Jump to content


Photo

Requesting Help From Old Universe Believers


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
52 replies to this topic

#1 Ceeboo

Ceeboo

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Troy, Michigan

Posted 03 March 2012 - 12:12 PM

Good day all,

I am a new member here (trying to get a feel of the place by blindly navigating around) and wanted to ask for some help. If this has been covered before, please point me in the right direction. Thanks!

I am a Christian who is agnostic concerning the age of the earth (Have seen quite a bit of the YEC positions, stances, and work that is available on line).

Concerning much of the information I have read/seen (polystrate tree fossils that run through millions of years in the suggested geologic column time frames, dinosaur info, carbon 14 dating that seems to posses challenges, fossils of modern things, Moon distance in reverse, etc, etc), I have not been able to find detailed info concerning the counter explanation given from those who hold an old universe view (14 billion years) or earth (4.5 billion years).

Please know, I am not implying that the old universe crowd (Creationist or Atheist) do not have their perspective on this. I am simply asking for info/links of where I can look, measure, and digest this info/perspective.

Thanks in advance for the responses!

Look forward to meeting, sharing, and discussing things with many of you.

Peace,
Ceeboo

#2 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 03 March 2012 - 01:37 PM

They believe and use the same evidence the atheist do to prove their stance. So all you have to do is read what the atheist are saying about old earth and you got what the OEC and TE believes. But I have yet to figure out how a Creator can fit.

#3 Ceeboo

Ceeboo

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Troy, Michigan

Posted 03 March 2012 - 01:55 PM

Hi ikester,

They believe and use the same evidence the atheist do to prove their stance. So all you have to do is read what the atheist are saying about old earth and you got what the OEC and TE believes. But I have yet to figure out how a Creator can fit.


Thanks for the reply.

What is a TE?

Peace,
Ceeboo

#4 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 03 March 2012 - 02:32 PM

Hi ikester,



Thanks for the reply.

What is a TE?

Peace,
Ceeboo


Theistic evolutionist. It's where they try to merge God and evolution by claiming God used evolution to create. Problem is there is no mention of any kind to anything that can remotely be referred to as evolution during creation or anywhere else. In fact God mentions 10 time (like the 10 commandments) that all animals reproduce after their kind in Genesis chapter 1.

And now you know why "after their kind creation" and reproduction is fought so hard. It's God's commandment for all life and Satan hates that.

#5 Ceeboo

Ceeboo

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Troy, Michigan

Posted 03 March 2012 - 03:26 PM

Hey again, ikester,

Theistic evolutionist.


Got it (Thanks)

It's where they try to merge God and evolution by claiming God used evolution to create.


Yes, I understand.

BTW, over the last few days, I have spent some time checking out some of your links/blogs (Thanks for sharing them with me/us). FWIW, I have found them to be enormously fascinating on many levels.

If you don't mind (and if I can figure out how to private message on this forum. Do you have that feature?), I wanted to send you a question.

Thanks and peace,
Ceeboo

#6 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 03 March 2012 - 03:36 PM

I suggest you check out:
http://creation.com/...ric-dating#b2r1
and
http://creation.com/...d-in-laboratory

Cheers!

#7 Ceeboo

Ceeboo

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Troy, Michigan

Posted 03 March 2012 - 03:45 PM

I suggest you check out:
http://creation.com/...ric-dating#b2r1
and
http://creation.com/...d-in-laboratory

Cheers!


Thanks, Jay
I will check it out!

Peace,
Ceeboo

#8 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 03 March 2012 - 08:04 PM

Concerning much of the information I have read/seen (polystrate tree fossils that run through millions of years in the suggested geologic column time frames, dinosaur info, carbon 14 dating that seems to posses challenges, fossils of modern things, Moon distance in reverse, etc, etc), I have not been able to find detailed info concerning the counter explanation given from those who hold an old universe view (14 billion years) or earth (4.5 billion years).


I think this link will be very useful.

http://creationwiki....ationist_Claims

The website Talk.Origins has a list of counter-arguments for those claims, but Creation Wiki has answered those counter-arguments in the link above. It shows the claim by Talk.Origins and then provides an answer for it. It covers "polystrate tree fossils that run through millions of years in the suggested geologic column time frames, dinosaur info, carbon 14 dating that seems to posses challenges, fossils of modern things, Moon distance in reverse, etc, etc"

Hope that helps.
  • JayShel likes this

#9 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 04 March 2012 - 10:26 PM

Hey again, ikester,



Got it (Thanks)



Yes, I understand.

BTW, over the last few days, I have spent some time checking out some of your links/blogs (Thanks for sharing them with me/us). FWIW, I have found them to be enormously fascinating on many levels.

If you don't mind (and if I can figure out how to private message on this forum. Do you have that feature?), I wanted to send you a question.

Thanks and peace,
Ceeboo


You click on my name and it takes you to my control panel. In there you will see a button at the top that will allow you to message me. At the top of the forum you will see a icon that look likes a envelope. When I message you back you will see a red dot show up there along with the number of messages you have. You click on the envelope and a drop down menu will appear letting you see how many messages you have and you click on one to read it.

The messages in that section work like a private thread. Each response will be in order just like they appear in a thread.

#10 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 04 March 2012 - 10:49 PM

I was an old earth creationist and I thought it was an exercise in cognitive disonance (nearly all JW beliefs are) so I went searching for answers and didn't find them in mainstream Old Earth views, but found them in YEC materials.

#11 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 15 March 2012 - 11:33 AM

I am not entirely sure what you are looking for (I might be misunderstanding your post), but if you are looking for how exactly people who trust/assume/believe the earth to be 4.54 billion years old come to that conclusion, this post (while very long-winded) is also very informative and covers pretty much everything in depth.

http://www.rationals...rous-t1783.html

#12 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 17 March 2012 - 10:40 PM

If I may also explain personally it might help a bit.

For the moon, the secular consensus is that the moon was formed by the collision of a huge asteroid with the primitive earth. Fragments flew off into space, where they slowly gathered to make a single object, the moon. Also, the distance between two objects in space can and does vary, because the closer to its center of orbit an object becomes, the faster the object goes, but the faster the object goes, the more it is pushed outwards. As it moves outwards, the object slows down again and falls back into the gravitational well. I am not very familiar with this argument, so I cannot say much more.

From what I know of polystrate trees, it is that those trees were buried in areas where sedimentation was rather fast, while the trees were standing. This could happen with trees in a swamp or marsh that was slowly sinking, in a delta, or even in a flooded area. Polystrate trees are not so uncommon as to be entirely mysterious, and there is even a wikipedia page on it (with links) if you wish to investigate further. Polystrate trees are not found across geologic layers that are millions of years of age apart though, if memory serves.

Carbon dating does pose challenges, but carbon dating is not used to date the age of the earth. Instead, consider the samarium 146 atom, which has a half-life of 103,000,000 years. That means that every 103 million years, half of the samarium atoms have disintegrated. Now, we can measure atoms down to 20 half lives, or when there is (1/2) to the 20th power, or when there is just about only 1 out of every million (1/1,000,000) samarium atoms left. We also know by looking at stars and planets in the universe that samarium 146 is produced by stars, and that our planet did have samarium in it when it started to form, and hasn't received any new samarium whatsoever. Now when we measure and look for samarium 146 on earth, we find none at all. If the earth were only created 6,000 years ago, we'd still have close to 100% of the samarium 146 left. However, there is none, and we can measure down to 20 half-lives. So 20 X 103,000,000 years makes 2,060,000,000 years. Based on samarium alone, we can assume the planet is at minimum 2.06 billion years old. That is only the samarium radioactive measurement, we can do measurements with atoms whose half-lives are longer than the current age of the universe to have more precise measurements.

If you have any specific questions, don't hesitate to ask me :)

Sm146, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 103,000,000 years = 2,060,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 2,060,000,000 years old for all the Sm146 to have disappeare

#13 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 18 March 2012 - 07:33 AM

From what I know of polystrate trees, it is that those trees were buried in areas where sedimentation was rather fast, while the trees were standing. This could happen with trees in a swamp or marsh that was slowly sinking, in a delta, or even in a flooded area. Polystrate trees are not so uncommon as to be entirely mysterious, and there is even a wikipedia page on it (with links) if you wish to investigate further. Polystrate trees are not found across geologic layers that are millions of years of age apart though, if memory serves.



How long does it take a coal seam to form? Last time I checked, uniformitarian geologists claimed long ages. I remember at least one of these trees standing upright through a coal seam. I'm not sure how you would attempt to explain that one:

Years ago, National Geographic published a remarkable photograph of a polystrate fossil, a fossilized tree that extended stratigraphically upward through several layers of rock in Tennessee. Its roots were in a coal seam, and the overlying deposits included bedded shale and thin carbon-rich layers.
[...]
The specific strata surrounding the fossil provided a history. According to uniformitarianism, many years are required for a thick layer of peat to accumulate in a swampy environment. This type of location is quite different from the marine environment in which tiny shale-sized particles are deposited.
[...]
The tree was a mature tree, yet could not have grown in the location where the surrounding shale was deposited, since trees don't live long under the sea. Furthermore, the time required for shaley sediments to accumulate must be added to the tree's lifespan, as must the time to deeply bury the coal precursor and create the pressure to generate enough heat to alter the peat into coal.
http://www.icr.org/a...ystrate-fossil/



Carbon dating does pose challenges, but carbon dating is not used to date the age of the earth. Instead, consider the samarium 146 atom, which has a half-life of 103,000,000 years. That means that every 103 million years, half of the samarium atoms have disintegrated. Now, we can measure atoms down to 20 half lives, or when there is (1/2) to the 20th power, or when there is just about only 1 out of every million (1/1,000,000) samarium atoms left. We also know by looking at stars and planets in the universe that samarium 146 is produced by stars, and that our planet did have samarium in it when it started to form, and hasn't received any new samarium whatsoever. Now when we measure and look for samarium 146 on earth, we find none at all. If the earth were only created 6,000 years ago, we'd still have close to 100% of the samarium 146 left. However, there is none, and we can measure down to 20 half-lives. So 20 X 103,000,000 years makes 2,060,000,000 years. Based on samarium alone, we can assume the planet is at minimum 2.06 billion years old. That is only the samarium radioactive measurement, we can do measurements with atoms whose half-lives are longer than the current age of the universe to have more precise measurements.

If you have any specific questions, don't hesitate to ask me :)

Sm146, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 103,000,000 years = 2,060,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 2,060,000,000 years old for all the Sm146 to have disappeare


True Assuming:
1-the radioactive element has decayed at the same rate in the past as it has been observed to today in the lab.
2-the rock being analyzed is not contaminated by infusion of excess end product.
3-the rock crystal contained no end product when it was formed, only parent radiometric element.
4-leaching of the parent element out of the rock sample did not occur.

Questions, is there such a thing as a scientific assumption?

#14 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 18 March 2012 - 09:05 AM

How long does it take a coal seam to form? Last time I checked, uniformitarian geologists claimed long ages. I remember at least one of these trees standing upright through a coal seam. I'm not sure how you would attempt to explain that one:

I do remember an article from a creationist website who's experiment showed that coal formation was rapid enough given sufficient pressure and heat. However, what does take a long time, as the rebuttal went, is the piling of layers to create sufficient heat and pressure. So it's not how long it takes for carbon-based deposits to become coal that's all that long, it's the time it takes to reach the conditions where such a transformation is possible.

True Assuming:
1-the radioactive element has decayed at the same rate in the past as it has been observed to today in the lab.

There is some research being made into how much does the sun's neutrinos affect the half-life of an atom (as it was recently found that something emitted from the sun does cause a variation) but since that variation is a) minor, and B) cyclic, it would be safe to assume that the decay is on average constant, i.e. it doesn't randomly fluctuate around in any significant way.

2-the rock being analyzed is not contaminated by infusion of excess end product.
3-the rock crystal contained no end product when it was formed, only parent radiometric element.

See, that's the beautiful thing with the samarium, you don't need to know how much daughter isotopes were formed, you just need to know that it is there in sufficient quantities, and that there is no samarium left at all. All the parent radiometric atoms have disintegrated, therefore the age is actually greater than what we can measure.

4-leaching of the parent element out of the rock sample did not occur.

True, leaching could affect results, but that would be the case in any one specific sample. For samarium, take samples anywhere in the world, and you will not find any whatsoever.

Questions, is there such a thing as a scientific assumption?

Yes there is, but the assumption either has to be validated by further experimentation or otherwise always be consistent with reality. You can assume a certain parameter for an experiment, but if your results do not match your prediction, you can look to your assumption to revise it to be in accordance with reality in a consistent manner. This is not fitting data within the model, this is modifying the model so it is able to appropriately predict future events.

#15 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 18 March 2012 - 09:33 AM

I do remember an article from a creationist website who's experiment showed that coal formation was rapid enough given sufficient pressure and heat. However, what does take a long time, as the rebuttal went, is the piling of layers to create sufficient heat and pressure. So it's not how long it takes for carbon-based deposits to become coal that's all that long, it's the time it takes to reach the conditions where such a transformation is possible.


And therefore, this tree fossil that goes through both coal and shale must have been deposited rapidly in order to preserve the tree in shale and carbon rich layers. The only real explanation is a flood, because it would rapidly deposit both shale and carbon rich layers on top of the tree fast enough to preserve it and form the coal seam. Interesting, a massive flood in Tennessee...

There is some research being made into how much does the sun's neutrinos affect the half-life of an atom (as it was recently found that something emitted from the sun does cause a variation) but since that variation is a) minor, and B) cyclic, it would be safe to assume that the decay is on average constant, i.e. it doesn't randomly fluctuate around in any significant way.


So you admit that we have reason to believe that radiometric decay rates have not been constant in the past, and have just recently discovered one potential cause of this. There is also the extreme temperatures involved in the creation of the earth under the Big Bang Theory which would potentially affect the movement of matter, and potentially the decay rates (since logically, matter stops moving at 0 Kelvin and moves more rapidly with more heat).
Furthermore, we have also discovered effects on decay rates based on Chemical Environment http://creation.com/...cal-environment and in an ionized state (fewer electrons)http://creation.com/...-in-laboratory.

See, that's the beautiful thing with the samarium, you don't need to know how much daughter isotopes were formed, you just need to know that it is there in sufficient quantities, and that there is no samarium left at all. All the parent radiometric atoms have disintegrated, therefore the age is actually greater than what we can measure.


Another parlor trick of uniformitarianism. Based on assumptions, and more assumptions "We also know by looking at stars and planets in the universe that samarium 146 is produced by stars, and that our planet did have samarium in it when it started to form, and hasn't received any new samarium whatsoever. Now when we measure and look for samarium 146 on earth, we find none at all."

So our planet had samarium in it when it started to form? How do we know this? We know this by looking at stars and planets with telescopes? You will have to provide more data than that because to me there is insufficient data to support such an assertion.

Once again, we assume that given existence of samarium during the formation of the earth, that nothing caused the decay rate to significantly increase.

True, leaching could affect results, but that would be the case in any one specific sample. For samarium, take samples anywhere in the world, and you will not find any whatsoever.


You have successfully taken this debate point out of context of the other situations in which it is a valid argument.

Yes there is, but the assumption either has to be validated by further experimentation or otherwise always be consistent with reality. You can assume a certain parameter for an experiment, but if your results do not match your prediction, you can look to your assumption to revise it to be in accordance with reality in a consistent manner. This is not fitting data within the model, this is modifying the model so it is able to appropriately predict future events.


Assumptions are a scientific starting point with which to build hypotheses, not a good foundation for a conclusion, therefore an old age of the earth is unverifiable via radiometric testing. It is a popular pseudoscientific belief no doubt.

#16 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 18 March 2012 - 05:43 PM

And therefore, this tree fossil that goes through both coal and shale must have been deposited rapidly in order to preserve the tree in shale and carbon rich layers. The only real explanation is a flood, because it would rapidly deposit both shale and carbon rich layers on top of the tree fast enough to preserve it and form the coal seam. Interesting, a massive flood in Tennessee...

Not necessarily, the deposit doesn't have to be put there while the tree was still alive. Trees remain standing for a rather long time in areas which have recently become flooded, as would happen if a forest turned into a marsh. Marshes create favorable environments for deposition of sediments, especially carbon-rich deposits, and if the area of ground kept sinking, the ground level might have gotten so low as to have become lower than the sea level. So ground sinking from say 10m above sea level (forest) to 3m (marsh) to 0m (below sea level) could create this kind of situation. I'm not knowledgeable enough to really discuss this in much more details though, I will have to do more research.
Also, a massive flood could very well have ripped the tree out, and/or disturbed the deposits, so as not to have a clear and distinct difference between say peat bog deposits and shale.


So you admit that we have reason to believe that radiometric decay rates have not been constant in the past, and have just recently discovered one potential cause of this. There is also the extreme temperatures involved in the creation of the earth under the Big Bang Theory which would potentially affect the movement of matter, and potentially the decay rates (since logically, matter stops moving at 0 Kelvin and moves more rapidly with more heat).
Furthermore, we have also discovered effects on decay rates based on Chemical Environment http://creation.com/...cal-environment and in an ionized state (fewer electrons)http://creation.com/...-in-laboratory.

Well, in as much as a sine wave is not constant, then yes. A sine wave does vary as a function, but it varies in a constant manner. This would increase the error margin of the method, not make its results irrelevant.
Also, on the assumption of a constant half-life. In over 50 years of measuring half-lives of various atoms, we have never found any significant fluctuations in the time of the half-life. Now 50 years is a tiny amount of time and is insufficient with half-lives in the order of millions of years. But consider this: dating methods using uranium use not only parent/daughter isotopes, but also use the fact the daughter isotopes from uranium decay are also radioactive, each with their own specific half-life. In total, I think uranium decays into 20 different radioactive isotopes before finally stopping to become lead. Now, we can measure the different ration between all these different isotopes and compare those rates to the duration of the half-life of all those different isotopes. Had decay rates changed significantly in the past, all those rates would give us garbled results, and we would have ratios that would be completely useless. That is not what we find however. Studies of not only uranium but also other specific chain reactions all give consistent dates (and by consistent I mean they don't have a significant divergence, not that they all have 100% all exactly the same value). In addition to that, there are also isochron dating, where one radioactive atom, rubidium 87, decays into stronium 87. However, there are natural amounts of stronium 86 in rocks also, and we can make the difference between the two. Stronium 87 can only be acquired as the result of breakdown from rubidium 87, and it has a half life of 47,500,000,000 years. We can measure quantities of stronium 87 after 0.001 half-lives has passed, thus any detection of stronium 87 whatsoever, will immediately mean a rock has an age of 40 million years.
You can read more if you wish here: http://www.rationals...rous-t1783.html
Increased temperature and pressure do not affect radioactive decay, this has been researched and studied in order to make sure uranium dating methods were accurate.
As for the electron capture method, this means alpha and beta decaying particles are completely unaffected (I'm not sure of the figures but I do think gamma-emitting decay is less than 30% of decay? I don't know for sure). That study was shown with a small atom having a half-life of 56 days. Larger atoms with much longer half-lives have a lot more electrons, and consequently, ionising the atoms enough for them to be affected requires much more energy than for beryllium.
And finally, even if the experiments had showed a uniform 5% error in dating methods, that would still not be enough. 5% of 4.5 billion years is still 4 billion years. Scientists would need to do an error in the range of the 100,000,000 % to even allow 10,000 years of creation to fit inside the error margin. (4.500,000,000,000/10,000)
Also, just to say, I would have liked to read it, but it appears the second link is broken.


Another parlor trick of uniformitarianism. Based on assumptions, and more assumptions "We also know by looking at stars and planets in the universe that samarium 146 is produced by stars, and that our planet did have samarium in it when it started to form, and hasn't received any new samarium whatsoever. Now when we measure and look for samarium 146 on earth, we find none at all."

So our planet had samarium in it when it started to form? How do we know this? We know this by looking at stars and planets with telescopes? You will have to provide more data than that because to me there is insufficient data to support such an assertion.

Once again, we assume that given existence of samarium during the formation of the earth, that nothing caused the decay rate to significantly increase.

Stars are nuclear fusion furnaces, and produce all the known elements of the universe (minus a few that were synthesized in labs). We can see samarium being produced inside stars, we can see samarium in space, ejected from exploded stars. We know such clouds condense to form solar systems, just like ours. We have found samarium decay isotopes in asteroids. We have detected the daughter isotope of samarium decay within the earth's crust. We can find plenty of the stable isotopes of samarium on our planet. Why would samarium 146 specifically not be here, when clearly all the other isotopes are?
Also, we can see samarium in stars because of the absorption spectrum. Elements absorb specific light frequencies, and we can tell by the light a star emits that samarium inside it absorbs certain frequencies of light.
Is there something else you would like me to clarify further?



You have successfully taken this debate point out of context of the other situations in which it is a valid argument.

No, I agree, it is a valid concern. If I am looking for a specific element in a specific rock, the radioisotope I am looking for could have washed out. I am telling you, you can look in every rock where you would expect to find samarium 146, in every rock where samarium 146 could have been and not have washed out, you can look to where the samarium 146 would have washed to, and you will find none. You will find plenty of other isotopes of samarium, but there is no samarium 146 left on our planet.


Assumptions are a scientific starting point with which to build hypotheses, not a good foundation for a conclusion, therefore an old age of the earth is unverifiable via radiometric testing. It is a popular pseudoscientific belief no doubt.

True, I agree. Assumptions must be removed whenever possible, and if not, must be extensively tested to ensure they follow the laws of reality. However, saying that radiometric dating is entirely flawed because of assumptions, even though they are constant with reality to a high degree, and 2% errors (I'm being generous), is like saying measuring anything with a yardstick is useless because you can't measure if it's a 1/16th of an inch longer or shorter, therefore we shouldn't use a yardstick.
It is not pseudoscientific, it is not a belief, it is established science.
I find it interesting that everything which contradicts a literal interpretation of the bible is categorically placed within the 'unerifiable pseudoscience' category, from 'macro'evolution to radiometric dating to astrophysics.
  • Athelas likes this

#17 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 19 March 2012 - 01:06 AM

Carbon dating does pose challenges, but carbon dating is not used to date the age of the earth. Instead, consider the samarium 146 atom, which has a half-life of 103,000,000 years. That means that every 103 million years, half of the samarium atoms have disintegrated. Now, we can measure atoms down to 20 half lives, or when there is (1/2) to the 20th power, or when there is just about only 1 out of every million (1/1,000,000) samarium atoms left.


The half-life exponential rate is based on pure randomness. Absolutely no patterns in the decay. Any sign of outside influences would mess with this exponential rate being used. You stated that patterns discovered in decay rates are negligible, but to what extent do these small changes in the decay rates effect the principle of randomness on which the exponential rate is based? I am not referring to slight changes in the measured decay rates themselves, I'm referring to the half-life that you have explained so well which is 100% based on randomness.

#18 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5566 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 19 March 2012 - 01:37 PM

If I may also explain personally it might help a bit.

For the moon, the secular consensus is that the moon was formed by the collision of a huge asteroid with the primitive earth. Fragments flew off into space, where they slowly gathered to make a single object, the moon. Also, the distance between two objects in space can and does vary, because the closer to its center of orbit an object becomes, the faster the object goes, but the faster the object goes, the more it is pushed outwards. As it moves outwards, the object slows down again and falls back into the gravitational well. I am not very familiar with this argument, so I cannot say much more.



Carbon dating does pose challenges, but carbon dating is not used to date the age of the earth. Instead, consider the samarium 146 atom, which has a half-life of 103,000,000 years. That means that every 103 million years, half of the samarium atoms have disintegrated. Now, we can measure atoms down to 20 half lives, or when there is (1/2) to the 20th power, or when there is just about only 1 out of every million (1/1,000,000) samarium atoms left. We also know by looking at stars and planets in the universe that samarium 146 is produced by stars, and that our planet did have samarium in it when it started to form, and hasn't received any new samarium whatsoever. Now when we measure and look for samarium 146 on earth, we find none at all. If the earth were only created 6,000 years ago, we'd still have close to 100% of the samarium 146 left. However, there is none, and we can measure down to 20 half-lives. So 20 X 103,000,000 years makes 2,060,000,000 years. Based on samarium alone, we can assume the planet is at minimum 2.06 billion years old. That is only the samarium radioactive measurement, we can do measurements with atoms whose half-lives are longer than the current age of the universe to have more precise measurements.


Sm146, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 103,000,000 years = 2,060,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 2,060,000,000 years old for all the Sm146 to have disappeare


Then the secular consensus is a very stupid one... since if the moon is a fragment from a collision then it wouldn't be a near-perfect sphere.... I'm not sure why they would claim it as a fragment of a collision if only to allow for more time to be added to the age of the Earth- (ie the collision could occur billions of years later, thus allowing for an infinite amount of time beforehand)

IF that is the case for Sm14 then using that same logic there should be no more Carbon isotope at all. If the age of the Earth is so old then there should be no more C14. It could be claimed that C14 somehow "regenerates" however this would also apply to all other isotopes, meaning that none can be used reliably for an age since they can regenerate like the C14... Hence radioactive dating is seriously flawed.

#19 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 19 March 2012 - 03:16 PM

Then the secular consensus is a very stupid one... since if the moon is a fragment from a collision then it wouldn't be a near-perfect sphere.... I'm not sure why they would claim it as a fragment of a collision if only to allow for more time to be added to the age of the Earth- (ie the collision could occur billions of years later, thus allowing for an infinite amount of time beforehand)

The moon is massive enough to deform into a spherical shape due to self gravity. http://en.wikipedia....tic_equilibrium
It's physcially impossible for something like the moon to be non-spherical.


IF that is the case for Sm14 then using that same logic there should be no more Carbon isotope at all. If the age of the Earth is so old then there should be no more C14. It could be claimed that C14 somehow "regenerates" however this would also apply to all other isotopes, meaning that none can be used reliably for an age since they can regenerate like the C14... Hence radioactive dating is seriously flawed.

C14 is constantly being created by interaction between neutrons and Nitrogen in the upper atmosphere. The C14 decays back into Nitrogen, resulting in a cycle with an equilibrium level of C14 in the atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia....dioactive_decay
There's no natural process on earth that creates Sm146 and other extinct isotopes.
http://en.wikipedia....ct_radionuclide
  • Athelas likes this

#20 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 19 March 2012 - 06:54 PM

Then the secular consensus is a very stupid one... since if the moon is a fragment from a collision then it wouldn't be a near-perfect sphere.... I'm not sure why they would claim it as a fragment of a collision if only to allow for more time to be added to the age of the Earth- (ie the collision could occur billions of years later, thus allowing for an infinite amount of time beforehand)

I'm not entirely sure I follow your argument here about the age of the earth, but we don't really need the moon at all to show that the earth is more than 6,000 years old.
Also, I do believe miles has resumed the point about the moon being spherical very well. Only small (well, relatively) astronomical objects have a non-spherical shape.

IF that is the case for Sm14 then using that same logic there should be no more Carbon isotope at all. If the age of the Earth is so old then there should be no more C14. It could be claimed that C14 somehow "regenerates" however this would also apply to all other isotopes, meaning that none can be used reliably for an age since they can regenerate like the C14... Hence radioactive dating is seriously flawed.

The thing is that C14 is being continually produced in the earth's upper atmosphere. Gama rays from the sun send neutrons flying towards us, and when one of those neutrons hit an everyday regular nitrogen atom, it undergoes many nuclear changes to become an atom of carbon 14, with one less proton that nitrogen and two neutrons extra. Thus, C14 is being continually replenished. There are however no processes occurring on earth nor in the sun creating new samarium 146 though. Thus, all samarium must have come from the original soup of elements which created our planet, and since there is indeed all the other isotopes of samarium present but not samarium 146, it can give us an indication of the age of the planet.
Correction though, there are isotopes of samarium with longer and shorter half-lives than samarium 146, but they either give an age younger than Sm146, or an age older than the age of the earth (ie there are still some left), and in that case the assumption problem about initial quantities versus daughter isotope do apply. Samarium 146 simply provides a nice, clean, easy to understand example.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users