Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
61 online now:
(61 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,163 Year: 4,275/6,534 Month: 489/900 Week: 13/182 Day: 1/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Radiometric Dating Corroboration
mark24
Member (Idle past 4429 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 1 of 41 (7435)
03-20-2002 7:06 PM


I have tried to push this a couple of times & not gotten very far, so I’ve formalised it a bit & given it a thread of its own, apologies to those who’ve seen the bulk of this before. It deals with four radiometric dating methods dating K-T tektites that corroborate a 65 m.y. age, & the implications of rationale & reason, with respect to maintaining a YEC 6,000 year old earth world view, based on the odds involved.

radiometeric_dating_does_work

“The K-T Tektites
One of the most exciting and important scientific findings in decades was the 1980 discovery that a large asteroid, about 10 kilometres diameter, struck the earth at the end of the Cretaceous Period. The collision threw many tons of debris into the atmosphere and possibly led to the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other life forms. The fallout from this enormous impact, including shocked quartz and high concentrations of the element iridium, has been found in sedimentary rocks at more than 100 locations worldwide at the precise stratigraphic location of the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary (Alvarez and Asaro 1990; Alvarez 1998). We now know that the impact site is located on the Yucatan Peninsula. Measuring the age of this impact event independently of the stratigraphic evidence is an obvious test for radiometric methods, and a number of scientists in laboratories around the world set to work.

In addition to shocked quartz grains and high concentrations of iridium, the K-T impact produced tektites, which are small glass spherules that form from rock that is instantaneously melted by a large impact. The K-T tektites were ejected into the atmosphere and deposited some distance away. Tektites are easily recognizable and form in no other way, so the discovery of a sedimentary bed (the Beloc Formation) in Haiti that contained tektites and that, from fossil evidence, coincided with the K-T boundary provided an obvious candidate for dating. Scientists from the US Geological Survey were the first to obtain radiometric ages for the tektites and laboratories in Berkeley, Stanford, Canada, and France soon followed suit. The results from all of the laboratories were remarkably consistent with the measured ages ranging only from 64.4 to 65.1 Ma (Table 2). Similar tektites were also found in Mexico, and the Berkeley lab found that they were the same age as the Haiti tektites. But the story doesn’t end there.

The K-T boundary is recorded in numerous sedimentary beds around the world. The Z-coal, the Ferris coal, and the Nevis coal in Montana and Saskatchewan all occur immediately above the K-T boundary. Numerous thin beds of volcanic ash occur within these coals just centimeters above the K-T boundary, and some of these ash beds contain minerals that can be dated radiometrically. Ash beds from each of these coals have been dated by 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb methods in several laboratories in the US and Canada. Since both the ash beds and the tektites occur either at or very near the K-T boundary, as determined by diagnostic fossils, the tektites and the ash beds should be very nearly the same age, and they are (Table 2).

There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible.”

1/

So the K-T Tektites were dated by no less than four methods. 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb . If that weren't evidence enough, lets take a look at how inaccurate they all must be, to fit a YEC world view. The lower age given is 64.4 mya. Now, assuming a 6,000 year old YEC earth is what YECs perceive as 100% of available time, then 60 years is 1%. This means that all the above methods, were ALL (1,085,000-100 = ) 1,084,900% inaccurate. Let me reiterate, the YECs requires these FOUR different, corroborating methods to be nearly ONE MILLION, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PERCENT INACCURATE, assuming their 6,000 year old model is the correct one.

Now, given that the four methods are different, & are subject to DIFFERENT potential error sources & yet still corroborate closely means that the various potential bugbears of each method have been reasonably accounted for in the date calculations themselves. This can only leave a YEC one place to go, the underlying physics. Half-life constancy.

2/

The range of dates is from 64.4 mya to 65.1 mya giving a 0.7 my range.

64.4/0.7 = 92 (Not taking the 65.1 m.y. figure to be as favourable as possible to YECs)

The range of error is 92 times smaller than the minimum given date, giving us usable increments of time. Probabilistically speaking, we basically have four 92 sided dice. What are the odds of all four dice rolling a 92? On the familiar 6 sided die, the chance of rolling two sixes (or any two numbers, for that matter) is 6^2 = 36:1 (Number of sides to the nth power where nth = number of die).

Therefore, the odds of four radiometric dating methods reaching the same date range by chance is…drum roll…
92^4 (92*92*92*92)= 71,639,296:1

Is there any YEC that is prepared to state that the four radiometric dating methods achieve their high level of corroboration by pure chance?

If not, how much of the 65 m.y. old figure do you attribute to chance, & how much to radiometric half lives contributing to the derived date, percentage wise?

Here is your dilemma. The error required by the radiometric methods is 1,084,900% to fit a YEC 6,000 year old view. If they accept that the methods are capable of not being in error by more than 1,084,000%, then they accept a 60,000-year-old earth, minimum. So, saying that half-lives contribute only 1% to any derived radiometric date, means in this case (1% of 65,000,000 is 650,000 years), so even this small “contribution” by half lives falsifies a YEC young earth.

3/

The chance of all four methods being off by (chance) 64,400,000 years when the result SHOULD have been 6,000 years is truly staggering.

64,400,000/6,000 = 10,733.33 recurring (following the previous example, we now have four 10,733.33 sided dice)

10,733.33 recurring ^4 = 13,272,064,019,753,086:1

My questions to creationists are:

A/ How do you account for four corroborating radiometric dating methods dating the tektites so closely at 65 m.y. old, in the light of the odds of it occurring by pure chance?

B/ IF you don’t accept that radiometric dating is valid as a dating method, how do you rationalise the four methods being over one million percent inaccurate, relative to a YEC assumed 6,000 year old earth?

C/ If you DO accept that half lives affect the resultant date, even to a small degree, what percentage would you be prepared to accept that radiometric dating is influenced by half lives, the rest being just plain chance? And how do you come by this figure, evidentially?

D/ How do you rationalise holding to a 6,000 year old earth when the odds of all four radiometric methods being wrong by a factor of AT LEAST 10,733 each is 13,272,064,019,753,086:1?

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Joe Meert, posted 03-20-2002 9:39 PM mark24 has replied
 Message 5 by mark24, posted 03-21-2002 8:44 PM mark24 has taken no action
 Message 8 by mark24, posted 03-25-2002 8:43 AM mark24 has taken no action
 Message 9 by mark24, posted 03-25-2002 9:06 AM mark24 has taken no action
 Message 11 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 03-25-2002 9:44 AM mark24 has taken no action

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 2 of 41 (7442)
03-20-2002 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mark24
03-20-2002 7:06 PM


quote:

A/ How do you account for four corroborating radiometric dating methods dating the tektites so closely at 65 m.y. old, in the light of the odds of it occurring by pure chance?

B/ IF you don’t accept that radiometric dating is valid as a dating method, how do you rationalise the four methods being over one million percent inaccurate, relative to a YEC assumed 6,000 year old earth?

C/ If you DO accept that half lives affect the resultant date, even to a small degree, what percentage would you be prepared to accept that radiometric dating is influenced by half lives, the rest being just plain chance? And how do you come by this figure, evidentially?

D/ How do you rationalise holding to a 6,000 year old earth when the odds of all four radiometric methods being wrong by a factor of AT LEAST 10,733 each is 13,272,064,019,753,086:1?


A. Conspiracy
B. Atheistic conspiracy
C. Speed of light slowing conspiracy
D. Lies, damned lies and statistics conspiracy

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mark24, posted 03-20-2002 7:06 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by mark24, posted 03-21-2002 5:04 AM Joe Meert has taken no action
 Message 4 by Quetzal, posted 03-21-2002 8:15 AM Joe Meert has taken no action
 Message 6 by KingPenguin, posted 03-22-2002 12:09 AM Joe Meert has taken no action

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4429 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 3 of 41 (7466)
03-21-2002 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Joe Meert
03-20-2002 9:39 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Joe Meert:
A. Conspiracy
B. Atheistic conspiracy
C. Speed of light slowing conspiracy
D. Lies, damned lies and statistics conspiracy

Cheers

Joe Meert


LOL, damn those statistitians, damn them to hell........

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Joe Meert, posted 03-20-2002 9:39 PM Joe Meert has taken no action

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5106 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 4 of 41 (7473)
03-21-2002 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Joe Meert
03-20-2002 9:39 PM


Wow, Joe! How'd you figure it out so fast? You forgot E. Atheist geologist / godless physicist collusion. Everyone knows radioactive decay rates were different 4500 years ago than they are today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Joe Meert, posted 03-20-2002 9:39 PM Joe Meert has taken no action

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4429 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 5 of 41 (7553)
03-21-2002 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mark24
03-20-2002 7:06 PM


1st bump.....

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mark24, posted 03-20-2002 7:06 PM mark24 has taken no action

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7118 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 6 of 41 (7586)
03-22-2002 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Joe Meert
03-20-2002 9:39 PM


lol good work joe. Too bad i cant argue mark since im not a creationist scientist or whatever. I really want to say something but hell just say no its not evidence. so theres nothing more for me to say.

------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Joe Meert, posted 03-20-2002 9:39 PM Joe Meert has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by mark24, posted 03-22-2002 2:13 PM KingPenguin has taken no action

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4429 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 7 of 41 (7647)
03-22-2002 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by KingPenguin
03-22-2002 12:09 AM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
lol good work joe. Too bad i cant argue mark since im not a creationist scientist or whatever. I really want to say something but hell just say no its not evidence. so theres nothing more for me to say.


KP,

My post isn't to present positive evidence for any particular method being accurate, that's been done elsewhere. I've taken an alternative approach in asking you to deal with the sheer odds of them NOT being accurate from a YEC point of view.

Can you?

Cheers,

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by KingPenguin, posted 03-22-2002 12:09 AM KingPenguin has taken no action

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4429 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 8 of 41 (7790)
03-25-2002 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mark24
03-20-2002 7:06 PM


TC, moved this from the other thread.

quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

KingPenguin - "--science does state that dna arose spontaneously but like ive said science isnt nothing more than gift from God."
--Science doesn't actually state that DNA arose out of spontaneous generation, the theory of abiogenesis does.


No it doesn’t, the odds of such an occurrence are considered too great. DNA is thought to have evolved into its current form, the most likely existent “precursor”molecule is RNA, which is able to self catalyse. What came before that is much more tentative.

quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

Mark - "HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE ODDS OF FOUR DIFFERENT RADIOMETRIC METHODS HITTING THE SAME AGE RANGE BY CHANCE ALONE? Let me state it again : 74,805,201:1 . "
--I dont' think it would be about 'odds', but about cause.

(I recalculated in my second post using the lower age in the range so as to be kinder to YECS, the order of magnitude is the same.)

You are misunderstanding the question. The odds of all four methods being wrong to the same extent are 71,639,296:1 , would you agree that given these odds that the methods of radiometric dating are good, given that each method has it’s own DIFFERENT sources of potential error, I argue that the calculations themselves have accounted for these errors because the corroboration is seen to be so good. This means that for the YEC position to be true another source of error must have crept in. What is the source of error that is common to the four methods that will make them all wrong by 1,000,000%?

So it IS about odds, the odds of this occurring is huge, the odds of the earth not being 6,000 years old is 13,272,064,019,753,086:1 . If you are denying this, you are saying that the corroboration is pure chance. 13^15:1 needs a better explanation.

quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

There is no need to reconfigure half-life, this very well may be consistant. Though if you take a sample and cut it in many pieces, and leave it as such for a time, and put it back together, it is going to appear many magnitudes older than is assumed if it were not mingled with in this way. (this was for the sake of example). A possible cause for the relative consistancy in given dates for radioisotopes is the same decintegration or effect contributed to increasing decay rate of radioisotopes.

Nope. If I took two identical samples, kept one whole & the other in pieces, measured the total isotope ratio after any given time, the totals will be identical. Half life remains the same.

quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

Mark - "Do you have a SINGLE evidence that the earth is in the order of 6,000 years old?"
--Encompassing interperetation.

No idea what you’re on about here.

Do you have any positive evidence that the earth is 6,000 years old?

quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

Mark - "The odds you are arguing against are 13,858,587,006,250,000 : 1"
--Sounds like the big bang (sorry couldn't help myself).

Stay focussed, TC. The odds that the earth is 6,000 years old compared to the odds of the four methods being wrong by chance are 13,272,064,019,753,086:1 (remember, I recalculated to the lower age). Can you address this colossal discrepancy brought about by positive evidence?

quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

Mark - "Time is relative & easily altered? LOL! Would you accept this argument if I presented it against a 6,000 year old earth evidence? Not a chance!"
--It is sufficient if valid either way.

So, you think it’s feasible that DNA arose spontaneously, given the odds against such an occurrence? Can’t have it both ways.

quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

KingPenguin - "---i cant show this because i wasnt there when God created the earth but im sure half-life is well within his domain of control."
--There is no need to mingle with isotope half-lives, though decay is another issue.


As far as radiometric dating is concerned, half life constancy & decay rate constancy are one & the same.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mark24, posted 03-20-2002 7:06 PM mark24 has taken no action

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4429 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 9 of 41 (7792)
03-25-2002 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mark24
03-20-2002 7:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:

For the THIRD time, what would you accept as a transitional?
---nothing


So you actually deny the POSSIBILITY that transitionals exist. KP, it isn’t possible to have a more closed mind.

Alarm bells a ringin’!

quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:

Since you mention retro-evolution, how many RANDOM mutations do you think are required for noticeable morphological difference in species? What are the odds of a complete reversal in EXACTLY the same loci of those mutations, combined with the chance of those mutations being fixed in the respective populations in roughly 3,000,000,000 base pairs? When you give me the answer, I claim spontaneous generation of DNA to be positively LIKELY!

---like you said anythings possible, as long as that creature was fossilized youll have no idea.


If anything’s possible, what about transitionals?

You still haven’t answered the question. I’ve always been told by creationists that the number of mutations for macro evolution is vast. So, to support your statement that an organism could retro-evolve into what it was before you need at least to demonstrate it’s likelyhood. It’s that “odds” thing again. If it takes a thousand fixed mutations in a genome of say, 3 billion nucleotides then the chance of a mutation reversing it is 1/3,000,000,000. For that to happen ONLY 1,000 times is 3^9 to the 3^9th power. My scientific calculator can’t display this figure as it is so large.

So would you agree that “its probably as likely that a species could evolve into what it was before and mess up the order” is NOT a feasible argument for explaining fossil record patterns?

quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:

Radiometric dating DOES PROVIDE A TIME SCALE. In this case 64.4 to 65.1 mya for the K-T tektites. I’m giving you corroborating evidence that IT DOES provide this time scale!!
---it gives an an approximate time not an exact one. its numbers are based on things existing now, not things as they existed when they first existed.

What are you on about? Half lives are demonstrably constant, why would you think they weren’t? Do you have any evidence that they weren’t from earths formation onwards? Saying it might have been, or Godidit is baseless assertion.

quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:

So, how do you REASONABLY explain this high level of corroboration? If you can’t, I may as well state that DNA arose spontaneously, because that involves unreasonable odds as well.
--science does state that dna arose spontaneously but like ive said science isnt nothing more than gift from God.


Abiogenesis DOESN’T state DNA arose spontaneously. To do that it would have to appear in a solution of constituent molecules “ready made”. DNA requires a battery of enzymes to replicate efficiently. RNA has the property of self catalyation, & is a candiate for a predecessor of DNA, before that PNA, who knows? But DNA was never thought to have spontaneously appeared. In fact it is the sheer odds of such an occurrence that weighs against it. Why is it that “evolutionists” can accept such bad odds, & dismiss an argument, but you can’t dismiss a 6,000 year old earth “hypothesis” in the face of 13,858,587,006,250,000 : 1 odds?

If science is a gift from God why does it contradict the bible? Like turkeys voting for Christmas? Also science in the form of the scientific method is demonstrably man made.

quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:

How does the fact that radiometric dating is science detract from the sheer odds of it being wrong by chance, in this case by over 74,000,000 :1? Please address the odds.
---its still not 1:0. it still could be dead wrong and all the methods are more than likely horribly wrong but all science is meant to be that way.

It COULD be, but would you back this horse with your life savings? You’re stating the obvious.

How can these methods be “MORE THAN LIKELY HORRIBLY WRONG”? The odds suggest they are more than LIKELY right!

quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:

That you consider abiogenesis or the big bang to be laughable is irrelevant to the question in hand. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE ODDS OF FOUR DIFFERENT RADIOMETRIC METHODS HITTING THE SAME AGE RANGE BY CHANCE ALONE? Let me state it again : 74,805,201:1 .
---yes it is relevant and how likely something is doesnt affect anything. itll still happen and our methods will give different numbers later on when they become more improved. They also dont measure time they just measure everything but it. its assumptions and appearances. sure the universe appears to be billions of years ago but it could have just been created now like it is now and you wouldnt have any idea.

Sorry, KP, drivel, utter unsubstantiated drivel.

Radiometric dating methods measure time, by definition, not “anything but”. The “assumptions” are that half lives are constant, based on solid experimental evidence.

The truth, as an absolute 100% known factor doesn’t exist. But we base likely-hoods on the strength of evidence. Radiometric dating has been questioned by YECs. I have provided an example where the chance of radiometric methods getting the assumed YEC date wrong is 13,858,587,006,250,000 : 1. Now, tell me. What is more likely, a 6,000 year old earth, or an older earth based on the statistics provided by evidence?

You have claimed elsewhere (to Joz) that you won't accept evolution until there is better evidence. If anyone produced evidence that evolution was 13,858,587,006,250,000 : 1 likely, you clearly would still cling to your old unsubstantiated position. Frankly, I find it difficult that you would accept ANY evidence that contradicts the bible, as evidenced by your claim that there is NO evidence that you would accept of transitionals. I think you're telling Joz porkies.

You are STILL refusing to let go of a 6,000 year old earth a/ despite no evidence that it actually is 6,000 years old, & b/ in the face of highly concordant evidence that it is at LEAST 65 million years old.

quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:

I have provided the maths that four methods achieving the same age range by chance alone is 74,805,201:1 . Do you have a SINGLE evidence that the earth is in the order of 6,000 years old? If not you are NOT doing science (as you have claimed elsewhere), & are merely subscribing to an UNSUPPORTED belief. This belief is in the same order of support as “yellow fairies made the earth 15,000 years ago”.
---see now youve lost credibility, dont say stuff like that. Having faith is having faith. its not like science where you can be lazy and go off of things you can observe.


How have I lost credibility? You are eschewing evidence (radiometric) in favour of a substance-less position. This is an awful intellectual hypocrisy. You believe in an evidence-less God, & claim other evidence-less religions are incorrect. HOW can you claim anything is wrong without a basis for doing so. How can you claim anything is true without evidence? Much less, you are claiming science, with a basis in evidence, is wrong at the expense of unsubstantiated supernatural scripture. It is the person that argues from an evidence backed position who has credibility, not the other way around.

So, do you have a single evidence that the earth is 6,000 years old?

quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:

You mean sheer mathematical unlikelihood of your timescale is exactly matched by your lack of ANY positive evidence of a young earth? Pur-lease! Present YOUR positive evidence of a 6,000 year old earth & we’ll see which theory has the greatest corroboration. The odds you are arguing against are 13,858,587,006,250,000 : 1 for four methods to be so close by chance, I laughed at them too, when I saw them, but, I suspect, for an altogether different reason.

---like ive said the earth can appear to be however old it wants to be. it still has no effect on when it was created. God did create us an old earth to live on, with stars in the sky for us to admire.
Time is relative & easily altered? LOL! Would you accept this argument if I presented it against a 6,000 year old earth evidence? Not a chance! Even if you CAN show that time can be altered under 1G (earths gravity) by 1,000,000%, which I sincerely doubt, the “even larger numbers” simply make your position even more untenable.
---okay einsteins wrong your right.


The earth will appear as old as it is, not as old as it wants, & it appears old. Your argument is with radiometric dating & the corroborative odds produced by the example I provided.

No, me & Einstein are in perfect agreement, it’s you who disagrees. You need to show that under 1g of gravity, at the speed the earth rotates about the sun that time can vary by 1,000,000%. If you think that 1g, or the earths velocity about the sun varied, then show that it did by a factor as large enough to cause a 1,000,000% time dilation. If not, then time isn’t as “easily altered” as your argument requires.

quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:

Can you show that time can be “easily altered” by 1,000,000% , which is the percentile margin you are required to defeat to make YEC time be true. If not, you still need to address the sheer odds AGAINST a 6,000 year old earth provided by this (from a YEC POV) unlikely corroboration. Let me repeat : 13,858,587,006,250,000 : 1
----YEC time doesnt need any science to be true. you cannot compare evo and YEC.

Geological time is based on evidence. If you can’t produce evidence of YEC time, then I can say with EXACTLY the same intellectual basis that the earth is 50,000 years old, or 100 billion years old. etcetera ad infinitum. Any claim to know the age of the earth without any presented evidence is meaningless.

quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:

Let me be clearer.
-cool
If 1% of 6,000 is 60 years,
Then, 65,100,000 years = 1,085,000%
So, if you are prepared to accept that radiometric dating is, say 900,000% inaccurate, then you are accepting an earth of at LEAST 11,100,000 years old.
Radiometric dating in my cite MUST be 1,084,900% Inaccurate for a YEC creation date to be true. What rationale do you offer to continue believing in a YEC position? If you DON’T concede that the dating methods described are at least 1,084,000% (60,000 year old earth, for example), then you are not questioning the methods, which are different, but the underlying physics. This means you are questioning half life rates. One of the most constant of physical phenomena. Half lives have to be out by the order of 1 million percent to accommodate a YEC date, can you show this?
---i cant show this because i wasnt there when God created the earth but im sure half-life is well within his domain of control.
If not, how do you accommodate such figures in your world view scientifically? Remember, this is an evidence based discussion, & Godidit means nothing. Creation “science” is extant to show evidence of biblical literalism, to be science we need evidence, claims of “Godidit” are not evidence.

---God never shows himself and im not for Creation Science, since Christianity shouldnt mix with science that way. Science says it isnt proof either.


Baseless assertion.

How do you argue the above odds with a basis in evidence? Saying Godidit without showing SOME positive evidence of Gods existence is simply denial. Do you understand this? It would be like you being tried for a crime you never committed, you weren’t in the country, the gun had someone else’s prints on it, & all the witnesses said it wasn’t you, but judge believes it was, so you get the chair.

In order to argue a position you must have some basis to successfully do so. What basis do you have? The bible? What basis in evidence do you have for assuming God to exist because of what is written in it? Because it looks to me that you have no basis for believing God to exist, no basis for believing that God wants to test us, no basis for denying colossal odds against a 6,000 year old earth, no basis in EVIDENCE whatsoever. In fact, in light of this, it looks to me that anything, no matter what the odds/evidence, if they contradict the bible you’re sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes & saying “GODIDIT, GODIDIT, GODIDIT!”

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 03-26-2002]

[This message has been edited by mark24, 03-26-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mark24, posted 03-20-2002 7:06 PM mark24 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by joz, posted 03-25-2002 9:22 AM mark24 has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 41 (7793)
03-25-2002 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by mark24
03-25-2002 9:06 AM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
No, me & Einstein are in perfect agreement, it s you who disagrees. You need to show that under 1g of gravity, at the speed the earthrotates about the sun that time can vary by 1,000,000%. If you think that 1g, or the earths velocity about the sun varied, then show that itdid by a factor as large enough to cause a 1,000,000% time dilation. If not, then time isn t as  easily altered  as your argument requires.

And why your at it show how the Earth stayed in orbit while it was moving so much faster.....

Oh and Mark that should be Einstein and I.....

P.S Did you like the equation Mark?

P.P.S This one (delta t1 - delta t2)/delta t = (Phi2 - Phi1)/c2

[This message has been edited by joz, 03-25-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by mark24, posted 03-25-2002 9:06 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Joe Meert, posted 03-25-2002 9:54 AM joz has taken no action
 Message 13 by mark24, posted 03-25-2002 10:20 AM joz has taken no action

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 2451 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 11 of 41 (7796)
03-25-2002 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mark24
03-20-2002 7:06 PM


Nice post. I have a question for you. What do you think of the more recent calculations (past year I believe) that concluded that the strike in Mexico was smaller than originally thought and that it may not have carried enough mass to kick up enough debris to account for the entire KT event? In other words, there may have been more than one event that lead to the death of the dinosaurs; maybe a combination of the strike and the lava flows in the Decan flats (sp?) area of India.

------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mark24, posted 03-20-2002 7:06 PM mark24 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Joe Meert, posted 03-25-2002 10:56 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 12 of 41 (7797)
03-25-2002 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by joz
03-25-2002 9:22 AM


quote:
There is no need to reconfigure half-life, this very well may be consistant. Though if you take a sample and cut it in many pieces, and leave it as such for a time, and put it back together, it is going to appear many magnitudes older than is assumed if it were not mingled with in this way. (this was for the sake of example). A possible cause for the relative consistancy in given dates for radioisotopes is the same decintegration or effect contributed to increasing decay rate of radioisotopes.

JM: Rubbish! It does not matter how you slice, dice and pureee a sample, the radiometric age will not be affected. Let's do a thought experiment. Let's just use 2 pieces and you can sum the solution to an infinite number. Let's say that piece originally contained 5000 atoms of isotope X that decays to isotope Y. Let us further say that the half-life is 1000 years. Let us further say that this rock is then split into two pieces. The first piece gets 1000 atoms of X and the second piece gets 4000 atoms of X. Here is the decay scheme in both rocks:

Piece 1:
1/2 life Parents Daughters Age
0 1000 0 0
1 500 500 1000
2 250 750 2000
3 125 875 3000

Piece 2:
1/2 life Parents Daughters Age
0 4000 0 0
1 2000 2000 1000
2 1000 3000 2000
3 500 3500 3000

Now, further suppose that after 2000 years, these two pieces came back together. You would get the following result:

Parents= Parents in Piece 1 + parents in piece 2=1250
Daughters= daughters in piece 1 and daughters in piece 2= 3750

The age of the composite sample with these ratios= 2000 years. No change is seen. As I said, you can divide the sample up as much as you like and when you bring them all back together, the age of the composite would be the exact same as the parts.

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by joz, posted 03-25-2002 9:22 AM joz has taken no action

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4429 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 13 of 41 (7798)
03-25-2002 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by joz
03-25-2002 9:22 AM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
And why your at it show how the Earth stayed in orbit while it was moving so much faster.....

Oh and Mark that should be Einstein and I.....

P.S Did you like the equation Mark?

P.P.S This one (delta t1 - delta t2)/delta t = (Phi2 - Phi1)/c2

[This message has been edited by joz, 03-25-2002]


Sorry Joz, Einstein & I I lost my original .doc where I had the correction & ended up just pasting this one in. Duly noted!

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by joz, posted 03-25-2002 9:22 AM joz has taken no action

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 14 of 41 (7800)
03-25-2002 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
03-25-2002 9:44 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:
Nice post. I have a question for you. What do you think of the more recent calculations (past year I believe) that concluded that the strike in Mexico was smaller than originally thought and that it may not have carried enough mass to kick up enough debris to account for the entire KT event? In other words, there may have been more than one event that lead to the death of the dinosaurs; maybe a combination of the strike and the lava flows in the Decan flats (sp?) area of India.


JM: Sure, why not? The Deccan volcanism spewed out a tremendous volume of lava (8 x 106 km3). We had a speaker here last week, Peter Olsen, who was making the claim that asteroid impacts may 'accelerate' volcanism. The links are extremely tenuous, but puzzling none the less. I suspect that the K-T extinction was due to a combination of events.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 03-25-2002 9:44 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 03-26-2002 10:15 AM Joe Meert has taken no action

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 2451 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 15 of 41 (7865)
03-26-2002 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Joe Meert
03-25-2002 10:56 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JM: Sure, why not? The Deccan volcanism spewed out a tremendous volume of lava (8 x 106 km3). We had a speaker here last week, Peter Olsen, who was making the claim that asteroid impacts may 'accelerate' volcanism. The links are extremely tenuous, but puzzling none the less. I suspect that the K-T extinction was due to a combination of events.

I seem to remember reading something about Olsen's comments re: the Deccan flats (I knew that my spelling was wrong ). IMO, the dating of the lava flows is too close to the KT event, as is the iridium layer, to be coincidence.

------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Joe Meert, posted 03-25-2002 10:56 AM Joe Meert has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by mark24, posted 03-26-2002 11:26 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022