Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
26 online now:
Faith, jar, LamarkNewAge (3 members, 23 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,720 Year: 18,756/19,786 Month: 1,176/1,705 Week: 428/518 Day: 46/58 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Buz's refutation of all radiometric dating methods
JonF
Member
Posts: 5527
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 257 of 269 (56480)
09-19-2003 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Buzsaw
09-18-2003 10:22 PM


The point I was trying to make is that if the chemical makeup and/or quantity of certain elements in the atmosphere or soil were different than is understood and thought by those using these dating methods were different, this difference would affect all methods, causing all to err.

And the point that many have been trying to make is that you are wrong.

C-14 dating requires calibration, and we have that calibration, from several different sources thgat all agree.

The vast majority of other radiometric dating methods used today do not rely on any assumptions about chemical make-up or quantity at any time. (Note that K-Ar dating is not widely used today, forming less than 5% of the current analyses, and is essentially always checked by an independent method).

One point that I haven't seen made is that the radioactive decays used in radiometric dating occur by wildy different and independent processes (alpha decay, electron capture, beta decay). Nobody has ever succeeded in proposing any possible mechanism that could alter these different processes in just the manner required to make the methods agree as they do.

Finally, I love heat .. it's such a problem for creationists. If radioactive decay were accelerated by some process that made a 10,000-ish old Earth appear 4.4 billion years old, the heat released would have fried all life and left today's Earth as a red or even white hot ball of molten rock.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Buzsaw, posted 09-18-2003 10:22 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Raedril Delvon, posted 10-16-2008 11:36 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
Raedril Delvon
Junior Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 1
From: MN, Roberts county, U.S.A
Joined: 10-16-2008


Message 258 of 269 (486141)
10-16-2008 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by JonF
09-19-2003 11:06 AM


Radiometric dating.
Ok, here's a VERY large problem you haven't dealt with. You keep saying "yes the radiometric equipment needs calibration" Yah it does. But what are you calibrating it to?? Do you even have a -slight- idea as to what you CAN calibrate it to? Also, if a world wide flood happened, yes the radio active materials would be around the bones here and there, but the sapping of the radioactive material and the chances of the radioactive material being right next to the bones are very small, and would take a good amount of time to get into the bones, etc. Another problem is that radio active material is here one day, gone the next (not literally, it does have very rapid decay). That is supposedly what they are measuring, but why would you see anything then? Uranium has a very short life span, so if the earth is, what was it? "65,000,000 years" old, much less 65,000 years... URANIUM WOULD NOT BE EXISTANT! It would have burned off long ago and left us with no nuclear power plants, or the all mighty atomic bomb. Another thing is, by the evolutionary theory, the earth was "forming" and there was supposedly no atmosphere. So the rocks of the surface would be bombarded with radioactivity of the sun and make the rocks look really, really old. Same with the moon, which was tested with radiometric dating and was shown to be supposedly older than earth. Even though, by evolutionary theory, it was formed by earth's crust in "formation". So, wouldn't that be contradictory to say that the earth is younger than the moon when it was made of the earth's crust? Also, what happened to that mars-sized object that hit earth? What happened to the little evolving bacteria? (*foom*). Most of you people seem to simply state that creationist theories are false without any real evidence, or proof of your statement being true. Also, who are you to argue and debate with a several thousand year old book (Estimated to be written within a margin of 1445-1600 B.C. Somewhere around there.)? Are you claiming to know more than a ancient book? :O It even says in plain words that the earth moves around the sun (Psalms 19:4-6), a couple of thousand of years before it was accepted by the scientific world, or even the creation of the sciences. Finally, what's harder to believe in? A God that actually spoke things into existance, or a "big bang" that came from nothing. Where's your material for the "big bang"? "Matter cannot be created, nor destroyed in a chemical reaction." So, you going to keep thinking you are correct on a theory that is dispoven by it's own law? If so, then if the beginning is wrong, is the rest right? And as to the "heat is a problem with creationists", no it's not. It's a very large problem for evolution, those forming bacteria and such would be long incinerated before the earth was even close to being suitable for population. Also, if the radioactive decay was accelerated by the "heat", then the bacteria would also be microwaved. Dunno if I will be able to get on anytime soon. NO QUOTE MINING! IF YOU ARE GOING TO USE MY QUOTES, YOU USE THE WHOLE SENTENCE AND/OR RELATED SENTENCES AROUND IT!

Edited by Raedril Delvon, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by JonF, posted 09-19-2003 11:06 AM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Coyote, posted 10-16-2008 11:53 AM Raedril Delvon has not yet responded
 Message 260 by dwise1, posted 10-16-2008 12:01 PM Raedril Delvon has not yet responded
 Message 261 by Coragyps, posted 10-16-2008 12:05 PM Raedril Delvon has not yet responded
 Message 262 by Chiroptera, posted 10-16-2008 1:49 PM Raedril Delvon has not yet responded
 Message 263 by Parasomnium, posted 10-16-2008 4:54 PM Raedril Delvon has not yet responded
 Message 264 by bluescat48, posted 10-16-2008 5:27 PM Raedril Delvon has not yet responded
 Message 268 by Rrhain, posted 10-18-2008 5:05 AM Raedril Delvon has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 259 of 269 (486146)
10-16-2008 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Raedril Delvon
10-16-2008 11:36 AM


Re: Radiometric dating.
Your post is a long train-of-thought mish-mash that is very difficult to read.

Please separate your posts into paragraphs in the future.

Also, most of your points have long since been refuted. Rather than deal with them again, let me point you to a website that has dealt with these issues so often that they have been numbered for convenience.

Take a look at the arguments on this site, then get back to us:

Index to Creationist Claims: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Raedril Delvon, posted 10-16-2008 11:36 AM Raedril Delvon has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3768
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 260 of 269 (486148)
10-16-2008 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Raedril Delvon
10-16-2008 11:36 AM


Re: Radiometric dating.
Uranium has a very short life span, so if the earth is, what was it? "65,000,000 years" old, much less 65,000 years... URANIUM WOULD NOT BE EXISTANT!

???

From the Uranium article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium:

quote:
In nature, uranium atoms exist as uranium-238 (99.284%), uranium-235 (0.711%),[2] and a very small amount of uranium-234 (0.0058%). Uranium decays slowly by emitting an alpha particle. The half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.47 billion years and that of uranium-235 is 704 million years,[3] making them useful in dating the age of the Earth (see uranium-thorium dating, uranium-lead dating and uranium-uranium dating).

I'm sorry, but I do not understand how 4.47 billion years would qualify as "short". Could you please explain?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Raedril Delvon, posted 10-16-2008 11:36 AM Raedril Delvon has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5399
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 261 of 269 (486149)
10-16-2008 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Raedril Delvon
10-16-2008 11:36 AM


Re: Radiometric dating.
Hello, RD! Welcome to EvC!

You say:

Uranium has a very short life span, so if the earth is, what was it? "65,000,000 years" old, much less 65,000 years... URANIUM WOULD NOT BE EXISTANT!

Is 4,470,000,000 years what you Minnesotans call "very short?" That's the time it takes for half of a gram of uranium 238 to decay. Or are you thinking of uranium 234? Its half-life is much more "very short" - only 245,000 years.

Now you do have sort of a point - isotopes with half-lives less than 80,000,000 years aren't found on Earth unless they result from decay of things like U-238 or from external processes. But 80 million is a bit more than your 65 million, and 65 million is only about 1.5% of the age of the Earth.

I bet you'll enjoy it here - but you might want to bring some facts on your next visit.

Edited by Coragyps, : kill an apostrophe

Edited by Coragyps, : kill an apostrophe


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Raedril Delvon, posted 10-16-2008 11:36 AM Raedril Delvon has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by subbie, posted 10-18-2008 12:19 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6803
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 262 of 269 (486161)
10-16-2008 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Raedril Delvon
10-16-2008 11:36 AM


Re: Radiometric dating. -- It's good!
Hello, Raedril, and welcome to EvC.

You ask an interesting question:

You keep saying "yes the radiometric equipment needs calibration" Yah it does. But what are you calibrating it to??

Various radiometric dating methods are calibrated to the other radiometric dating methods. The different isotopes used (both parent and daughter isotopes) have very different chemical properties, so they will have different tendencies to migrate into or out of the crystals in which they are found, and they would migrate into or out of the crystals at different rates. Therefore, if this were a problem, then the different methods wouldn't give the same dates for the same samples. But different methods do give the same dates for the same samples, so this verifies that they are accurate.

Further, there are two processes of radioactive decay, alpha emission and beta emission. These rely on different laws of physics, and so there is no reason to think that any changes in the laws of physics would affect these two different processes in such a way that they would give exactly the same dates for the same samples. In fact, if these particular laws of physics were different in the past, there would be other effects that we should have been able to detect.

Finally, the geologic column was worked out by geologists well before the discovery of radioactivity. Radiometric dating basically confirmed what was already known by geologists, which would have been surprising if there were some significant problems with the methods.

-

Also, if a world wide flood happened....

Well, since no world wide flood happened, the rest of your point is rather moot.

By the way,

...the chances of the radioactive material being right next to the bones are very small, and would take a good amount of time to get into the bones....

The "bones" are not dated directly by radiometric processes.

-

The part about the half-life of isotopes relevant to geologic dating has already been dealt with by others.

-

Now this part is off-topic, and the moderators here strive to keep threads on topic. But I will offer a comment on this:

It even says in plain words that the earth moves around the sun (Psalms 19:4-6)....

Here is Psalms 19:4-6:

quote:
...Yet their voice goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world.

In the heavens he has set a tent for the sun,
which comes out like a bridegroom from his wedding canopy,
and like a strong man runs its course with joy.
Its rising is from the end of the heavens,
and its circuit to the end of them;
and nothing is hidden from its heat. [NRSV]


Now this seems like poetry to me, so I think that it's asking to much to take these words literally. But if I were to do so, it seems to be saying quite plainly that the sun moves around the earth. (And verse 4 seems to indicate that the earth is flat, that is, it has "an end".)

-

I hope you enjoy your participation here.


Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Raedril Delvon, posted 10-16-2008 11:36 AM Raedril Delvon has not yet responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 984 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 263 of 269 (486172)
10-16-2008 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Raedril Delvon
10-16-2008 11:36 AM


Re: Radiometric dating.
Raedril Delvon writes:

And as to the "heat is a problem with creationists", no it's not. It's a very large problem for evolution, those forming bacteria and such would be long incinerated before the earth was even close to being suitable for population.

You know, Raedril, that's a brilliant observation. I think you're on to something big here. Because the only logical conclusion is that bacteria and such must have formed after the earth had become suitable for population.

It amazes me no end that nobody has thought of this before!


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Raedril Delvon, posted 10-16-2008 11:36 AM Raedril Delvon has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 264 of 269 (486173)
10-16-2008 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Raedril Delvon
10-16-2008 11:36 AM


Re: Radiometric dating.
Where's your material for the "big bang"? "Matter cannot be created, nor destroyed in a chemical reaction.

Ever hear of E=MC2. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but either can be change into the other. Just the binding energy of atom shows this. The weight of 2 moles of protons, neutrons & electrons is more than the resultant mole of Helium 4 atoms. 4.033 grams vs 4.003 grams thus 0.03 grams of matter converted into energy per mole that is 24.6 electon volts per atom and a total of 2.37E+6 joules/mole. Calclations from "Hand Book of Chemistry & Physics" 87th Edition, 2006

Edited by bluescat48, : superscript

Edited by bluescat48, : No reason given.

Edited by bluescat48, : spelling


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Raedril Delvon, posted 10-16-2008 11:36 AM Raedril Delvon has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Chiroptera, posted 10-16-2008 6:57 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6803
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 265 of 269 (486208)
10-16-2008 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by bluescat48
10-16-2008 5:27 PM


Re: Radiometric dating.
Matter cannot be created or destroyed, Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but either can be change into the other.

And the Law of Conservation of Energy doesn't even apply to the "beginning of the universe" anyway.


Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by bluescat48, posted 10-16-2008 5:27 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12631
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 266 of 269 (486212)
10-16-2008 8:27 PM


Moderator Suggestion
This moderator suggests saving your ammo for someone armed with more than softballs. Providing correct information? Great idea. Arguing with someone like Raedril Delvon? Probably a waste of time.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 32 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 267 of 269 (486280)
10-18-2008 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Coragyps
10-16-2008 12:05 PM


Re: Radiometric dating.
quote:
Is 4,470,000,000 years what you Minnesotans call "very short?"

Hey! I resent that!

If you won't hold Raelian Devolution's nonsense against me, and the rest of the state, I won't hold the Bushes and Karl Rove against you.

Fair enough?


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Coragyps, posted 10-16-2008 12:05 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 268 of 269 (486285)
10-18-2008 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Raedril Delvon
10-16-2008 11:36 AM


Raedril Delvon writes:

quote:
Same with the moon, which was tested with radiometric dating and was shown to be supposedly older than earth.

Incorrect. The moon has dated to younger than the earth:

Stony Brook Research writes:

Stony Brook's team, led by Oliver Schaeffer, determined the concentration and isotopic signature of argon gas contained in lunar samples. They combined these data with potassium concentrations for the same samples to derive an age of about 4 billion years for the Moon.

Other results put it at about 4.2 bya to a maximum of 4.5 bya. The earth is dated to about 4.5 bya. The moon is not older.

quote:
So, wouldn't that be contradictory to say that the earth is younger than the moon when it was made of the earth's crust?

It would if the moon had been dated to be older than the earth.

It hasn't. The earth is not younger than the moon.

quote:
Are you claiming to know more than a ancient book?

Yes. Unless you are trying to say that everything that could be known was known 3000 years ago and that all of it was written down in a single volume of about 1500 pages, then of course we know more than an ancient book.

quote:
It even says in plain words that the earth moves around the sun (Psalms 19:4-6)

No, it doesn't. It says the exact opposite:

Psalms 19 writes:

19:4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
19:5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
19:6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

How do you get an interpretation of the earth going around the sun from a statement that the SUN is "coming out of his chamber"? I honestly want to know the answer to this question: What do you think the "bridegroom" is referring to? What in the sentence makes it not the sun?

quote:
a couple of thousand of years before it was accepted by the scientific world, or even the creation of the sciences.

Incorrect. While heliocentrism wouldn't gain acceptance until the about the 16th century, it did not originate there. If one is going to stretch interpretations, as you seem to be wont to do, then we should look to the Ancient Greeks.

Aristotle writes:

At the center, they [referring to the Pythagoreans] say, is fire, and the earth is one of the stars, creating night and day by its circular motion about the center

The "fire" to which the Pythagoreans were referring was not the sun. They believed that everything, including the sun, orbited the primal fire. If we're stretching metaphors, then this would seem to be a description of galactic motion: The sun orbits the center of the galaxy, a place rife with stars.

But, let's not go with metaphorical abstractions. Aristarchus advocated the sun being the center of the solar system.

Archimedes writes:

You King Gelon are aware the 'universe' is the name given by most astronomers to the sphere the center of which is the center of the Earth, while its radius is equal to the straight line between the center of the Sun and the center of the Earth. This is the common account as you have heard from astronomers. But Aristarchus has brought out a book consisting of certain hypotheses, wherein it appears, as a consequence of the assumptions made, that the universe is many times greater than the 'universe' just mentioned. His hypotheses are that the fixed stars and the Sun remain unmoved, that the Earth revolves about the Sun on the circumference of a circle, the Sun lying in the middle of the orbit, and that the sphere of fixed stars, situated about the same center as the Sun, is so great that the circle in which he supposes the Earth to revolve bears such a proportion to the distance of the fixed stars as the center of the sphere bears to its surface.

And that doesn't go into the other cultures that developed it such as the Hindu vedas:

Yajnavalkya writes:

The sun is stationed for all time, in the middle of the day.... Of the sun, which is always in one and the same place, there is neither setting nor rising.

So we have a scientific treatise and a non-Christian text saying the earth moves around the sun and then we have the Christian text saying the sun moves around the earth. Where were you going with this?

quote:
Where's your material for the "big bang"? "Matter cannot be created, nor destroyed in a chemical reaction." So, you going to keep thinking you are correct on a theory that is dispoven by it's own law?

Are you seriously claiming that physicists developed a theory that contradicted one of the most fundamental statements of physics and didn't notice?

Hint: The Big Bang isn't about the creation of the universe but rather the expansion of the universe.

quote:
Also, if the radioactive decay was accelerated by the "heat"

Huh? Radioactive decay isn't affected by heat.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Raedril Delvon, posted 10-16-2008 11:36 AM Raedril Delvon has not yet responded

    
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 1137 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 269 of 269 (495092)
01-20-2009 7:34 PM


decay rate uniform in the past
crashfrog- post 16
I assume your objection will be in regards to the constancy of decay rates over time, and honestly I'd like someone else to, uh, remind me why we assume this.

mark24- post 18
This can only leave a YEC one place to go, the underlying physics. Half life constancy.

buz- post 109
Either the Bible is wrong or there's some problems with dating methods of the fossils and petrified bones, etc

Rrhain - post 268
Of course. That's one of the first tenets of science: Don't make stuff up. You can only go with the information you have. Since we have been unable to find any particular method by which radioactive decay can change rates, we don't get to just make up the opinion that it can.

Besides the problem remaining- correlation between various methods- which this thread addresses, there is a very real problem with the idea that things might have been different with physical laws in the past. This has also been studied and looked into using observations of light from distant stars. I would suggest the book, "The Constants of Nature" by John D. Barrow. You can likely find it a your local library. It is accessible to a high school level.


    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019