Proof of Noah's flood.

[Jzyehoshua]

Radiometric dating is actually just one in a long series of attempts to date the Earth by scientists, and the others all fell apart because scientists incorrectly assumed constant processes at work unchanged by external forces, and assumed that all effects on the processes in question were known (which they weren't).

 

Actually this is excellently seen from a book by one of Evolution's top defenders, G. Brent Dalrymple, who perhaps unintentionally sabotages his own argument for evolution by recapping the past attempts to date the Earth which failed.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=a7S3zaLBrkgC&pg=PA12

[Jzyehoshua]

 

Here's an Encyclopaedia Britannica source addressing how carbon-14 ages can be altered.

 

 

 

"With correction for radioactive decay during the intervening years, such old samples hopefully would show the same starting carbon-14 level as exists today... It is now clear that carbon-14 is not homogeneously distributed among today’s plants and animals. The occasional exceptions all involve nonatmospheric contributions of carbon-14-depleted carbon dioxide to organic synthesis. Specifically, volcanic carbon dioxide is known to depress the carbon-14 level of nearby vegetation, and dissolved limestone carbonate occasionally has a similar effect on freshwater mollusks, as does upwelling of deep ocean water on marine mollusks. In every case, the living material affected gives the appearance of built-in age. In addition to spatial variations of the carbon-14 level, the question of temporal variation has received much study. A 2 to 3 percent depression of the atmospheric radioactive-carbon level since 1900 was noted soon after Libby’s pioneering work, almost certainly the result of the dumping of huge volumes of carbon-14-free carbon dioxide into the air through smokestacks. Of more recent date was the overcompensating effect of man-made carbon-14 injected into the atmosphere during nuclear bomb testing. The result was a rise in the atmospheric carbon-14 level by more than 50 percent. Fortunately, neither effect has been significant in the case of older samples submitted for carbon-14 dating. The ultimate cause of carbon-14 variations with time is generally attributed to temporal fluctuations in the cosmic rays that bombard the upper atmosphere and create terrestrial carbon-14."

 

-Edwin A. Olson, Encyclopædia Britannica

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/152243/dating/69778/Carbon-14-dating-and-other-cosmogenic-methods

 

Yes, this magnetic field effect is exacerbated when applied to carbon dating, because under strong magnetic fields there is the reduction of atmospheric carbon production, (less carbon meaning dates are over-estimated) and there is the additional effect of rapid decay of the carbon from the samples (less carbon meaning dates are over-estimated when based on current decay rates)

What you quoted from the encyclopedia is well understood. Carbon dating is only good for dating organic samples less than 60k years old. Potassium argon is able to go way beyond that. So I can understand acknowledging slight variances with the dates given, but trying to sell a 6000 year old earth is to me, not reasonable.

 

[Bonky]

So true. Yes often recently formed rocks can show enough daughter element to be dated to millions of years old.  Some scientists have argued that the methods only apply to older rocks, but that is laughable circular reasoning because do they expect the daughter element to somehow correct itself over time? Seep out the rock?   Their logic is sometimes lacking.   These rocks start off already over -dated by millions of years and the rock does not have the ability to correct its own daughter element quantities.  (as silly as that sounds, what are these guys thinking?)

That's why you can take samples from the region and "calibrate" or make sure you're not taking a sample that has been disturbed by outside influences. You seem to suggest that the scientists in the field aren't aware of these issues that you bring up. Those stupid stupid scientists!

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/Petrology/RadDating0.HTM

[Bonky]

That is the TalkOrigins claim, that carbon dating doesn't work on young samples. However, as was just pointed out, isn't that a form of circular reasoning? If the Bible were correct about these ages, and EVERYTHING was young, then carbon dating would be providing wrong ages anyway.

My prediction would be, if the planet and everything on it truly is young...then we'd find more than one radio metric method that would show this. I mean every single atomic clock that is measured is way off due to external influences? That's sound like an excuse to me.

Edited July 30, 2014 by Bonky

[ARGOSY]

What you quoted from the encyclopedia is well understood. Carbon dating is only good for dating organic samples less than 60k years old. Potassium argon is able to go way beyond that. So I can understand acknowledging slight variances with the dates given, but trying to sell a 6000 year old earth is to me, not reasonable.

 

 

I understand why you would think that way on an intuitive level , but its normally the unstable heavy isotopes that are used to establish the older dates. These have a very slow decay rate, compared to the quantity of atoms in any given sample. For example under current conditions the decay rate into the daughter element can reach near equilibrium through minor background radiation. ie it decays as slowly as it is re-energised into instability by the background radiation, showing virtually zero decay over time. As soon as the background radiation is removed, it can decay rapidly into the stable daughter element.

 

To describe it another way, imagine 100 million marbles in a jar. There's a hole in the  jar and it loses a million marbles a year. It would take a 100 years to deplete (into the daughter element). Now imagine every year 999 999 marbles are replaced, it would now take 100 million years to deplete, because its only losing 1 marble a year.  So by slowly replacing electrons at the same slow pace the parent is losing them, the natural decay rate is vastly reduced. Remove the background radiation that is causing this near equilibrium and suddenly the parent isotope reverts to its more natural  rapid decay.

[ARGOSY]

 

So true. Yes often recently formed rocks can show enough daughter element to be dated to millions of years old.  Some scientists have argued that the methods only apply to older rocks, but that is laughable circular reasoning because do they expect the daughter element to somehow correct itself over time? Seep out the rock?   Their logic is sometimes lacking.   These rocks start off already over -dated by millions of years and the rock does not have the ability to correct its own daughter element quantities.  (as silly as that sounds, what are these guys thinking?)

That's why you can take samples from the region and "calibrate" or make sure you're not taking a sample that has been disturbed by outside influences. You seem to suggest that the scientists in the field aren't aware of these issues that you bring up. Those stupid stupid scientists!

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/Petrology/RadDating0.HTM

 

 

Exactly!  Lol let me have my fun.

 

Yes they try to get it right, but there are too many variables to be confident of the methodology. But the basic premise of constancy when there have been known fluctuations in the strength of the magnetic field is where I feel the main flaw lies.

[Jzyehoshua]

 

That is the TalkOrigins claim, that carbon dating doesn't work on young samples. However, as was just pointed out, isn't that a form of circular reasoning? If the Bible were correct about these ages, and EVERYTHING was young, then carbon dating would be providing wrong ages anyway.

My prediction would be, if the planet and everything on it truly is young...then we'd find more than one radio metric method that would show this. I mean every single atomic clock that is measured is way off due to external influences? That's sound like an excuse to me.

 

Well there are methods that show a young earth, human population growth and microevolutionary rates for example. The rates at which population grows and organisms adapt is too fast for the long timescales of evolution. Radiometric dating as a method itself has serious flaws, so arguing that it is reliable at all is debatable.

[Jzyehoshua]

Of course when population growth, microevolutionary rates, the expansion rate of the universe, or other variables are consistent with a young creation rather than millions and billions of years, you will frequently hear it claimed by science that those rates are just "speeding up" or "accelerating" for some unknown reason.

 

https://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=science+rate+speeding+up&oq=science+rate+speeding+up

[ARGOSY]

 

That is the TalkOrigins claim, that carbon dating doesn't work on young samples. However, as was just pointed out, isn't that a form of circular reasoning? If the Bible were correct about these ages, and EVERYTHING was young, then carbon dating would be providing wrong ages anyway.

My prediction would be, if the planet and everything on it truly is young...then we'd find more than one radio metric method that would show this. I mean every single atomic clock that is measured is way off due to external influences? That's sound like an excuse to me.

 

 

I hear you, the discrepancies do show the flaws in the methodology, and yet I do admit there is sometimes a definite correlation of measured dates which is beyond statistical chance.  This is why my focus is on the consistently flawed rates of decay which rely on the assumption of the constancy of currently measured decay rates.

[ARGOSY]

Of course when population growth, microevolutionary rates, the expansion rate of the universe, or other variables are consistent with a young creation rather than millions and billions of years, you will frequently hear it claimed by science that those rates are just "speeding up" or "accelerating" for some unknown reason.

 

https://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=science+rate+speeding+up&oq=science+rate+speeding+up

 

Exactly, including rates of sedimentation, ocean salinity, accumulated mutations, size of coral reefs etc etc.