Radiometric Dating

[LookingForAnswers]

Well, someone certainly thinks very highly of themselves tonight.

[MorningGlory]

Well, someone certainly thinks very highly of themselves tonight.

 

[Spock]

It doesn't matter how clearly you explain why he is wrong or how much better qualified in a subject you are than he is. "Creationists" will continue to deny deny deny and imply that science is on on some conspiracy against the "truth". When I was taking my masters in biology I would often be accosted by the campus crusade for Christ types, and I learned that trying to reason with them is akin to bashing my head into a wall. Creationism is really about denial, with the people on top making huge sums of money pandering to the uneducated and scientifically illiterate.

Rational,

I agree with most of your post but was confused at the end.

On these threads, I see many well educated and scientifically literate people, so did you mean "in general?" Also who is making the huge sums of money you were referencing?

Thanks.

Yes, I can see how you would agree.....

1. stays on topic of the OP.

2. Bereft of any emotional rants, clearly a pure Objective and Unbiased assessment.

3. Contains numerous well supported facts.

4. Insightful yet Unpretentious.

5. Measured and well thought out.

6. Not a whiff of any Anecdotal Evidence, Stereotypes, or Sweeping Generalizations.

7. Harbors no ill will.

8. Displays compassion, courtesy, and an uncanny tolerance for others.

Scratching my head on this one Enoch. This isn't like you. You okay?

For what it's worth, I thought Rationals post was to the point and brutally honest. Besides, she has a great avatar. Apology accepted.

[MrsRational]

 

 

Alright. A couple tests that were obviously wrong doesn't mean the entire thing should be eliminated. and that's literally what it is, a couple that YEC cling onto. One test being out of the range of the other by a million years even doesn't make for a *4.5 billion* year shortfall that the YECs propose. The mass of the data presents an incredibly coherent picture, specific and consistent. There's nothing there that allows for the gigantic shortfall of time needed to make the YEC picture work. Are you still denying that astronomy is a proper science? If so, I think you have a rotten definition of science.

 It doesn't matter how clearly you explain why he is wrong or how much better qualified in a subject you are than he is. "Creationists" will continue to deny deny deny and imply that science is on on some conspiracy against the "truth". When I was taking my masters in biology I would often be accosted by the campus crusade for Christ types, and I learned that trying to reason with them is akin to bashing my head into a wall. Creationism is really about denial, with the people on top making huge sums of money pandering to the uneducated and scientifically illiterate.

Rational,

I agree with most of your post but was confused at the end.

On these threads, I see many well educated and scientifically literate people, so did you mean "in general?" Also who is making the huge sums of money you were referencing?

Thanks.

 

 

People such as Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and others fuel denial of evolution and young earth creationism. They make a fortune in the process selling junk science books, DVDs and lecturing.

[ARGOSY]

There are far more testimonies on this board alone as to how Darwinism was the deciding factor in the lives of many professed athieists for why the became atheists.  We have never seen anyone claim that they rejected Jesus because of creationistm, be it YEC or OEC.   But I can see why people with an unbiblical agenda would like to paint creationism as hurting the Gospel or being an impediment to people finding Jesus. 

Thanks, I will think about this too. I suspect any truth that points to God rather than away from God is a form of evangelism. If Darwinism points away from God, and creationism points to the truth of God's word, then there has to be value in supporting truth.  So I agree with you rather than lookingforanswers, but will prayerfully consider both positions.

[Spock]

Alright. A couple tests that were obviously wrong doesn't mean the entire thing should be eliminated. and that's literally what it is, a couple that YEC cling onto. One test being out of the range of the other by a million years even doesn't make for a *4.5 billion* year shortfall that the YECs propose. The mass of the data presents an incredibly coherent picture, specific and consistent. There's nothing there that allows for the gigantic shortfall of time needed to make the YEC picture work. Are you still denying that astronomy is a proper science? If so, I think you have a rotten definition of science.

 It doesn't matter how clearly you explain why he is wrong or how much better qualified in a subject you are than he is. "Creationists" will continue to deny deny deny and imply that science is on on some conspiracy against the "truth". When I was taking my masters in biology I would often be accosted by the campus crusade for Christ types, and I learned that trying to reason with them is akin to bashing my head into a wall. Creationism is really about denial, with the people on top making huge sums of money pandering to the uneducated and scientifically illiterate.

Rational,

I agree with most of your post but was confused at the end.

On these threads, I see many well educated and scientifically literate people, so did you mean "in general?" Also who is making the huge sums of money you were referencing?

Thanks.

 

People such as Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and others fuel denial of evolution and young earth creationism. They make a fortune in the process selling junk science books, DVDs and lecturing.

Oh, okay thanks. Have a blessed day sister.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

The comment is, you still haven't explained why all these tests just happen to have ratios of daughter and parent nuclei that gives a coherent picture of the world as 4.5 billions years old. Why is it that if you test two different samples thought to be at the same strata, they give you the same range of date? Why is it that if you are able to test a completely different isotope, you get similar age ranges? Why is this true in all the strata we are able to test?

 

Just saying that we can't be sure that a seemingly reasonable supposition about the ratios of daughter and parent nuclei is always going to be true doesn't really throw a monkey wrench into the entire system I outlined above. You have to argue that daughter nuclei are added into some sample, at just the right amounts, in each of the thousands done, *individually* to mask a 10k age from us. It's just not reasonable.

 

To illustrate what I mean maybe I could lay out a mini case of this. Suppose we are testing the age of something with 3 strata layers we think may be from different ages. Suppose we do 9 tests, 3 on each strata layer. Suppose further we have two isotopes, X and Y that we can test the ratio of daughter and parent nuclei of, and which we think we know the decay rates of due to careful testing in the lab. The numbers etc are just to illustrate what I have in mind and shouldn't be taken too literally.

 

Strata one we do 3 tests, 2 with X and 1 with Y. We get an age range of 1 million years, +/- 10,000 yrs.

Strata two we do 3 tests, 2 with Y 1 with X, we get an age range of 10 million years, +/- 100,000 yrs (say there is a greater uncertainty because one sample yielded less isotope to measure or some such).

Strata three we do 3 tests, but all isotope Y as X doesn't have a sufficient half life for this one. We get 1 billion years, +/- 1 million yrs.

 

Now someone comes along and says, look, we can't be sure that there aren't more daughter nuclei present in the initial samples. That would skew the data! Alright. We should account for that with our error bars.

 

But now he says, there are daughter nuclei present in each 9 sample *just exactly so* that it gives us the mistaken impression of these strata layers, each older than the last, but actually skewed *just so* that the thing we are testing is only 10k years old total. Now I have to ask, why would I thing that the daughter nuclei are overrepresented in each 9 sample, just precisely so? It's almost beyond belief.

 

Now extend this to thousands of tests, a dozen isotopes, and things really get bizarre.

 

You're just not getting it. 

 

I've already posted the reasons about 4 times now.  Can't explain it more concisely or clearer.  Maybe someone else can explain it better.

 

You also failed to put this into the "Scientific Method" ?

 

Hmm well. I don't know how to make my point any clearer either. I am taking into account that we assume things about the original populations of daughter and parent nuclei in a sample. That is in fact what  my entire post was about. I don't think that will help any young earth case for the reasons I outlined above.

 

 

Ok so we are @ an impasse.  It's possible we're just mis-communicating.

 

Just two questions for clarification:

 

1.  Does Radiometric Dating pass the test as "Scientific Evidence"?

 

2.  Radiometric Dating is accurate/true due to similarities in the results comparing different strata in relation to different isotopes?

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

The comment is, you still haven't explained why all these tests just happen to have ratios of daughter and parent nuclei that gives a coherent picture of the world as 4.5 billions years old. Why is it that if you test two different samples thought to be at the same strata, they give you the same range of date? Why is it that if you are able to test a completely different isotope, you get similar age ranges? Why is this true in all the strata we are able to test?

 

Just saying that we can't be sure that a seemingly reasonable supposition about the ratios of daughter and parent nuclei is always going to be true doesn't really throw a monkey wrench into the entire system I outlined above. You have to argue that daughter nuclei are added into some sample, at just the right amounts, in each of the thousands done, *individually* to mask a 10k age from us. It's just not reasonable.

 

To illustrate what I mean maybe I could lay out a mini case of this. Suppose we are testing the age of something with 3 strata layers we think may be from different ages. Suppose we do 9 tests, 3 on each strata layer. Suppose further we have two isotopes, X and Y that we can test the ratio of daughter and parent nuclei of, and which we think we know the decay rates of due to careful testing in the lab. The numbers etc are just to illustrate what I have in mind and shouldn't be taken too literally.

 

Strata one we do 3 tests, 2 with X and 1 with Y. We get an age range of 1 million years, +/- 10,000 yrs.

Strata two we do 3 tests, 2 with Y 1 with X, we get an age range of 10 million years, +/- 100,000 yrs (say there is a greater uncertainty because one sample yielded less isotope to measure or some such).

Strata three we do 3 tests, but all isotope Y as X doesn't have a sufficient half life for this one. We get 1 billion years, +/- 1 million yrs.

 

Now someone comes along and says, look, we can't be sure that there aren't more daughter nuclei present in the initial samples. That would skew the data! Alright. We should account for that with our error bars.

 

But now he says, there are daughter nuclei present in each 9 sample *just exactly so* that it gives us the mistaken impression of these strata layers, each older than the last, but actually skewed *just so* that the thing we are testing is only 10k years old total. Now I have to ask, why would I thing that the daughter nuclei are overrepresented in each 9 sample, just precisely so? It's almost beyond belief.

 

Now extend this to thousands of tests, a dozen isotopes, and things really get bizarre.

 

You're just not getting it. 

 

I've already posted the reasons about 4 times now.  Can't explain it more concisely or clearer.  Maybe someone else can explain it better.

 

You also failed to put this into the "Scientific Method" ?

 

Hmm well. I don't know how to make my point any clearer either. I am taking into account that we assume things about the original populations of daughter and parent nuclei in a sample. That is in fact what  my entire post was about. I don't think that will help any young earth case for the reasons I outlined above.

 

 

Ok so we are @ an impasse.  It's possible we're just mis-communicating.

 

Just two questions for clarification:

 

1.  Does Radiometric Dating pass the test as "Scientific Evidence"?

 

2.  Radiometric Dating is accurate/true due to similarities in the results comparing different strata in relation to different isotopes?

 

1. yes

2.I don't understand this question.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

Ok so we are @ an impasse.  It's possible we're just mis-communicating.

 

Just two questions for clarification:

 

1.  Does Radiometric Dating pass the test as "Scientific Evidence"?

 

2.  Radiometric Dating is accurate/true due to similarities in the results comparing different strata in relation to different isotopes?

 

1. yes

2.I don't understand this question.

 

 

1. Yes

 

'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

Put it in the Scientific Method from Step 1 to Step 7

 

 

2.  I don't understand this question.

 

"Why is it that if you test two different samples thought to be at the same strata, they give you the same range of date? Why is it that if you are able to test a completely different isotope, you get similar age ranges? Why is this true in all the strata we are able to test?" 

 

"Suppose we do 9 tests, 3 on each strata layer. Suppose further we have two isotopes, X and Y that we can test the ratio of daughter and parent nuclei of, and which we think we know the decay rates of due to careful testing in the lab. The numbers etc are just to illustrate what I have in mind and shouldn't be taken too literally.

 

Strata one we do 3 tests, 2 with X and 1 with Y. We get an age range of 1 million years, +/- 10,000 yrs.

Strata two we do 3 tests, 2 with Y 1 with X, we get an age range of 10 million years, +/- 100,000 yrs (say there is a greater uncertainty because one sample yielded less isotope to measure or some such).

Strata three we do 3 tests, but all isotope Y as X doesn't have a sufficient half life for this one. We get 1 billion years, +/- 1 million yrs."

 

"Now extend this to thousands of tests, a dozen isotopes, and things really get bizarre."

 

Just a sample.  You just spent the better part of 2 posts clamoring about....."similarities in the results comparing different strata in relation to different isotopes".  Well, whats your point?.... Things are Bizarre?  Hence my question for clarification:

 

Is Radiometric Dating accurate/true due to similarities in the results comparing different strata in relation to different isotopes?

 

Oh, "to mask a 10k age from us" and "skewed *just so* that the thing we are testing is only 10k years old total"

 

I never said that or implied it.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

Ok so we are @ an impasse.  It's possible we're just mis-communicating.

 

Just two questions for clarification:

 

1.  Does Radiometric Dating pass the test as "Scientific Evidence"?

 

2.  Radiometric Dating is accurate/true due to similarities in the results comparing different strata in relation to different isotopes?

 

1. yes

2.I don't understand this question.

 

 

1. Yes

 

'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

Put it in the Scientific Method from Step 1 to Step 7

 

 

2.  I don't understand this question.

 

"Why is it that if you test two different samples thought to be at the same strata, they give you the same range of date? Why is it that if you are able to test a completely different isotope, you get similar age ranges? Why is this true in all the strata we are able to test?" 

 

"Suppose we do 9 tests, 3 on each strata layer. Suppose further we have two isotopes, X and Y that we can test the ratio of daughter and parent nuclei of, and which we think we know the decay rates of due to careful testing in the lab. The numbers etc are just to illustrate what I have in mind and shouldn't be taken too literally.

 

Strata one we do 3 tests, 2 with X and 1 with Y. We get an age range of 1 million years, +/- 10,000 yrs.

Strata two we do 3 tests, 2 with Y 1 with X, we get an age range of 10 million years, +/- 100,000 yrs (say there is a greater uncertainty because one sample yielded less isotope to measure or some such).

Strata three we do 3 tests, but all isotope Y as X doesn't have a sufficient half life for this one. We get 1 billion years, +/- 1 million yrs."

 

"Now extend this to thousands of tests, a dozen isotopes, and things really get bizarre."

 

Just a sample.  You just spent the better part of 2 posts clamoring about....."similarities in the results comparing different strata in relation to different isotopes".  Well, whats your point?.... Things are Bizarre?  Hence my question for clarification:

 

Is Radiometric Dating accurate/true due to similarities in the results comparing different strata in relation to different isotopes?

 

Oh, "to mask a 10k age from us" and "skewed *just so* that the thing we are testing is only 10k years old total"

 

I never said that or implied it.

 

1. radiometric dating is used by scientists in the pursuit of scientific goals and inferences. This really isn't an interesting debate for me here.

 

2. I'm not really sure what you mean by 'accurate' or 'true' i suppose is my problem. That you have different tests yielding similar answers increases our confidence in a  certain age range.