Some will argue that they are wrong from the start, because they initially start with a 6k age for the earth because that is what the Bible implies.
That isn't completely correct. We argue that the ONLY reason they conclude that the earth is young is because they get it from the Bible. When they come across evidence indicating a much older earth the evidence is either ignored or explained away with unevidenced, ad hoc mechanisms (e.g. accelerated nuclear decay).
- One that is consistent with the given age. For example, the accumulation of salt in the ocean gives a maximum age consistent with a young earth.
That would only be true if the accumulation is constant. It isn't. Accumulation and dilution vary quite a bit from season to season as water at the poles freezes and thaws. Also, erosion is not constant so the input of salt is not constant either. There are also ways of removing salt from the oceans, such as the great salt deposits that are seen in the geologic record.
There is no physical law that requires salt accumulation to be constant unlike the decay of isotopes or the speed of light.
For example, the helium diffusion in zircon crystals experiment done by Humphreys and Baumgardner falls into this category.
Like salt in the oceans, helium freely moves into and out of zircons. This is dependent on temperature and pressure. Also, the variables that they used to calculate the age of the zircons by helium difussion were in error.
quote:Throughout Humphreys (2005), Dr. Humphreys stresses that his YEC conclusions must be correct because his Figure 2 shows a supposedly strong correlation between his "creation model" and vacuum helium diffusion measurements from Humphreys (2003a, 2004). However, Dr. Humphreys' diagram has little scientific merit. First of all, his helium diffusion experiments were performed under a vacuum rather than at realistic pressures that model the subsurface conditions at Fenton Hill (about 200 to 1,200 bars; Winkler, 1979, p. 5). McDougall and Harrison (1999), Dalrymple and Lanphere (1969) and many other researchers have already shown that the diffusion of noble gases in silicate minerals may decrease by at least 3-6 orders of magnitude at a given temperature if the studies are performed under pressure rather than in a vacuum. Secondly, because substantial extraneous helium currently exists in the subsurface of the Valles Caldera, which is only a few kilometers away from the Fenton Hill site, Dr. Humphreys needs to analyze his zircons for 3He, and quartz and other low-uranium minerals in the Fenton Hill cores for extraneous 4He. Thirdly, chemical data in Gentry et al. (1982b) and Zartman (1979) indicate that Humphreys et al. and Gentry et al. (1982a) may have significantly underestimated the amount of uranium in the Fenton Hill zircons, which could reduce many of their Q/Q0 values by at least an order of magnitude and substantially increase Humphreys et al.'s "creation dates." Dr. Humphreys needs to perform spot analyses for 3He, 4He, lead, and uranium on numerous zircons from all of his and R. Gentry's samples so that realistic Q/Q0 values may be obtained.
The "dating" equations in Humphreys et al. (2003a) are based on many false assumptions (isotropic diffusion, constant temperatures over time, etc.) and the vast majority of Humphreys et al.'s critical a, b, and Q/Q0 values that are used in these "dating" equations are either missing, poorly defined, improperly measured or inaccurate. Using the best available chemical data on the Fenton Hill zircons from Gentry et al. (1982b) and Zartman (1979), the equations in Humphreys et al. (2003a) provide ridiculous "dates" that range from hundreds to millions of "years" old (average: 60,000 ± 400,000 "years" old [one significant digit and two standard deviations] and not 6,000 ± 2,000 years as claim by Humphreys et al., 2004). Contrary to Humphreys (2005), his mistakes are not petty or peripheral, but completely discredit the reliability of his work. http://www.trueorigin.org/henke_helium_archive2.asp
If you and Taq want to discuss the salt in oceans issue, we'll do it in the appropriate thread. you just have to dig it up, and write over there your concerns.
All you need to do here is provide a reason why oceanic salt concentrations are a reliable method for dating the age of the oceans. This would need to include the reasons as to why accumulation would be constant over any and all conditions that the Earth has experienced during it's lifetime.
That's because it gives a maximum age.
Perhaps you mean a minimum age? If we date a rock to 1 million years before present (assuming for the moment that the method is accurate) then the minimum age of the Earth would be 1 million years old since the Earth could have existed prior to the cooling of the rock from molten form.
I'll do an overview post on the helium diffusion research, then I'll adress critics. I have read in length Henke's paper about a year ago, and through all the smoke of the mudslinging he does, only a handful of issues are of any importance to the data and it's implications.
One of the biggest implications of accelerated decay is the heat produced. You need to deal with that as well. Proposing a model that would melt the Earth should raise some eyebrows.
You have an input, output and the total amount of something. This is the basic requirement for any dating method whatsoever.
You forgot the constancy of these inputs and outputs. That is required as well. What good is a clock if it runs backwards and forwards at random times?
Guess what happens when seawater freezes? The salt concentration goes up. Guess what happens when polar ice thaws? Salt concentrations go down. Guess what happens when erosion increases on land? Salt concentrations go up.
Salt concentrations in the oceans are not a reflection of time. They are a reflection of erosion and temperature.
The salt in oceans is a maximum, because of the assumption that you start with an ocean with zero sodium in it.
When water freezes at the poles it takes water out of the oceans but leaves the salt in the ocean. The opposite happens when the polar ice melts. This is a HUGE problem for you model. Also, the amount of salt entering the oceans will change as erosion changes on land. There are simply too many variables affecting salt concentrations in the oceans for it to be a valid measure of time.
sand dunes are explained to be underwater sand dunes.
I would like to hear this explanation as well. How does water produce sand dunes with faces 40 degrees to horizontal? How do you explain the frosting of the quartz in the dunes that is only now seen in windblown sand dunes? How do you explain the well preserved air breathing animal tracks?
Creationist models have always had a gliciation period following the flood.
What dating methods did they use to determine the extent and timing of these glaciation periods? Or are they simply asserted to have happened without any evidence whatsoever?
A rate which can vary with changing conditions.
Can you please describe the conditions under which hundreds of feet of coccoliths can be formed in a single year? How does a flood produce enough little coccolithophorids to stack up hundreds of feet in a single year. Not only that, but how did these supposed raging flood waters calm themselves for the extent of time needed for these tiny little creatures to settle out with hardly any contamination from large conglomerate flood deposits?
Why does Chalk look like the product of milions of years of deposition of coccoliths, if not for the fact that you already believe it needs millions of years to form in the first place.
You should be asking why it looks like the product of millions of years of deposition. Perhaps there are valid reasons for coming to this conclusion.
Sand waves are formed during large storms or amplified tides, for example, and unless your experiment reproduces these conditions, how can you claim it is representative of anything ?
Do you find tracks from air breathing animals in these sand waves? Are the quartz particles in these sand waves frosted like they are in modern wind blown sand dunes? What is the sediment makeup of these sand waves compared to sand dunes, and how does each compare to the Cocconino sandstones?
More in general, what type of geologic formation would NOT be consistent with this supposed recent global flood? Can you describe any geologic formation that would inconsistent with flooding?
Make a new thread about it, or find an existing one so we can discuss it over there. This is all off-topic here.
I did have one post with on-topic comments.
You claim that post flood glaciation is part of the creationist model. So how do creationists date the extent and age of these glaciation events, or are they just asserted to have existed without any evidence as to the extent and age?
The flood waters would have been relatively warm globally post flood, the poles eventually freezing subquently to the receeding of the flood waters but not to the extent of implementing a glacial period perse.
Going back to my previous question, what methodologies do creationists use to date these ice formations? Or are they simply asserted to be of recent formation without any evidence whatsoever?
The non-uniform disaster model implicating a pre-flood vapor canopy premise would necessarily call for an alternative interpretation of observable evidence. No?
It is your assertion so it is up to you to evidence it. Please show how this vapor canopy produces the evidence we see, such as the U/Pb ratios we see in zircons or the K/Ar ratios that we see in meteorites.
For example, true or false; would a global Genesis flood model, factoring in other Genesis data and observeable physical evidence, such as tropical stuff in the arctics, etc, interpreted on that hypothetical model implicate a non-uniform atmosphere and earth surface?
What relevance does this have with respect to dating methodologies? A non-uniform atmosphere or earth surface would not affect U/Pb levels in zircons, as one example. If you think I am wrong then please show how this dating methodology is affected by atmospheric pressure and the earth's surface.
To further expand on this, Buzsaw would also need to explain how the vapour canopy on the Earth affected the radiometric dating of Lunar rock samples and why oldest crustal samples from both the Earth and the moon give similar ages.
Not to mention asteroids dating older than both even though they were in the vacuum of space.