Scientific Dating Methods

[Guest DRS81]

Cosmic background radiation is strong evidence for the Big Bang.

 

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

 

I have been a Christian for 1.25 yrs.

 

?

[Guest ninhao]

 

Cosmic background radiation is strong evidence for the Big Bang.

 

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

 

I have been a Christian for 1.25 yrs.

 

?

 

 

Some Christians believe the Big Bang may have been one of Jesus' initial Creation tools. The Bible doesn't tell us how Jesus Created.

[Guest DRS81]

Some Christians believe the Big Bang may have been one of Jesus' initial Creation tools. The Bible doesn't tell us how Jesus Created.

 

Just as long as God is in that sentence. As we all know God is the one who created science so..all is well. Continue..

[Guest ninhao]

 

Some Christians believe the Big Bang may have been one of Jesus' initial Creation tools. The Bible doesn't tell us how Jesus Created.

 

Just as long as God is in that sentence. As we all know God is the one who created science so..all is well. Continue..

 

 

Yes. Alpha knows Jesus is the Creator of all things. The scientific discussions involve how and when.

[Guest DRS81]

The scientific discussions involve how and when.

 

[alphaparticle]

 

Cosmic background radiation is strong evidence for the Big Bang.

 

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

 

I have been a Christian for 1.25 yrs.

 

?

 

Yes. I am a Christian and I also think the Big Bang likely  happened given the evidence. Why should this be surprising? There are many of us.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I realize it was a theory....but the hearer in Moses time might have understood this application where the first word "day" included the 7 days (as in remember the time, or when we say "back in the in the day")....I just think the "in the day the Lord Made" means in or time that the Lord made, but I could be totally in error..but God did not start creation with a metaphor, He started it with "Let there be Light and there was light..."

 

What light? What light before the sun or other stars?

 

 

We have discovered the lasting reflection of a pre-Star light pervading the entire universe everywhere we look (which is visible at 3 Kelvins) believed by many to be the afterglow of the Big Bang...this is the source of many ideas claimed under the name "dark radiation" and "dark matter" (believed by many to be like anti-matter and by others possibly the source of matter)...and He said (sound), let there be light and there was light (this strange form of electro-magnetic radiation)...they were simultaneous and instantaneous and are the "STUFF" the universe and all its inter-dependent forms, functions, forces, etc., were made out of when He spoke the worlds into being.

 

Also called Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation....see http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cbr.html

 

Cosmic background radiation is strong evidence for the Big Bang. It's highly isotropic and homogeneous, suggesting that the visible universe at some point in its early past was all spatially close enough to be in an equilibrium. This is blackbody radiation that has been redshifted due to the subsequent expansion of the universe (it's also 2.7 K). It's not strange. It's easily explainable in this way.

 

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean? : ".this is the source of many ideas claimed under the name "dark radiation" and "dark matter""

 

Dark radiation? contradiction in terms. Are you confusing that with dark energy? Dark matter we know exists because of the gravitational affects it has on galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Dark energy is inferred to exist from the expansion rate of the universe.

 

 

No! I am not confusing anything...try...

 

“Dark radiation is a postulated species of radiation that mediates interactions in the dark sector. That is, just the way photons mediate electromagnetic interactions between particles in the Standard Model (baryonic matter in Cosmology), dark radiation is supposed to mediate interactions between dark matter particles.”

1. Ackerman, Lotty; (2008). Dark Matter and Dark Radiation. arXiv:0810.5126. Bibcode:2009PhRvD..79b3519A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.023519.
2.  "The Case for Dark Radiation". Maria Archidiacono. Retrieved 18 June 2012.
3. "The Generalized Dark Radiation in Brane Cosmology". Nikolaos Tetradis.
4. "The search for Dark Radiation". Maria Archidiacono, Erminia Calabrese, Alessandro Melchiorri. Retrieved 18 June 2012.
5.  "Dark radiation from particle decays during big bang nucleosynthesis". American Physical Society. Retrieved 18 June 2012

The "theory" that this is a reflection left by the Big Bang (like what we see in our vision after a Flashbulb goes off) speaks to the question I was addressing...that there was a light before there were stars...point made and I hope taken...

 

In His love

 

Brother Paul

 

ahhh okay. Fair enough. I admit it wasn't a term I am familiar with, obviously. I still don't see what dark matter (and possible interactions between dark matter particles) has to do with anything.

 

The rest of what I said stands though. Yes, in the Big Bang model it is obvious how there was light because there was much energy in the early universe. I don't see how it makes sense in the context of God having created everything as expansive as it is. My point is that it is directly evidence that the universe was much hotter... and ... closely enough packed together to be in an equilibrium state... before expanding.

 

What you are missing here is that the radiation in question is *redshifted* due to the expansion of spacetime, and it is highly isotropic and homogeneous. Those all speak strongly to a Big Bang scenario.

[Guest DRS81]

Yes. I am a Christian and I also think the Big Bang likely  happened given the evidence. Why should this be surprising? There are many of us.

 

It surprised me because many people think the Big Bang occurred without God. There are many of them.

[alphaparticle]

Now let's talk scientific dating methods...

 

C-14

 

In the common description it is evident that the calculation of radioactive decay is based on three crucial assumptions:

 

1)      Right off the bat from physics we know that the amount of C-14 increases during times of greater Cosmic Ray bombardment (which I am sure happened multiple times in earth history). Thus the alleged predictable “assumed” mother load is a deception. They assume that the number of atoms of the daughter isotope originally in the rock or mineral when it crystallized can be known which it cannot. In other words, it is assumed that we can know the initial conditions when the rock or mineral formed which we do not.

 

2)      They assume a constant rate of decay which actually can and does fluctuate under differing conditions and as a result they

 

3)      further assume that the number of atoms of the parent and daughter isotopes have not been altered since the rock or mineral crystallized. In other words, it is assumed that the rock or mineral remained closed to loss or gain assumptions based on the unknown state of the original parent and/or daughter isotopes.

 

4)      Since most rocks or minerals crystallized, there were no human observers to determine the original numbers of atoms of the daughter isotopes, to determine that the rocks or minerals have remained closed to loss or gain of parent and/or daughter isotopes, and to determine if the rate of decay of the parent isotope has remained constant. Thus, it logically follows that these assumptions are, strictly speaking, not demonstrable.

 

5)      The final assumption based error is that the original parent/daughter isotopic state can be indicated by testing which has never been successfully accomplished (which means the test results vary as widely as the statistical determinations and conclusions rely on the statistical “Line of best Guess” which is at best a guess and usually takes the position of the pre-conceived theory gong in based on the layers in which the items are found)

 

So to be at all accurate, the two most basic assumptions in C-14 dating is first, the cosmic ray influx has to have been essentially constant and secondly that the C-14 concentration in the carbon dioxide cycle must remain constant MUST be accepted on blind faith in the theory. To these two assumptions they must add the assumption of the constancy of the rate of decay of C-14, the assumption that dead organic matter is not later altered with respect to its carbon content by any biologic or other activity, the assumption that the carbon dioxide contents of the ocean and atmosphere has been constant over time (which we know they have not), the assumption that the huge reservoir of oceanic carbon has not changed in size during the period of applicability of the method, and the assumption that the rate of formation and the rate of decay of radiocarbon atoms have been in equilibrium throughout the period of applicability. None of which can be or ever has been actually proved.

 

So what we learn from this is that most C-14 conclusions are not dependable, are not demonstrable, observable, or testable (all that makes for good science is sidestepped rather conveniently)

 

With radio-carbon dating, if one takes the huge leap of faith and accepts these uniformitarian assumptions, another problem arises. The only type of rocks that can be measured directly by Radiometric methods are igneous rock (from magma) and they rarely if ever contain fossils. Despite that, since we know igneous rock forms rather quickly as a result of volcanic activity, the only way we can put a date to the rock is to determine its age according to the layer we find it in. But even if the assumptions regarding the ages of the layers were true (which is doubtful), how do we know they did not get there by shifting, such as by subduction (when one plate slips under another), or perhaps during earthquakes they may even have fallen to lower layers (not uncommon near Volcanoes)..

 

The allegedly more reliable Isochron method, or K-Ar method, must assume what is called a “zero point” when only the parent isotope was present in these rocks. They believe a zero point can be determined, but actually to obtain this they must initially assume that all the isotopes in the rocks were parent isotopes. But is this accurate? Not everyone agrees. In 1996 an article was printed in the “CEN Tech. Journal” (Vol. 10, No. 3, p:342 1996) where the geologists concluded, "The primary assumption upon which K-Ar model-age dating is based assumes zero Ar in the mineral phases of a rock when it solidifies. This assumption has been shown to be faulty."

 

ID theorist Dr. Sean Pitman in his article entitled “Radiometric Dating Methods” (2008), points out another factor that adds to our potential misinformation. He says, “Let’s now consider how fossils are dated with many of these methods, such as the potassium-argon method.  The mineralized fossils themselves are not directly datable by radiometric techniques.  The sedimentary rock that buried them is also not datable.  If there is some igneous rock fragments in that sedimentary rock layer, these fragments are dated, most commonly, by the ⁴⁰K/⁴⁰Ar dating method described above.  It is assumed then that the fossil is as old as the igneous rock fragment that it is buried with.  Aside from the zero-date problems noted above, one might consider the possibility that the fossil might not be as old as the sediment that buried it in the first place.  (or may be older) For example, let’s say that my pet dog dies.  I decide to bury it in the back yard.  Is the dog as old as the dirt that I buried it in?  Likewise, who is to say that some fossils were not buried in sedimentary material that was weathered from significantly more ancient formations?” (emphasis and parentheses mine) http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html

 

In other words in sedimentary rock (which cannot be dated by radiocarbon methods) a newer fossil can find its way into an older layer and an older fossil can find its way into more recent layers (such as in the cases of subduction). As sedimentary rock is solidifying, heavier or objects of greater density can sink to lower levels though coming from the exact same time frame as lighter objects that may become part of or sealed into layers closer to the more recent layers, thus giving different dating as indicated by the layers. Should this unknowable yet very plausible condition then be the basis of assuming them to be a certain age or younger or older than the other objects found in the same layer? Of course not! However, because of interpreting data through the acceptable theory, this is often the case.

 

All these factors (and many others not discussed here) should cause even the most liberal scholar to question the accuracy of the determination of the neo-Darwnian model, but if interpreted though or in the language of the preconceived model (pushed by the pedagoguery…like the Clovis Theory) it is automatically accepted.

 

Brother Paul

Yes, but you can test C 14 radioactive decay against other dating methods. i don't understand what the special attention on carbon dating is, as there are many other radioactive isotopes that are used for dating, all of which give a consistent picture. I see the reference to at least one other method, so are you an Old Earth but no evolution type?

[alphaparticle]

 

Yes. I am a Christian and I also think the Big Bang likely  happened given the evidence. Why should this be surprising? There are many of us.

 

It surprised me because many people think the Big Bang occurred without God. There are many of them.

 

There are. I don't see how that is relevant.