Radiometric Dating

[alphaparticle]

So, we are mistaken about the number of daughter particles, in each sample for each isotope, in the *exact amount* to cause us to converge on a coherent picture that just happens to date the earth to billions of years old? That doesn't really answer my challenge. There are thousands of these tests done now, using multiple different radioactive isotopes. What you suggest is that there is a massive coincidence. Maybe God put just the right amount of daughter nuclei in with every parent so that it would look like some strata is 60 million years old, and that it will look like that for every test you do on a sample in that strata, but really it's only 10k after all? And then that is true for all the various strata that are tested. Hopefully you'll see why I don't take such a suggestion as feasible.

[Enoch2021]

 

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.

 

 

Furthermore:

 

"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..."

 

They don't ALL happen to converge.  The Literature is ripe with examples of conflicting data.  There are also examples of dates of Millions of Years assigned to KNOWN ages of rocks that were only decades of years old.

 

Question:  If the method fails when we know the ages of rocks then how in the world do you expect accurate results when we don't know the ages??      (Yes, I am aware of the issues with K-Ar and young rocks and false positives.... which opens up another can of worms)

 

Notwithstanding, you are correct in many instances they do converge....what could be causing that?? 

 

Well, how about they are ALL based on the same Faulty Assumption!  That's what you would expect if the decay rates are known and are accurate because they are all testing against the same benchmark.... But the Benchmark is the ASSUMPTION.  So...of course, they should all come back in the same neighborhood.

 

 

Moreover, they claim that this is "Scientific".  Say it ain't so?  To be a Scientific Claim, as opposed to a Claim that Scientists make, they would need to show "Scientific Evidence", correct?  Well....

 

'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

 

Please show me,  Here it is.....

 

Step 1:  OBSERVATION....not an ASSUMPTION.

Step 2: Do Literature Review/Background research

Step 3: Construct Hypothesis (Tentative Assumption/Question/Statement)

Step 4: TEST/Experiment

Step 5: Analyze DATA/Results

Step 6:  Draw Conclusions.....  Valid Hypothesis or Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7:  Report Results

If invalidated....Back to the drawing board or STEP 3

 

I predict it can't get by Step 1.  You have to Directly OBSERVE the Phenomenon.  What are they Observing......a Rock.

 

So actually it's not a Scientific Claim or Evidence....it's a "Claim" that Scientists make.  Very subtle but MASSIVE difference!

[alphaparticle]

 

 

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.

 

 

Furthermore:

 

"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..."

 

They don't ALL happen to converge.  The Literature is ripe with examples of conflicting data.  There are also examples of dates of Millions of Years assigned to KNOWN ages of rocks that were only decades of years old.

 

Question:  If the method fails when we know the ages of rocks then how in the world do you expect accurate results when we don't know the ages??      (Yes, I am aware of the issues with K-Ar and young rocks and false positives.... which opens up another can of worms)

 

Notwithstanding, you are correct in many instances they do converge....what could be causing that?? 

 

Well, how about they are ALL based on the same Faulty Assumption!  That's what you would expect if the decay rates are known and are accurate because they are all testing against the same benchmark.... But the Benchmark is the ASSUMPTION.  So...of course, they should all come back in the same neighborhood.

 

 

Moreover, they claim that this is "Scientific".  Say it ain't so?  To be a Scientific Claim, as opposed to a Claim that Scientists make, they would need to show "Scientific Evidence", correct?  Well....

 

'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

 

Please show me,  Here it is.....

 

Step 1:  OBSERVATION....not an ASSUMPTION.

Step 2: Do Literature Review/Background research

Step 3: Construct Hypothesis (Tentative Assumption/Question/Statement)

Step 4: TEST/Experiment

Step 5: Analyze DATA/Results

Step 6:  Draw Conclusions.....  Valid Hypothesis or Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7:  Report Results

If invalidated....Back to the drawing board or STEP 3

 

I predict it can't get by Step 1.  You have to Directly OBSERVE the Phenomenon.  What are they Observing......a Rock.

 

So actually it's not a Scientific Claim or Evidence....it's a "Claim" that Scientists make.  Very subtle but MASSIVE difference!

 

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.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Furthermore:

 

"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..."

 

They don't ALL happen to converge.  The Literature is ripe with examples of conflicting data.  There are also examples of dates of Millions of Years assigned to KNOWN ages of rocks that were only decades of years old.

 

Question:  If the method fails when we know the ages of rocks then how in the world do you expect accurate results when we don't know the ages??      (Yes, I am aware of the issues with K-Ar and young rocks and false positives.... which opens up another can of worms)

 

Notwithstanding, you are correct in many instances they do converge....what could be causing that?? 

 

Well, how about they are ALL based on the same Faulty Assumption!  That's what you would expect if the decay rates are known and are accurate because they are all testing against the same benchmark.... But the Benchmark is the ASSUMPTION.  So...of course, they should all come back in the same neighborhood.

 

 

Moreover, they claim that this is "Scientific".  Say it ain't so?  To be a Scientific Claim, as opposed to a Claim that Scientists make, they would need to show "Scientific Evidence", correct?  Well....

 

'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

 

Please show me,  Here it is.....

 

Step 1:  OBSERVATION....not an ASSUMPTION.

Step 2: Do Literature Review/Background research

Step 3: Construct Hypothesis (Tentative Assumption/Question/Statement)

Step 4: TEST/Experiment

Step 5: Analyze DATA/Results

Step 6:  Draw Conclusions.....  Valid Hypothesis or Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7:  Report Results

If invalidated....Back to the drawing board or STEP 3

 

I predict it can't get by Step 1.  You have to Directly OBSERVE the Phenomenon.  What are they Observing......a Rock.

 

So actually it's not a Scientific Claim or Evidence....it's a "Claim" that Scientists make.  Very subtle but MASSIVE difference!

 

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.

 

 

"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."

 

It's alot more than just 1 test. More importantly, it's not the crux of my argument, SEE: Below

 

 

"The mass of the data presents an incredibly coherent picture"

 

I've already explained very concisely why....

 

They are ALL based on the same Faulty Assumption!  That's what you would expect if the decay rates are known and are accurate because they are all testing against the same benchmark.... But the Benchmark is the ASSUMPTION.  So...of course, they should all come back in the same neighborhood.

 

You are not dealing with the Wooly Mammoth's in the Room, well 2 Technically ....

 

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.

 

Any comment?

 

 

"Are you still denying that astronomy is a proper science?"

 

You can answer that yourself....Does it follow the "Scientific Method" ??

 

 

"If so, I think you have a rotten definition of science."

 

It's not what I THINK, it's what it IS. I base my conclusion on the Textbook Definition;  "Scientific Evidence" >>>> "Scientific Method"....

 

'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

[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.

[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" ?

[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.

[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.

Edited January 21, 2014 by MrsRational

[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.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 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.