teddyv Posted October 3, 2022 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 4,265 Content Per Day: 2.89 Reputation: 2,302 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/03/2020 Status: Offline Share Posted October 3, 2022 1 minute ago, JohnR7 said: Before people get carried away with this nonsense. Chapter 2 in Genesis began 6,000 years ago. All of Bishop Usshers book talks about the last 6,000 years. Only the first chapter, the first 32 verses in Genesis can be considered OEC. Even then, there are many hundreds of thousands of science books that talk about the first 32 verses in the Bible. There is a lot of science, condensed down into a tiny space. I highly recommend the good Bishops book, written 500 years ago. He had a lot of reference material he used that is no longer available to us outside his book. Not sure what you are getting at. Are you critiquing AiG, ICR et al about their ideas around plate tectonics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmuffet Posted October 3, 2022 Group: Royal Member Followers: 34 Topic Count: 1,994 Topics Per Day: 0.48 Content Count: 48,692 Content Per Day: 11.75 Reputation: 30,343 Days Won: 226 Joined: 01/11/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted October 3, 2022 14 minutes ago, JohnR7 said: I thought it was against the law to date relatives. Maybe not in the South 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnR7 Posted October 3, 2022 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 49 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,907 Content Per Day: 1.28 Reputation: 614 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/03/2018 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/06/1952 Share Posted October 3, 2022 5 hours ago, teddyv said: I disagree with their global flood conclusion. The global flood was 200 million years ago when Pangaea was destroyed. While Noah's flood was literal, it also is an archetype of other floods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tristen Posted October 9, 2022 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 9 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,380 Content Per Day: 0.63 Reputation: 1,361 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/26/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 9, 2022 Response to OP: All supposed 'dating' methods that purport to give 'ages' beyond observed history, rely fundamentally on unverifiable assumptions. They are therefore unreliable as a matter of logic. That means, if any of the requisite assumptions happens to be false (which can neither be verified nor falsified), then the whole method (and generated 'date') is rendered logically meaningless against reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparks Posted October 9, 2022 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 23 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 6,160 Content Per Day: 2.03 Reputation: 2,514 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/20/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted October 9, 2022 To the OP: Tristen is correct. All dating methods require very precise instruments (usually spectrometers), rely on the predictable radioactive half-life of various elements for comparison, but cannot be calibrated to anything except assumptions. It's like finding a wristwatch in a dark cave, winding it, and discovering it ticks, but then having no other time pieces to reference to set the correct date and time on it. The watch is as precision as always, but you can only set it to a guess, or an assumption. That's the exact problem with these highly accurate instruments; there is no way to calibrate them to anything relating to time. If you had a time machine, and went back to the beginning of time, you could calibrate your instruments correctly using some isotope-value-to-year-reading to date things correctly, today. But taking a reading of something today, and trying to project that it once had a certain reading based on a preconceived notion, is an assumption. Trying to get a reading from a meteorite, because it is presumed to be older than the earth, is an assumption. You get the picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparks Posted October 9, 2022 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 23 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 6,160 Content Per Day: 2.03 Reputation: 2,514 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/20/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted October 9, 2022 On 10/3/2022 at 6:41 PM, JohnR7 said: The global flood was 200 million years ago when Pangaea was destroyed. While Noah's flood was literal, it also is an archetype of other floods. Pangaea is a theory. There is no evidence of it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teddyv Posted October 9, 2022 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 4,265 Content Per Day: 2.89 Reputation: 2,302 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/03/2020 Status: Offline Share Posted October 9, 2022 13 hours ago, Tristen said: Response to OP: All supposed 'dating' methods that purport to give 'ages' beyond observed history, rely fundamentally on unverifiable assumptions. They are therefore unreliable as a matter of logic. That means, if any of the requisite assumptions happens to be false (which can neither be verified nor falsified), then the whole method (and generated 'date') is rendered logically meaningless against reality. What are these "fundamentally unverifiable assumptions"? Let's be specific: in the U-Pb method, what are the assumptions here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparks Posted October 9, 2022 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 23 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 6,160 Content Per Day: 2.03 Reputation: 2,514 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/20/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted October 9, 2022 4 minutes ago, teddyv said: Let's be specific: in the U-Pb method, what are the assumptions here? I am happy to let Trisen answer, but I have already explained this in the post after Tristen's. Calibration is a problem for all dating methods. If you want to see an assumption in action, AiG wrote it this way: One of the (many) assumptions in radiometric dating, and specifically for U-Pb dating, is that most of the three lead (Pb) isotopes we see on earth (206Pb, 207Pb and 208Pb)—which today are produced by radiometric decay of Uranium (U), Thorium (Th), Actinium (Ac) and several other elements with radioactive isotopes—were derived in the past only from radiometric decay of these elements. This is a completely arbitrary and unprovable assumption presupposing a naturalistic evolutionary history for the universe. However, in the biblical creation worldview, God would have created all the isotopes of Pb, including both non-radiogenic Pb isotopes and the Pb isotopes, which today result from radioactive decay of U, Th, Ac, and other elements. 204Pb is the main non-radiogenic isotope of lead and is often referred to as common or initial Pb, but common or initial lead can also contain all the other stable isotopes of Pb, including 206Pb, 207Pb, and 208Pb. Uranium-Lead (U-Pb) Radioisotope Dating Method Problems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David1701 Posted October 9, 2022 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 15 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,731 Content Per Day: 3.51 Reputation: 3,524 Days Won: 12 Joined: 11/27/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted October 9, 2022 On 10/3/2022 at 4:31 PM, believeinHim said: Again, in English ? I'm not a geologist, but I'll put his explanation into simpler English. If you have rock layers and another layer intrudes (i.e. partially sticks into) into one or more of those layers, then the layer that is sticking into the others must be younger, for it to have something to stick into. An analogy would be sticking a chocolate flake into an ice-cream cone. The ice cream cone must be present first, in order for there to be something for the chocolate flake to stick into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted October 10, 2022 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,088 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 974 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted October 10, 2022 (edited) 12 hours ago, Sparks said: All dating methods require very precise instruments (usually spectrometers), rely on the predictable radioactive half-life of various elements for comparison, but cannot be calibrated to anything except assumptions. That's a common misconception, but it's false. Argon/Argon methods, for example, have been calibrated by the volcanic flows that buried Pompeii. Turns out it works remarkably well, even for such a recent date. Since the weak force (that determines radioactive breakdown) is one of the universal constants, we can be extremely confident of the results, so long as sampling is correct. And there are entire books written on the issues one has to be sure that it is correct. The important thing is that if radioactive decay had been significantly different thousands of years ago, the increase in ionizing radiation would have killed off live on Earth. Edited October 10, 2022 by The Barbarian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts