Radiometric Dating

[Spock]

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.

Thanks again for answering quickly and succinctly..

So, I guess this means because there is no science observation, test, study that can convince you rocks are over 10,000 years old, you rely on what you think you know-your interpretation of scripture. Is this an accurate assessment of your thinking.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

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.

Thanks again for answering quickly and succinctly..

So, I guess this means because there is no science observation, test, study that can convince you rocks are over 10,000 years old, you rely on what you think you know-your interpretation of scripture. Is this an accurate assessment of your thinking.

 

 

Yes

[a-seeker]

I have read this kind of question before, and I believe it is asking a good question in the wrong way.

 

OFten a topic like this breaks down into two competitions:  we have one battle composed of a) those who maintain that the Hebrew word for "day" can mean only a 24 hour period; vs. those who believe the word can denote a much larger span of time.  Then again we have a) those who  think that study of the earth suggests a young earth, and those who think it suggests an old one.

 

 

I think both parties are guilty of concealing the real problem.

 

No one here is debating the nature of strep throat, or gynecology, or nutrition.  NO one is debating this because no literal reading of Scripture goes against modern theories on strep, or birthing, or vitamins. 

 

The real issue should be broken down into two different questions: a) is the creation, as it actually is, compatible with the meaning of Scripture, as actually intended by its authors (and Author)? and b) should the exegesis of Scripture ever acknowledge the help of the exegesis of creation: that is, should it ever say, tell me what you (science) know, and then, with that knowledge, I will attempt to understand scripture"?

 

All talk of carbon dating, and Hebrew linguistics, and evolution, is (in my opinion) hot air. It is a deception; probably even a self-deception.  No one is really debating those topics (though they may think they are, and therein lies the deception). But they are not the real issue. REally, we are debating various definitions of "the authority of Scripture".  We are debating (or rather fearing) whether any scientific development can threaten the importance and relevance of Scripture.  The question for most is "if we keep adjusting the interpretation of Scripture to the claims of science, will we some day lose all the central tenets of our faith"?

 

I think not. I think the fear is a chimera.  I at least can hypothesize no scientific development that could truly contradict the essential truths of Creation, fall, Redemption, Heaven.  The only possible refutation of my faith would be proof that Jesus of Nazareth was not raised:  and could any scientist possibly prove that??!!  It would require a blood sample from the "actual Jesus" of the 1st century, and then a comparison of that blood sample with the DNA extracted from a corpse.....which is of course impossible, no one put a needle to Our Lord.

 

 

From this perspective I can entertain (not embrace, for science is often shifting its claims) almost any scientific claim without any fear to my faith.  In fact, there have been some scientific claims which led me to abandon one particular interpretation, and opened the door to something far more powerful, far more likely, far more significantly.....

 

clb

Edited January 21, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown

[ARGOSY]

 

 

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?

 

 

It seems that you feel lookingforanswers has rebutted my opening post?   Not at all, he just pointed out that the magnetic field has always fluctuated, which was exactly what I am saying as well. My point is that decay rates have not been measured during periods of strong magnetic fields and decay was most likely a lot faster then, because of the radiation/decay relationship. The fact that the field always fluctuates mainly above current levels suits my argument.

 

I already proposed the phenomenon, I was pretty clear in my reasoning. Slight changes in solar radiation (solar flares) cause slight changes in decay rates (3%?).  Its highly probable that a 50% increase in the magnetic field virtually eliminates solar/cosmic radiation and would dramatically affect decay rates. This would also effect the assumption of the half-life exponential formula, and so will have an exponential effect as well.  The current effect is negligible, the projected effect could be dramatic, without further study and actual figures we will never know. Thus radiometric dating is based on the assumption that the effects will always be negligible, which is illogical if we consider the historical strength of the magnetic field.

[ARGOSY]

 

From this perspective I can entertain (not embrace, for science is often shifting its claims) almost any scientific claim without any fear to my faith.  In fact, there have been some scientific claims which led me to abandon one particular interpretation, and opened the door to something far more powerful, far more likely, far more significantly.....

 

clb

 

I use it as a form of evangelism. If Darwinism assisted the atheistic trend, its possible that creationism arguments assist evangelism, and I believe it is a successful form of outreach. You are right that science often shifts its claims yet God's word is eternal.

[ARGOSY]

 

 

 

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.htmlhttp://news.stanford...sun-082310.htmlDecay drops in Julyhttp://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 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.

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.

 

 

The multiple different isotopes are all affected in the same way. If you look at all four links in the opening post you will see that they used a number of different isotopes, and all had the same effect. Radioactive elements/isotopes that decay through alpha decay and beta decay are affected.  They all do converge, however the assumption of constancy in decay has now been disproven, and the effect is the same across all isotopes. Yes the effect is negligible, but the cause is negligible too. Its a logical projection that the cause will exacerbated under strong magnetic field conditions.

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

From this perspective I can entertain (not embrace, for science is often shifting its claims) almost any scientific claim without any fear to my faith.  In fact, there have been some scientific claims which led me to abandon one particular interpretation, and opened the door to something far more powerful, far more likely, far more significantly.....

 

clb

 

I use it as a form of evangelism. If Darwinism assisted the atheistic trend, its possible that creationism arguments assist evangelism, and I believe it is a successful form of outreach. You are right that science often shifts its claims yet God's word is eternal.

 

 

I have to be honest and say I think it has the absolute opposite effect, it drives people from God and the bible.  In the last few days there have been a number of people that have spoken on how this science vs. faith debate delayed their conversion instead of helping it.  Science is always "shifting its claims", that is the very nature of science.  And yes, God's word is eternal but mankind's interpretation of it is also constantly shifting.

[ARGOSY]

 

 

 

From this perspective I can entertain (not embrace, for science is often shifting its claims) almost any scientific claim without any fear to my faith.  In fact, there have been some scientific claims which led me to abandon one particular interpretation, and opened the door to something far more powerful, far more likely, far more significantly.....

 

clb

 

I use it as a form of evangelism. If Darwinism assisted the atheistic trend, its possible that creationism arguments assist evangelism, and I believe it is a successful form of outreach. You are right that science often shifts its claims yet God's word is eternal.

 

 

I have to be honest and say I think it has the absolute opposite effect, it drives people from God and the bible.  In the last few days there have been a number of people that have spoken on how this science vs. faith debate delayed their conversion instead of helping it.  Science is always "shifting its claims", that is the very nature of science.  And yes, God's word is eternal but mankind's interpretation of it is also constantly shifting.

 

Thanks for that, I'll ponder over this.

[Guest shiloh357]

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. 

[Enoch2021]

 

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.

 

 

"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"

 

It seems Inconceivable to you??  Did you read #16 in this thread?  Here, I'll post the MAIN POINT again.....

 

 

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 e^kt, 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 e^kt, 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?

 

The Coup De Gras.....

 

"....parent abundance, but that information is not needed to date the rock."  and then...... "All of the dating schemes work from knowing the present abundances of the parent and daughter isotopes." 

 

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 or Equation 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

 

 

The Whole Foundation of Radiometric Dating is predicated/based on:  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.

 

If you don't know that Ratio {and there's NO WAY anyone can} then the whole edifice COLLAPSES!!  Everything downstream is an Extrapolation From an Assumption.

 

 

Now we can sit here and discuss: Magnetic Fields (which is quite interesting), Decay Rates, Isochrons, different techniques, Thousands of Tests, What my Aunt Jenny says....but @ the end of the day, there's a Woolly Mammoth in the Room and he's not going anywhere.

 

It's tantamount to describing how the Deck Looks: chairs are neatly arranged, floor boards are clean and intact, the rail is sound and symmetrical, it's a calm day....all the while "The Radiometric Dating Ship's" Keel is Torn from Bow to Stern and in 5 minutes will be on the bottom of the North Atlantic!!!!!!!!!!

 

Did you ever consider this:  ABANDON SHIP!!!!!!!