How about Radiometric Dating which is taken as proof of the age of this that or the other.
Method: It is known that some kinds of atoms decay into other kinds of atoms at a particular rate. Therefore the amount of one or the other atom in a substance can tell you how old that substance is Method: Extracting some portion of that substance and analyzing it for the amount of either or both atoms Assumption: Whatever portion you are able to get and analyze should tell you about the age of the whole Assumption: How much of either atom was already present at the origin of the substance Assumption: What exactly the origin of a substance is supposed to be. When it came out of the volcano? When it was laid down in the strata? Assumption: Any errors you find can just be discarded. What exactly is an error anyway and how would you know? Replication/testing: Too much slippage for this to be reliable from one testing lab to another. You really have only whatever result you are willing to accept, that fits with your other assumptions about time etc. Conclusion: Carbon 14 dating may be somewhat reliable for events within a few thousand years involving organic material, especially where the age of the material is already known so you have a witness to test the dating method itself by, but there are lots of errors possible there too. Conclusion: Radiometric dating cannot be proved as reliable.
Curiously this is an abysmal representation of the scientific method and how the use of empirical evidence informs us of the validity of hypothesis and theory in general, and the science of radiometric dating in particular.
For information on how the various radiometric methods work and their accuracy I recommend ...
quote:Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.
This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.
That means you Faith, he is talking to you, and providing information for you to educate yourself on this matter.
Now it seems to me that he covers and rebuts every young earth creationist fantasy regarding radiometric dating and shows that they are false representations of the science.
Conclusion: Carbon 14 dating may be somewhat reliable for events within a few thousand years involving organic material, especially where the age of the material is already known so you have a witness to test the dating method itself by, but there are lots of errors possible there too.
Unfortunately, for you, the Carbon 14 dating has been extensively compared to other dating methods, particularly certain known age systems of annual layers for the full extent of it's practical use (50,000 years), and it has been shown to be reliable indicator of age within the margins of error of the method. In fact these other age measuring systems are used to calibrate 14C dating to make it more accurate and precise by removing the variation of initial 14C in the atmosphere from the calculations. And I will still be happy to discuss this aspect on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, where you left off on Message 278:
No, RAZD, I can't explain it to support the Flood, it's good evidence for your side, so I leave it at that for now.
If you want I can start a new thread for you taking the evidence step by step ... either in open forum or in Great Debate ...
The earth is old, Faith, very very old, and you need to get used to it, just as you are used to the idea that the earth is round and orbits the sun.
Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
If the earth really is only 6000 years old, and there was a worldwide Flood about 4300 years ago, what would that do to your dating methods? (Since the majority of the methods can only measure enormous time spans).
The methods would not be affected, the results would be.
Most radiometric systems would show a maximum age that is the low end of their ability to measure time, if the lower limit were 10,000 years then it would be reported as "less than 10,000 years" for such samples.
We can find examples of volcanic rock that support this fact.
In addition you would have tree rings stopping at 6,000 years, lake varves stopping at 6,000 years, snow layers stopping at 6,000 years (or 4300 years) ... and they don't
OR the evidence is faked by your god/s to appear old -- see previous Wiens link on this ...
quote:
Apparent Age?
It would not be inconsistent with the scientific evidence to conclude that God made everything relatively recently, but with the appearance of great age, just as Genesis 1 and 2 tell of God making Adam as a fully grown human (which implies the appearance of age). This idea was captured by Phillip Henry Gosse in the book, "Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot", written just two years before Darwin's "Origin of Species". The idea of a false appearance of great age is a philosophical and theological matter that we won't go into here. The main drawback--and it is a strong one--is that this makes God appear to be a deceiver. However, some ... people have no problem with this. Certainly whole civilizations have been incorrect (deceived?) in their scientific and theological ideas in the past. Whatever the philosophical conclusions, it is important to note that an apparent old Earth is consistent with the great amount of scientific evidence.
Now you can believe in a God that fakes evidence or you can believe that what we see is true evidence of what was created and when it was created.
Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
Leave the tree rings and varves out of this please. The subject is the radiometric dating methods. ...
And the tree rings and varves are the evidence that radiometric 14C dating is accurate, especially with the same 14C results obtained from different sources that are the same tree ring age, within 0.5% error over 8,000 years.
So yes, this is about radiometric dating, and no, you cannot leave out the evidence that validates the results.
... Did you really answer my question?
Say volcanism really only began on the planet at the time of the Flood. What kinds of readings would you get from your methods?
Either 4,300 years or the lower practical limit of the measuring system: you need sufficient time for the decay to occur to produce measurable results, so the longer the decay rate of the isotope you are measuring the more time needs to pass to obtain measurable results, hence there is a lower limit to what can be dated, and anything younger than that limit is normally reported as "less than {lower limit} age" ...
... just as the practical limit for 14C dating is ~50,000 years because after that the amount of 14C remaining is too small to measure, and the age is normally reported as "greater than 50,000 years) ...
You can't use a yardstick to measure a micron and you can't use a micrometer to measure a mile.
Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
... So either you need to invent some new physics which just happens to result in many different dating methods giving consistently wrong results - despite relying on different processes. ...
Note that scientists give their results with a stated uncertainty. They take into account all the possible errors and give a range within which they are 95% sure that the actual value lies. The top number, 3.600.05, refers to the range 3.60+0.05 to 3.60-0.05. The size of this range is every bit as important as the actual number. A number with a small uncertainty range is more accurate than a number with a larger range. For the numbers given above, one can see that all of the ranges overlap and agree between 3.62 and 3.65 billion years as the age of the rock. Several studies also showed that, because of the great ages of these rocks, they have been through several mild metamorphic heating events that disturbed the ages given by potassium-bearing minerals (not listed here). As pointed out earlier, different radiometric dating methods agree with each other most of the time, over many thousands of measurements. Other examples of agreement between a number of different measurements of the same rocks are given in the references below..
The Age of the Earth
We now turn our attention to what the dating systems tell us about the age of the Earth. The most obvious constraint is the age of the oldest rocks. These have been dated at up to about four billion years. But actually only a very small portion of the Earth's rocks are that old. From satellite data and other measurements we know that the Earth's surface is constantly rearranging itself little by little as Earthquakes occur. Such rearranging cannot occur without some of the Earth's surface disappearing under other parts of the Earth's surface, re-melting some of the rock. So it appears that none of the rocks have survived from the creation of the Earth without undergoing remelting, metamorphism, or erosion, and all we can say--from this line of evidence--is that the Earth appears to be at least as old as the four billion year old rocks.
The earth cannot logically be younger than the oldest rock formations found on earth ... unless the evidence lies.
Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
Sometimes. Amazing though how many Wikipedia and other general articles just rattle off a bunch of mystifying conclusions about this or that, say the KT boundary for an example without even touching on the particular phenomena involved. It's all millions of years this and assumed events that. There is NO room for uncertainty in those common presentations.
Yes, isn't it amazing that when you say the Greenland formation is at least 3 billion years old, that somehow misses out providing the information that "all of the ranges overlap and agree between 3.62 and 3.65 billion years" ... within their 95% range of accuracy ... that is one of the things that happens when you generalize from specific information.
The worst measurement accuracy reported is +/-6% ... so that is really egregious error ...
That is far from the point I'm trying to make. I don't care about the detailed arguments, what I care about is how the public is being brainwashed by a presentation of questionable material as fact. There is no way to rationalize this....
Because (1) it is not brainwashing -- nobody is being forced to learn it -- it is just information being made available (that's what the purpose of wiki is after all), (2) because it is not questionable material, it is the best explanation known at this time, and (3) it is not presented as fact, but as the best explanation known at this time.
... Presentations of TRUE science don't do this to the public.
What is "TRUE science" Faith?
Every science is based on the objective evidence and the best explanation of that evidence known at the time. There is no such thing as "TRUE" in science ... what we have instead is accepted facts, science is shades of grey rather than black and white.
Global climate change is a non-historical science based on observed facts of temperature rising in the atmosphere and in the ocean, it shows a very clear trend of increasing energy absorption by them, not just in temperature. This is why there is over 90% acceptance of these facts by the scientific community, and why people that read and understand science are concerned that actions should be taken.
As for my experience, I have not met many true scientists. ...
And how do you measure whether a person is a "true scientist" or not? How do you determine what is 'true' and what is fantasy? What I use to measure if a scientist is a real scientist is whether or not they actually do real science, apply the scientific method, and test predictions made by theories and publish articles in peer reviewed journals. What is your paradigm? How do you test whether information is based on fact or fantasy?
... Every time I have questioned macro ev, I get the "you must be a ...." treatment. ...
Can you define what you understand 'macro' evolution to be?
In biology 'macro' means speciation (the division of a breeding population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations), and the subsequent formation of nested hierarchies by multiple occurrences of such population branching events. Speciation has been observed and thus it is a known fact, and while nested hierarchies are also observed they are a prediction of evolution: every instance tests the theory and the results validate the theory.
If this is NOT what you think 'macro' means then obviously there is a communication problem; and when it comes to a problem of definition, you should use the definition used in science if you are talking about the science, otherwise you are just confusing yourself and you haven't really engaged in the discussion.
Is there any reason to think that 'macro' is anything other than observing 'micro' occurring over many generations? I can take a step, and that is a 'micro' hike (and I can discuss and observe all the different mechanisms that go into taking that one step), and I can walk across the continent (and I can discuss the accumulated effect of taking many single steps, one after the other, and how those steps can vary in different environments) but in no case do any of the steps taken walking across the continent use a different set of mechanisms than are used in taking a single step. The process of taking a single step is sufficient to explain the ability to walk across the continent.
... I mentioned piltdown, nebraska, etc being found to be flawed, ...
... by scientists. Curiously no creationist has debunked any frauds, rather they have been involved in perpetuating them (as any discussion of them at this time does). see Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes ... (and discuss this further on that site if you wish).
... to make sure they were no longer part of the debate and I get met with the above
So let me get this straight: you mention known (and scientifically debunked) falsehoods in a discussion, to ensure that they don't become part of the discussion? How has that worked out for you?
Wouldn't you really like to discuss what is actual science instead?
... Ask someone if they believe in the possibility of unicorns or aliens and see what you get met with
Let me guess ... something along the lines of: show me the objective empirical evidence and we can discuss this further. Without evidence how do you segregate factually based concepts from fantasy ones?
Don't you agree that the confidence we can have in a concept being valid is related to the amount of objective empirical evidence that provides a basis for that concept?
What is the difference between a possibility, a probability and a known fact?
... Try reading their findings from THEM, as opposed to reading those that simply contradict them.
Tell you what, why don't you post their findings from their last report that show any evidence of a young earth?
Simple task, should be easy to do ... right?
EvC forum???? Hmmm...
The forum discusses lots of topics from science to fantasy to politics, but the purpose of different threads is to focus on specific topics rather than wander around willy nilly.
Back on topic. Old earth, young earth, don't care. I enjoy hearing about new findings in the radiometric dating world. To discount the RATE findings just shows the ignorance of those that don't read their findings. ...
Methinks you protest too much: if you don't care then why keep harping on the RATE project?
Why don't we start with the evidence for an old earth (Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1) and then come back to whether or not the RATE report is worth the paper it was written on ... in other words, lets look at independent confirmation of the age of the earth based on simple evidence with no biased opinions ... yes?
So you keep saying, yet you seem obsessed with implying that there is some interesting information, but you can't (or won't) answer my simple question. Let me repeat it:
RAZD writes:
Message 105: Tell you what, why don't you post their findings from their last report that show any evidence of a young earth?
Simple task, should be easy to do ... right?
Perhaps the reason is that there is no evidence of a young earth in their report?
If you get so offended about studies that might change things as we know them, you are NOT a scientist. You are simply a fundamentalist.
For them to challenge current knowledge they need to have evidence that shows current knowledge is wrong -- if you think they have it then where is it?
Show me the evidence, mram10, or you are not really interested in the science.
For those interested in continuing this topic, please post. As fort the rest, feel free to continue your bashing elsewhere. It simply takes away form your credibility when you do it
Curiously, you have not established any credibility (a) to take away from and (b) to be regarded as any kind of authority on what credibility is.
Show me the evidence, mram10, or admit you don't really have any.
Just another creationist playing games trying to fool themselves.
1. The helium levels from the granite were higher than expected due to the diffusion rates. They said the helium should be gone if the zircons were that old.
This is a PRATT (point refuted a thousand times) ...
quote:Uranium and thorium in zircons produce helium as a by-product of their radioactive decay. This helium seeps out of the the zircons quickly over a wide range of temperatures. If the zircons really are about 1.5 billion years old (the age that conventional dating gives assuming a constant decay rate), almost all of the helium should have dissipated from the zircons long ago. But there is a significant amount of helium still inside the zircons, showing their ages to be 6,000 +/- 2,000 years. Accelerated decay must have produced a billion years worth of helium in that short amount of time.
Source:
Humphreys, D. Russell, Steven A. Austin, John R. Baumgardner, and Andrew A. Snelling, 2003. Helium diffusion rates support accelerated nuclear decay. Error | The Institute for Creation Research Humphreys, D. Russell, Steven A. Austin, John R. Baumgardner and A. A. Snelling, 2004. Helium diffusion age of 6,000 years supports accelerated nuclear decay. Creation Research Society Quarterly 41(1): 1-16. The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)
Response:
Subsurface pressure and temperature conditions affect how quickly the helium diffuses out of zircons. D. R. Humphreys et al. selected a rock core sample from the Fenton Hill site, which Los Alamos National Laboratory evaluated in the 1970s for geothermal energy production. The area is within a few kilometers of the Valles Caldera, which has gone through several periods of faulting and volcanism. The rocks of the Fenton Hill core have been fractured, brecciated, and intruded by hydrothermal veins. Excess helium is present in the rocks of the Valles Caldera (Goff and Gardner 1994). The helium may have contaminated the gneiss that Humphreys et al. studied. In short, the entire region has had a very complex thermal history. Based on oil industry experience, it is essentially impossible to make accurate statements about the helium-diffusion history of such a system.
Scientific studies, especially those with radical implications, do not mean much until the results have been replicated by others. Many scientific claims have disappeared entirely when others could not get the same results. Confidence in this particular paper is reduced by certain points:
Most measurement errors and variabilities are not reported. Therefore, we do not know how accurate the results are.
Humphreys et al. claimed that they studied zircons and biotites from depths of 750 and 1,490 meters in the Jemez Granodiorite. However, Sasada (1989) showed that at those depths, the samples came from a gneiss, an entirely different rock type.
Because of math errors, the Q/Q0 values (fraction of helium retained), used by Humphreys et al. to derive their dates, are too high.
Humphreys et al. (2003) failed properly to total their data in Appendix C, which means that they grossly underestimated the total amount of helium released by their 750-meter-deep zircons. The amount of helium in the zircons greatly exceeds the amount that would be expected from the radioactive decay of uranium over 1.5 billion years. The high helium concentration may be due to samples that were abnormally high in uranium and/or to the presence of excess helium.
Much is made of the fact that samples five and six retained the same amount of helium, even though the amounts are probably at the limit of what could be measured. The possibility of measurement error accounting for the results is never mentioned.
If one discounts sample five, which is likely at the limit of measurable precision, the conclusions of Humphreys et al. (2004) rest on just three samples. Such a small data set may be the basis for further research, but not for drawing firm conclusions.
Humphreys et al. (2003, note 9) referred to correcting "apparent typographical errors" in the raw data, casting suspicion on the validity of all the data.
The helium results could easily be due to an aberrant sample. They could be an artifact of the experimental or collecting method (e.g., defects in the zircons caused by rapid cooling) or from just plain sloppiness. We cannot know for sure until others have looked at the issue, too.
Producing a billion years of radioactive decay in a "Creation week" or year-long flood would have produced a billion years worth of heat from radioactive decay as well. This would pretty much vaporize the earth. Since the earth apparently has not been vaporized recently, we can be confident that the accelerated decay did not occur. (Humphreys recognizes this "heat problem" but is currently unable to provide a solution.)
If helium concentrations stay high around the rocks, it is possible for helium to diffuse into voids and fractures in the zircons, or at least high helium pressures could reduce the rate at which helium diffuses out. Either of these scenarios would invalidate the helium diffusion calculations in Humphreys et al. (2003, 2004). Helium concentrations within the earth become high enough for commercial mining. The sample measured by Humphreys et al. came from an area that is probably helium enriched. Helium deposits are common in New Mexico, and excess helium has been found just a few miles from where the sample was taken (Goff and Gardner 1994). To test for the presence of excess helium in their zircons, Humphreys et al. should look for 3He.
Uranium does not decay directly to lead; rather, it proceeds through a series of multiple intermediate radioactive elements (Faure 1986, 284-287). It takes about ten half-lives of the longest lived intermediate to achieve secular equilibrium (i.e., each intermediate having the same activity). The uranium decay series contains elements with half-lives well over 10,000 years. If the decay rates changed suddenly, we would not expect the various elements to be in a secular equilibrium. Humphreys et al. should test for this in their zircons. Other uranium ores are at secular equilibrium, indicating a constant decay rate for at least the last two million years.
Links:
Henke, Kevin R. 2005. Young-earth creationist helium diffusion "dates": Fallacies based on bad assumptions and questionable data. RATE's Ratty Results: Helium in Zircons
References:
Faure, G., 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.
Goff, F. and J. N. Gardner, 1994. Evolution of a mineralized geothermal system, Valles Caldera, New Mexico. Economic Geology 89: 1803-1832.
Sasada, M., 1989. Fluid inclusion evidence for recent temperature increases at Fenton Hill Hot Dry Rock Test Site west of the Valles Caldera, New Mexico, U.S.A. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 36: 257-266.
So if someone wanted to intentionally look for a site that they would know before-hand would produce anomalous results, then this is exactly the kind of formation that they would (dishonestly) use. This type of "study" has been done by dishonest creationists before (McMurdo Sound Seal comes to mind).
For instance if I do a google on high helium expected I get a number of results, including:
As the Yellowstone hotspot has warped the earth’s crust, that helium has come floating out. Researchers discovered what they describe as the prodigious degassing ...
Not surprisingly the Yellowstone hotspot area has the same kind of fractured rock conditions seen at the Fenton Hill site, and I would expect that any Zircons in that area would have higher than normal concentrations.
Intentionally providing false information to deceive others is lying, by definition ... and the lie is in the phrase "than expected" not in the physical results.
Instead of saying, "they are wrong" can someone with UNDERSTAND and EXPERIENCE in this fields explain how their research was flawed
It's already been done -- about 10 years ago, and we should not need to reinvent the wheel every time a creationist tries to foist off old debunked poppycock as something "new" ... because that too is dishonest.
For some reason creationists seem to have a problem with honestly discarding discredited information (like piltdown man etc).
Im interested in why you would say that "an apparent old Earth is consistent with the great amount of scientific evidence". What "great amount" are you referring to? I believe in an old earth, however I don't see all this evidence you refer to.
™ Version 4.2
(1)