. And the southern kingdom, Judah, was about to be conquered by Babylon. (The Bible explains that Israel and Judah lost their independence because so many of the residents had turned to false religions). But, since 1948 when Israel was re-established, Israel has been attacked by much-larger countries. And Israel has prevailed in each of those attacks. This prophecy has found partial fulfillment; Christian scholars believe that a time will come when all of Israel's enemies are destroyed.

 

Here is Isaiah 41:12-14

Though you search for your enemies, you will not find them. Those who wage war against you will be as nothing at all. For I am the Lord, your God, who takes hold of your right hand and says to you, Do not fear; I will help you. Do not be afraid, O worm Jacob, O little Israel, for I myself will help you," declares the Lord, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.

 

2. The ruins of Israel would be rebuilt

 

Bible passage: Amos 9:11, 13

Written: about 750 BC

Fulfilled: late 1900s

 

In Amos 9:11, 13, the prophet said that God would restore the land of David. (King David ruled Israel from about 1010 BC to about 970 BC). The land of David - Israel - was conquered and destroyed by the Babylonians, Assyrians and Romans. The land has been in ruins for much of the past 2000 years. The Jews, who had been scattered throughout the world, began to return in large numbers during the past 100 years. Since then, they have been rebuilding many of Israel's ancient cities. Amos also said there would be continuous planting and harvesting. During the past 100 years, the Jews have been using advanced farming and irrigation techniques to turn barren land into productive farmland. Today, Israel is a source of food for many countries.

 

Here is Amos 9:11, 13

"In that day I will restore David's fallen tent. I will repair its broken places, restore its ruins, and build it as it used to be,'' … "The days are coming," declares the Lord, "when the reaper will be overtaken by the plowman and the planter by the one treading grapes. New wine will drip from the mountains and flow from all the hills."

 

3. Ezekiel prophesied prosperity for modern-day Israel

 

Bible passage: Ezekiel 36:11

Written: between 593-571 BC

Fulfilled: late 1900s

 

In Ezekiel 36:11, the prophet said that there would come a time when Israel would be more prosperous than it was in the past. The Bible describes Israel as being a prosperous nation during the time of King David and King Solomon about 3000 years ago. But, Ezekiel knew a very different Israel. In Ezekiel's day (he lived about 2600 years ago), the northern kingdom of Israel already had been decimated by the Assyrians, and the southern kingdom (called Judah) was being destroyed by the Babylonians. In the centuries that followed these destructions, Jews rebuilt the city of Jerusalem, but their homeland was destroyed again, by the Romans, about 1900 years ago. Since then, a majority of Jews have lived in exile. But during the past 100 years, millions of Jews from around the world moved to Israel and they have been rebuilding the country once again. Today, Israel again is an independent nation, as it was in the days of King David, and it is one of the world's most prosperous countries. In 1999, Israel had the highest per capita Gross Domestic Product of any nearby country, even though the surrounding countries have many oil resources.

 

Here is Ezekiel 36:11

I will increase the number of men and animals upon you, and they will be fruitful and become numerous. I will settle people on you as in the past and will make you prosper more than before. Then you will know that I am the Lord.

 

4. Trees again would grow in Israel

 

Bible passage: Isaiah 41:18-20

Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC

Fulfilled: late 1900s

 

In Isaiah 41:18-20, the prophet's talk of a future restoration of Israel coincides with an occurrence in modern Israel - the construction of a vast irrigation system to improve farming. The lack of available water, including rain, is one reason why Israel had been a desolate, unproductive land during much of the past 2000 years. But, during the 1900s, when many Jews returned to their ancient homeland, they built a network of irrigation systems. And during the past century, more than 200 million trees have been planted in Israel.

 

Here is Isaiah 41:18-20

I will make rivers flow on barren heights, and springs within the valleys. I will turn the desert into pools of water, and the parched ground into springs. I will put in the desert the cedar and the acacia, the myrtle and the olive. I will set pines in the wasteland, the fir and the cypress together, so that people may see and know, may consider and understand, that the hand of the Lord has done this, that the Holy One of Israel has created it.

 

5. Isaiah said Israel's fruit would fill the world

 

Bible passage: Isaiah 27:6

Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC

Fulfilled: late 1900s

 

In Isaiah 27:6, the prophet said Israel would one day blossom and fill the world with fruit. This prophecy has been at least partially fulfilled, literally and symbolically. Today, the land of Israel, which had been barren for centuries, is a leading producer of agricultural products, exporting food to many countries. This prophecy also has been fulfilled symbolically with the worldwide spread of Christianity. Christianity, which began with Jesus in Israel, now has about 2 billion followers worldwide.

 

Here is Isaiah 27:6

In days to come Jacob will take root, Israel will bud and blossom and fill all the world with fruit.

 

6. Jerusalem would become the world's most important religious site

 

Bible passage: Micah 4:1

Written: sometime between 750-686 BC

Fulfilled: Today

 

In Micah 4:1, the prophet said that the Temple mount in Jerusalem would become the focal point of the world. This prophecy has not yet been fulfilled. But, it is interesting to note that Jerusalem is, and has been for centuries, the world's most important religious site. Christians and Jews regard the city as the world's most important, and Christians and Jews comprise about one-third of the world's population. No other city in the world is a religious focal point to as many people.

Here is Micah 4:1

In the last days the mountain of the Lord's temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and peoples will stream to it.

 

7. Egypt would never again rule over other nations

 

Bible passage: Ezekiel 29:15

Written: between 593-571 BC

Fulfilled: 1967, etc.

 

In Ezekiel 29:15, the prophet says that Egypt would recover from a desolation (perhaps Babylon's attack about 2600 years ago), but that it would never again rule over other nations. Up until the time of Ezekiel, Egypt had been a world power for centuries, dominating many nations, including Israel. But for most of the past 2500 years, Egypt has been controlled by foreign powers, including the Romans, Ottomans and Europeans. Today, Egypt is an independent nation again. In 1948, 1967 and 1973, Egypt tried to dominate Israel but was unsuccessful each time, despite the fact that Egypt is 10 times larger than Israel. Since the time of Ezekiel, Egypt no longer rules over other nations.

 

Here is Ezekiel 29:15

It will be the lowliest of kingdoms and will never again exalt itself above the other nations. I will make it so weak that it will never again rule over the nations.

 

8. Zechariah prophesied the Jews return to Jerusalem

 

Bible passage: Zechariah 8:7-8

Written: between 520 and 518 BC

Fulfilled: 1967, etc.

 

In Zechariah 8:7-8, the prophet said God would bring the Jews back from the east and the west to their homeland (Israel) and that they would be able to live in the city of Jerusalem again. This prophecy has been fulfilled more than once. About 2600 years ago, Babylon destroyed Jerusalem and took many Jews as captives to Babylon. But many Jews later returned from Babylon. The Jews rebuilt Jerusalem but the city was destroyed about 1900 years ago by the Romans. The Romans killed more than 1 million Jews and forced many more into exile. The Jews did not have control of Jerusalem again until 1967 when the Jews recaptured the city during the Six Day War.

 

Here is Zechariah 8:7-8

This is what the Lord Almighty says: "I will save my people from the countries of the east and the west. I will bring them back to live in Jerusalem; they will be my people, and I will be faithful and righteous to them as their God."

 

9. Israel's deserts will become like the Garden of Eden

 

Bible passage: Isaiah 51:3

Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC

Fulfilled: Being fulfilled now

 

In Isaiah 51:3, the prophet said that God will restore Israel and make it a paradise, like the garden of Eden. This foreshadows what is currently happening in Israel. The Jews have been irrigating, cultivating and reconditioning the land during much of the 1900s. Many of the country's swamps, which had been infested with malaria, have been converted into farmland. And water from the Sea of Galilee has been channeled through portions of the deserts, allowing some of the deserts to bloom. Much work remains, but parts of Israel are blooming again. Although it was described as a wasteland as recently as the late 1800s, Israel is now a food source for many countries. And at least 200 million of trees have been planted there during the past century.

 

Here is Isaiah 51:3

The Lord will surely comfort Zion and will look with compassion on all her ruins; he will make her deserts like Eden, her wastelands like the garden of the Lord. Joy and gladness will be found in her, thanksgiving and the sound of singing.

 

10. Isaiah foretold of the worldwide return of Jews to Israel

 

Bible passage: Isaiah 43:5-6

Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC

Fulfilled: late 1900s

 

In Isaiah 43:5-6, the prophet Isaiah said that the Jews would return to their homeland from the east, the west, the north and the south. Isaiah lived about 2700 years ago. At that time, the Assyrians had forced many Jews in the northern kingdom of Israel into exile. Those Jews were taken to other areas in the Middle East. Then, about 1900 years ago, the Romans destroyed the city of Jerusalem and killed and exiled hundreds of thousands of Jews. Since then, the Jews have been scattered to virtually every country in the world. But, during the past century, millions of Jews have returned to Israel, from the east, the west, the north and the south.

 

From the east: Many Jews living in the Middle East moved to Israel by the early 1900s.

 

From the west: During mid-1900s, hundreds of thousands of Jews living in the West (Europe and the United States) began moving to Israel.

 

From the north: The former Soviet Union (Russia) is north of Israel. It refused to allow its Jewish residents to move to Israel. But, after years of pressure from other countries, Russia finally began to allow Jews to return to Israel during the 1980s. So far, hundreds of thousands of Russian Jews have moved to Israel.

 

From the south: Ethiopia, which is south of Israel, also refused to allow its Jews to return to Israel. But, in 1985, Israel struck a deal with Ethiopia's communist government to allow the Jews of Ethiopia to move to Israel. On the weekend of May 25, 1991, 14,500 Ethiopian Jews were airlifted to Israel.

 

Isaiah's prophecy was also correct in saying that the north (Russia) and the south (Ethiopia) would have to be persuaded to give up their Jews. Many countries pressured Russia for years before it began to allow its Jews to leave. And Ethiopia had to be paid a ransom to allow its Jews to leave.

 

Isaiah's prophecy was also correct in saying that the Jews would return "from the ends of the earth," and Isaiah said that many centuries before the Jews had been scattered to the ends of the earth. During the past 100 years, Jews living as far east as China, as far west as the West Coast of the United States, as far north as Scandinavia, and as far south as South Africa, have moved to Israel.

 

Here is Isaiah 43:5-6

"Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bring your children from the east and gather you from the west. I will say to the north, `Give them up!' and to the south, `Do not hold them back.' Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth… http://www.therefine...nt_prophecy.htm

 

Copyright ©1999-2002 George Konig and 100prophecies.org.



#9
Spock

Spock

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,209 posts
Here is an article that helped me sort some things out. It takes on the creationist arguments and rebuts them one at a time. Answers in Genesis made a big deal about some study of rocks taken from mt St. Helens eruption in 1980 saying radio metric dating is not reliable because the testing showed these igneous rocks to be millions of years old, which they obviously couldn't be. . This articles shows why that study was flawed. Like I said, this article is very helpful. Enjoy.

http://www.scienceme...reliability.php

#10
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,259 posts

I believe the main form of evidence supporting an old earth is radiometric dating, measured ages of rock are based on very slow rates of decay measured in laboratories. The following links show that radiometric decay slows down slightly when there is more solar radiation:

Decay is affected by the sun's core:
http://www.purdue.ed...JenkinsDec.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0205

Decay is affected by solar flares:
http://news.stanford...sun-082310.html

Decay drops in July
http://www.purdue.ed...ce-warning.html

From about 200AD and earlier the earth's protective magnetic field was 1.5 times stronger than today, which would have greatly reducedsolar and cosmic radiation reaching the earth's surface.

Conclusion: If decay slows down slightly when there is a slight increase in solar radiation, its highly probable that decay was significantly faster during the time when the strength of the magnetic field caused a large decrease in solar radiation and cosmic radiation. Thus the main source of evidence for an old earth is based on a logical fallacy.

 

Can anyone fault this logic?

So I went ahead and read the first reference there. Here is a question for you Argosy, have you looked at the actual numbers involved? The variations in frequency of events are in terms of per year units (a hertz is oscillation per second). That means these are tiny, tiny fluctuations. Have you sat down, maybe put in the maximum oscillation, added them up for 4 or 5 billion years, to see if that would make up for a *4.5 billion year* shortfall? I say this in the spirit of non jerkiness, but it does not work.

 

What I think YEC sometimes don't see is the enormous chasm between 10,000 years and 4,500,000,000 years, 6 orders of magnitude. If you want to turn to scientific discovery to come up with an explanation for a difference in 6 orders of magnitude it needs to be very striking. Otherwise, things such as this do not present your position in the best light.



#11
Spock

Spock

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,209 posts

I believe the main form of evidence supporting an old earth is radiometric dating, measured ages of rock are based on very slow rates of decay measured in laboratories. The following links show that radiometric decay slows down slightly when there is[/size] more solar radiation:[/size]Decay is affected by the sun's core:[/size]http://www.purdue.ed...JenkinsDec.htmlhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0205Decay is affected by solar flares:[/size]http://news.stanford...sun-082310.htmlDecay drops in July[/size]http://www.purdue.ed...ce-warning.htmlFrom about 200AD and earlier the earth's protective magnetic field was 1.5 times stronger than today, which would have greatly [/size]reducedsolar and cosmic radiation reaching the earth's surface.[/size]Conclusion: If decay slows down slightly when there is a slight increase in solar radiation, its highly probable that decay was significantly faster during the time when the strength of the magnetic field caused a large decrease in solar radiation [/size]and cosmic radiation. Thus the main source of evidence for an old earth is based on a logical fallacy.[/size]
 
Can anyone fault this logic?

So I went ahead and read the first reference there. Here is a question for you Argosy, have you looked at the actual numbers involved? The variations in frequency of events are in terms of per year units (a hertz is oscillation per second). That means these are tiny, tiny fluctuations. Have you sat down, maybe put in the maximum oscillation, added them up for 4 or 5 billion years, to see if that would make up for a *4.5 billion year* shortfall? I say this in the spirit of non jerkiness, but it does not work.
 
What I think YEC sometimes don't see is the enormous chasm between 10,000 years and 4,500,000,000 years, 6 orders of magnitude. If you want to turn to scientific discovery to come up with an explanation for a difference in 6 orders of magnitude it needs to be very striking. Otherwise, things such as this do not present your position in the best light.

Hey alpha,

You have a keen interest in physics. Would you mind reading the article I cited above and tell me the strengths and weaknesses of the article, especially the part discussing the radioactive isotopes with a half life over 68,000,000. Thanks.

#12
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts

 

I believe the main form of evidence supporting an old earth is radiometric dating, measured ages of rock are based on very slow rates of decay measured in laboratories.

<snip>

 

Thus the main source of evidence for an old earth is based on a logical fallacy.

 

I only have one comment. Please be careful against disproving the other side as a means of confirming your side. There is also a likelihood that both sides are in error.

 

Fair comment. But I already believe the bible above evolutionary timeframes, and so any doubt of those timeframes merely confirms the truth in my eyes.



#13
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts

The earth's magnetic field is in a constant state of flux, there is always an ebb and flow. 

 

brunhes_geomag_intensity_big.gif 

I agree the magnetic field  fluctuates over time. But those dates are meaningless because decay would speed up whenever the field is stronger than its current strength.


Edited by ARGOSY, 20 January 2014 - 04:34 PM.


#14
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts

Here is an article that helped me sort some things out. It takes on the creationist arguments and rebuts them one at a time. Answers in Genesis made a big deal about some study of rocks taken from mt St. Helens eruption in 1980 saying radio metric dating is not reliable because the testing showed these igneous rocks to be millions of years old, which they obviously couldn't be. . This articles shows why that study was flawed. Like I said, this article is very helpful. Enjoy.

http://www.scienceme...reliability.php

I can't see any rebuttal there that applies to my point in the opening post. Please post something if you find a good rebuttal, I look forward to my argument being challenged.



#15
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts

So I went ahead and read the first reference there. Here is a question for you Argosy, have you looked at the actual numbers involved? The variations in frequency of events are in terms of per year units (a hertz is oscillation per second). That means these are tiny, tiny fluctuations. Have you sat down, maybe put in the maximum oscillation, added them up for 4 or 5 billion years, to see if that would make up for a *4.5 billion year* shortfall? I say this in the spirit of non jerkiness, but it does not work.

 

What I think YEC sometimes don't see is the enormous chasm between 10,000 years and 4,500,000,000 years, 6 orders of magnitude. If you want to turn to scientific discovery to come up with an explanation for a difference in 6 orders of magnitude it needs to be very striking. Otherwise, things such as this do not present your position in the best light.

 

I agree that the solar cycle has a negligible effect on decay, I included that article just to strengthen my argument that the dips in decay are caused by any type of increase in solar radiation. Whether its the July effect, the midnight effect, solar flares or  solar cycles; decay rates always react to changes in solar radiation.  The bigger the changes the more the effect. 

 

The effect is difficult to quantify, because the cause is unknown. Remember the formula of the half-life is based on randomness and now there's evidence that decay is not random. This affects rates of decay in an exponential manner.

 

Change to radioactive decay is 0.1 percent during the solar cycle, it would be interesting to know what percentage the following changes during this same 33 day cycle:

1) High speed protons

2) Muons on earth's surface

3) Ionizing background

4) The sun's energy output 

 

http://phys.org/news202456660.html   " Jenkins and Fischbach collaborated with Peter Sturrock, a professor emeritus of applied physics at Stanford University and an expert on the inner workings of the sun, to examine data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on the rate of decay of the radioactive isotopes silicon-32 and chlorine-36. The team reported in the journal Astroparticle Physics that the decay rate for both isotopes varies in a 33-day recurring pattern, which they attribute to the rotation rate of the sun's core. In general, the fluctuations that Jenkins and Fischbach have found are around a tenth of a percent from what is expected, as they've examined available published data and taken some measurements themselves."

I can't find enough information on the maths behind the cause/effect, could you kindly supply more evidence if you feel the effect under stronger magnetic fields would be negligible.

 

 



#16
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,688 posts

Here is an article that helped me sort some things out. It takes on the creationist arguments and rebuts them one at a time. Answers in Genesis made a big deal about some study of rocks taken from mt St. Helens eruption in 1980 saying radio metric dating is not reliable because the testing showed these igneous rocks to be millions of years old, which they obviously couldn't be. . This articles shows why that study was flawed. Like I said, this article is very helpful. Enjoy.

http://www.scienceme...reliability.php

 

I'll take a crack at er :)  from your source: http://www.scienceme...reliability.php

 

I could spend all evening going through each one which would be a waste of time.  I'll just take the KING Tree (Rate Limiting Step) for the House of Cards and chop it down which will render the whole thing basically HogWash .....#5

 

Note:  #4 and #7 are Strawman and a few cross over each other.


1. Claim: Radiometric dating is based on index fossils whose dates were assigned long before radioactivity was discovered.

2. Claim: No one has measured the decay rates directly; we only know them from inference.

3. Claim: If the half-lives are billions of years, it is impossible to determine them from measuring over just a few years or decades.

4. Claim: The decay rates are poorly known, so the dates are inaccurate.

6. Claim: There is little or no way to tell how much of the decay product, that is, the daughter isotope, was originally in the rock, leading to anomalously old ages.

7.  Claim: There are only a few different dating methods.

8.  Claim: A young-Earth research group reported that they sent a rock erupted in 1980 from Mount Saint Helens volcano to a dating lab and got back a potassium-argon age of several million years.

9.  Claim: Different dating techniques usually give conflicting results.

 

 

The King Tree or the House of Cards Foundation....

 

"5. Claim: To date a rock one must know the original amount of the parent element. But there is no way to measure how much parent element was originally there.

Response: It is very easy to calculate the original parent abundance, but that information is not needed to date the rock. All of the dating schemes work from knowing the present abundances of the parent and daughter isotopes.  The original abundance N0, of the parent is simply N0 = N ekt, where N is the present abundance, t is time, and k is a constant related to the half life"

 

"It is very easy to calculate the original parent abundance....The original abundance N0, of the parent is simply N0 = N ekt, where N is the present abundance, t is time, and k is a constant related to the half life"   Say Again??  Is this a "begging the question" equation?

 

LOL this is classic "slight of hand'..... Absolutely Preposterous.  Of course... "All of the dating schemes work from knowing the present abundances of the parent and daughter isotopes."  That's not the Contention or the ISSUE.  What he fails to mention is the ASSUMPTION that what he is measuring...  IS THE ORIGINAL PARENT ABUNDANCE!!!  There is absolutely no way he can know that....there is no TEST for that.  He would have to be absolutely sure that:

   

1. When the rock forms (hardens) there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter radiogenic (derived by radioactive decay of another element) atoms;
2. After hardening, the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added to or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating groundwaters.

 

“As in the case with radiometric ages determined from almost any rock unit it is impossible to establish unequivocally that the ages reported here reflect the time of original crystallization or emplacement of the bodies from which they are derived.”

Barton Jr, I.M., Canad. J. Earth Sciences 14:1641, 1977

 

 

Scenario/Analogy...

 

You walk happen across a Track Meet @ the local High School. There are no signs stating what distance the race is but the race has already started.  You start timing right then and the lead runner has only 100 meters to go.  He crosses the finish line and your watch says 20 seconds.

Question 1:  When did the race start?
Question 2:  What was his rate per lap/seconds for the unknown laps (if any) that you didn't witness?
Question 3:  Did the rate per lap/seconds differ from the first to the second or second to the third laps, ect (if there were multiple laps)...?
Question 4:  How many Total Laps did he run?
Question 5:  How Long/Distance was the race?
 

:mgdetective:

 

Can you see it NOW??  Assumptions from here to CHRISTMAS!!



#17
Spock

Spock

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,209 posts
Thanks Enoch,

Two quick questions:

1. Do you believe in the reliability of any dating method? ( I think I know your answer, but just want to be sure.)

2. Do you think it is possible to date anything, be it rocks, bones, other fossils, etc? Or do you think all these radiometric methods are just a waste of time?

Thanks,
Spock

#18
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,688 posts

Thanks Enoch,

Two quick questions:

1. Do you believe in the reliability of any dating method? ( I think I know your answer, but just want to be sure.)

2. Do you think it is possible to date anything, be it rocks, bones, other fossils, etc? Or do you think all these radiometric methods are just a waste of time?

Thanks,
Spock

 

Hey Spock,

 

IMHO just from a Common Sense standpoint, these 2 are Giant Woolly Mammoths in the Room.....

 

1. When the rock forms (hardens) there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter radiogenic (derived by radioactive decay of another element) atoms;
2. After hardening, the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added to or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating groundwaters.

 

There is NO Equation or TEST to ascertain this Vital/Critical data.  Without it, they're basing the end result on assumptions... I see no way around the fact.



#19
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,259 posts

 

So I went ahead and read the first reference there. Here is a question for you Argosy, have you looked at the actual numbers involved? The variations in frequency of events are in terms of per year units (a hertz is oscillation per second). That means these are tiny, tiny fluctuations. Have you sat down, maybe put in the maximum oscillation, added them up for 4 or 5 billion years, to see if that would make up for a *4.5 billion year* shortfall? I say this in the spirit of non jerkiness, but it does not work.

 

What I think YEC sometimes don't see is the enormous chasm between 10,000 years and 4,500,000,000 years, 6 orders of magnitude. If you want to turn to scientific discovery to come up with an explanation for a difference in 6 orders of magnitude it needs to be very striking. Otherwise, things such as this do not present your position in the best light.

 

I agree that the solar cycle has a negligible effect on decay, I included that article just to strengthen my argument that the dips in decay are caused by any type of increase in solar radiation. Whether its the July effect, the midnight effect, solar flares or  solar cycles; decay rates always react to changes in solar radiation.  The bigger the changes the more the effect. 

 

The effect is difficult to quantify, because the cause is unknown. Remember the formula of the half-life is based on randomness and now there's evidence that decay is not random. This affects rates of decay in an exponential manner.

 

Change to radioactive decay is 0.1 percent during the solar cycle, it would be interesting to know what percentage the following changes during this same 33 day cycle:

1) High speed protons

2) Muons on earth's surface

3) Ionizing background

4) The sun's energy output 

 

http://phys.org/news202456660.html   " Jenkins and Fischbach collaborated with Peter Sturrock, a professor emeritus of applied physics at Stanford University and an expert on the inner workings of the sun, to examine data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on the rate of decay of the radioactive isotopes silicon-32 and chlorine-36. The team reported in the journal Astroparticle Physics that the decay rate for both isotopes varies in a 33-day recurring pattern, which they attribute to the rotation rate of the sun's core. In general, the fluctuations that Jenkins and Fischbach have found are around a tenth of a percent from what is expected, as they've examined available published data and taken some measurements themselves."

I can't find enough information on the maths behind the cause/effect, could you kindly supply more evidence if you feel the effect under stronger magnetic fields would be negligible.

 

The issue is, we know what the earth's magnetic field has been doing as lookingforanswers has pointed out. So I suppose my question is, what is it that you want me to look up? Rates in a 5 Tesla field? I am not sure what that gains you insofar as earth's magnetic field was never that strong. If there were external fields that strong, we would have seen that also.

 

You need some phenomenon which affects the decay rates of all the radioactive isotopes used for radiometric dating in the exact same way, and that can account for a 6 orders of magnitude shortfall of time. What is it you want to propose?



#20
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,259 posts

 

 

I believe the main form of evidence supporting an old earth is radiometric dating, measured ages of rock are based on very slow rates of decay measured in laboratories. The following links show that radiometric decay slows down slightly when there is[/size] more solar radiation:[/size]Decay is affected by the sun's core:[/size]http://www.purdue.ed...JenkinsDec.htmlhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0205Decay is affected by solar flares:[/size]http://news.stanford...sun-082310.htmlDecay drops in July[/size]http://www.purdue.ed...ce-warning.htmlFrom about 200AD and earlier the earth's protective magnetic field was 1.5 times stronger than today, which would have greatly [/size]reducedsolar and cosmic radiation reaching the earth's surface.[/size]Conclusion: If decay slows down slightly when there is a slight increase in solar radiation, its highly probable that decay was significantly faster during the time when the strength of the magnetic field caused a large decrease in solar radiation [/size]and cosmic radiation. Thus the main source of evidence for an old earth is based on a logical fallacy.[/size]
 
Can anyone fault this logic?

So I went ahead and read the first reference there. Here is a question for you Argosy, have you looked at the actual numbers involved? The variations in frequency of events are in terms of per year units (a hertz is oscillation per second). That means these are tiny, tiny fluctuations. Have you sat down, maybe put in the maximum oscillation, added them up for 4 or 5 billion years, to see if that would make up for a *4.5 billion year* shortfall? I say this in the spirit of non jerkiness, but it does not work.
 
What I think YEC sometimes don't see is the enormous chasm between 10,000 years and 4,500,000,000 years, 6 orders of magnitude. If you want to turn to scientific discovery to come up with an explanation for a difference in 6 orders of magnitude it needs to be very striking. Otherwise, things such as this do not present your position in the best light.

Hey alpha,

You have a keen interest in physics. Would you mind reading the article I cited above and tell me the strengths and weaknesses of the article, especially the part discussing the radioactive isotopes with a half life over 68,000,000. Thanks.

 

From what I am seeing it seems to present solid points. I think people on the thread would benefit from going through this article.

 

In my mind, it seems nearly inconceivable that dating from multiple different isotopes, thousands of these tests done on many different kinds of samples, all happen to converge on this single coherent picture of the earth as billions of years old, yet somehow everyone is grossly mistaken and the earth is really only a few thousand years old. I'm trying to figure out, in principle, what sort of mistake could lead to that and truly I cannot think of what that would be aside from God wanting us to all be wrong.






Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network