Jump to content


Photo

Carbon 14 - A Serious Problem For Old Earthers


  • Please log in to reply
152 replies to this topic

#41 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 14 July 2009 - 03:02 PM

Arch,

First of all 50,000 years is'nt a radio carbon date,it's a uniformitairian extrapolation of c-12/c-14 ratios that does not take into account other factors.Heres why a radio carbon age of 30-50 thousand years is easily within the biblical timescale.

Other Factors Affecting Carbon Dating

The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun's activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.
The strength of the earth's magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth.Overall, the energy of the earth's magnetic field has been decreasing,so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.

http://creationwiki....tic_field_decay - 35k -

Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.

Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.

Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for example, very discordant “dates” for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.

Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism,fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are.

In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.


http://www.christian...g/aig-c007.html - 51k -

#42 Guest_FrankH_*

Guest_FrankH_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 November 2009 - 06:01 AM

Take a close look at what it says about how the calibration curves are established. It sounds innocent enough, but the very things it is talking about, are the very things that are used to put the clamps on the lab worker, to keep them from publishing "bad dates".

You should give this a look. This is a geologist, who lost his faith in the present orthodox paradigm regarding geology:

http://www.answersin...ge-of-the-earth

I particularly like Dr. Austin's illustration about the space aliens who are intent on dating teenagers based solely on empirical data.

This is technically off topic but it helps to address your objections. This thread is dealing specifically with the fact that C-14 shows up, in abundance, where it ought not according to the evolutionist's own assumptions. All their excuses for why it does, falls short. Should we just dismiss this issue because it simply doesn't fit in the accepted belief?

View Post

Well here's the thing: Science doesn't know everything.

That's right, I said it. Science can't always give the answers when you want them.

Sounds terrible right? Maybe we should stop investigating and just assume a young earth? No way.

See there was a time when humanity didn't know how clouds formed, how rain feel from the sky nor even how lightning was "created". The belief from many was that the gods made lightning and sent it down to Earth to punish transgressions, because they were bored on their mountain or it was due to battles with evil forces.

Since science didn't know how lightning formed should we have stopped research and left it as "the gods did it!"? Good thing we didn't as I wouldn't want to be some guy in a toga watching sheep.

Which goes to another point I want to continually stress:

"Evidence against" or actually "percieved issues with" evolution does not strengthen YE Creationism. YE Creationism needs evidence FOR itself, nothing else will help it become viable as a way of how things came into being.

Ever hear of the "Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn of last Wednesdayism"? No, it's not a real church but the argument is that if things can be given "apparent ages" by some creator or creators, then it is just as likely that everything was created last Wednesday by a very powerful deity who gave us all of our memories and set everything up just as is with us thinking we actually have histories.

How can anyone "prove" there is no "Invisible Pink Unicorn"? Nope. But it is not for you to do so. It would be up to the adherents of that church to provide evidence for this claim. Just as it is up to those who feel YEC is true to produce evidence for their claim.

#43 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 09 November 2009 - 08:05 PM

Which goes to another point I want to continually stress:

"Evidence against" or actually "percieved issues with" evolution does not strengthen YE Creationism.  YE Creationism needs evidence FOR itself, nothing else will help it become viable as a way of how things came into being.

View Post

Hey Frank H,
For right now a short answer. If you read the post before yours there is a section called "Other Factors Affect C-14." It talks about the weakening magnetic field. Also there is evidence that the poles were subtropical at one time. There was something that may have caused a terrarium effect on the earth. Creationists used a water canopy model for a while but have not had success on computer models as far as greenhouse effect.

At any rate, something caused this effect--which most likely was an atmospheric layer(s) and/or stronger magnetic field which would have blocked out more radiation and so there would been a slower (compared to today) production of C-14. It has been a while since I studied this in depth, but that is the jist.

This also could attribute so much of the past giantism in many species, some of which still survive today in smaller versions (e.g. dragonflies;crocodiles). There is a theory (does anyone remember the name?) that the earth's environment at one time was at it a more optimum condition to bring out all of life's potential--and that because it no loinger exist it has affected growth, overall health, and life span in organisms.

Also, as you might know, there is no reason for C-14 to be in ancient rocks anymore than 80,000 years old. But it has been found and written about in journal papers.

#44 kbertsche

kbertsche

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • San Jose, CA

Posted 23 February 2010 - 10:40 AM

Fact: Carbon 14 decays into Nitrogen 14. The half life is ~5600 years. The theoretical maximum for all C-14 to decay to N-14 is 200,000 years. The realistic maximum is ~30K years, as mass spectronomy units would have a difficult time finding one C14 particle in a sample older than this.

Problem: Why do we find C14 in things that are supposed to be millions of years old? We regularly find C14 in coal, natural gas, diamonds, dinosaur bones, etc. It is extremely rare NOT to find C14 in any of these materials.


You (and RATE) make an unproven assertion here--that the C14 is actually in these objects. The evidence only says that C14 is found when these objects are dated.

This is not a problem--it is to be expected. Modern radiocarbon measurements are extremely sensitive and never measure a true "zero" value. They always measure a non-zero amount of "background" that must be corrected for. Some of this is due to true contamination of the sample (either in situ or in collection), some is due to the complex steps required to prepare the sample for measurement, and some is due to backgrounds in the measurement system (either radiocarbon contamination or instrumentation "noise").

So informed evolutionists are fully aware they cannot blame it on contamination.

Rather, informed radioisotope dating experts, whether evolutionists or not, are fully aware that such things are due to contamination.

I encourage you to read ICR's Impact 189 article from 1989, "MYTHS REGARDING RADIOCARBON DATING" by Gerald Aardsma. Aardsma is a radioisotope dating expert who formerly worked for ICR. In his Myth #4 he dismisses claims of young dates in coal and says, "it is easy to contaminate a sample which contains very little radiocarbon with enough radiocarbon from the research environment to give it an apparent radiocarbon age which is much less than its actual radiocarbon age".
(Available from ICR and from BelieversCafe.)

C14 is powerful evidence that these materials could not possibly be millions of years old. The fact they have C14 in them places a maximum age of 30K years on the material.


No, the radiocarbon measured by RATE is a combination of sample contamination and measurement background. For a thorough analysis of the RATE claims, see the paper "RATE's Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination?" by Kirk Bertsche, available from the following websites:
ASA, RTB, TalkOrigins.

#45 Steve Johnson

Steve Johnson

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • LA, CA

Posted 30 May 2010 - 08:07 PM

I haven't read through all the posts on this topic. I think I understand pretty well how C14 dating and the rest of the radiometric dating methods work. We know the radioactive material decays at a very steady rate. So by rewinding the clock of this steady decay, we find out how old it is, right? My question is, how do you know how much it started with? If you don't know for sure how much C14 was in the object being dated, how do you know when to stop rewinding the clock?

If I'm not understanding something here, please explain it to me.

Here's how I understand it. It is assumed that a plant has the same amount of C14 in it as the atmosphere around it. As soon as the plant dies it stops absorbing C14, but the C14 continues to decay. So if the amount of C14 in the atmosphere were a constant throughout history, it would be a very scientific dating method. But the amount of C14 in the atmosphere is not a constant. The amount is rising. If it was rising at a constant rate, we could calculate it and still use the dating method. But from what I hear it is not rising at a constant rate.

If it were rising at a constant rate, we should have reached equilibrium in the atmosphere by now if the earth is millions of years old. So if the amount of C14 is varying that much, how can we know how much C14 something had in it when it died?

I also believe the question applies to the other dating methods as well. How can you pick up a rock and know how much potassium or uranium it had in it when it was formed? You absolutely have to know this in order to know its age.

#46 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 31 May 2010 - 01:33 AM

I haven't read through all the posts on this topic. I think I understand pretty well how C14 dating and the rest of the radiometric dating methods work. We know the radioactive material decays at a very steady rate. So by rewinding the clock of this steady decay, we find out how old it is, right? My question is, how do you know how much it started with? If you don't know for sure how much C14 was in the object being dated, how do you know when to stop rewinding the clock?

If I'm not understanding something here, please explain it to me.

Here's how I understand it. It is assumed that a plant has the same amount of C14 in it as the atmosphere around it. As soon as the plant dies it stops absorbing C14, but the C14 continues to decay. So if the amount of C14 in the atmosphere were a constant throughout history, it would be a very scientific dating method. But the amount of C14 in the atmosphere is not a constant. The amount is rising. If it was rising at a constant rate, we could calculate it and still use the dating method. But from what I hear it is not rising at a constant rate.

If it were rising at a constant rate, we should have reached equilibrium in the atmosphere by now if the earth is millions of years old. So if the amount of C14 is varying that much, how can we know how much C14 something had in it when it died?

I also believe the question applies to the other dating methods as well. How can you pick up a rock and know how much potassium or uranium it had in it when it was formed? You absolutely have to know this in order to know its age.

View Post

You are correct about the C14 rate in the atmosphere. And your questions about the other dating methods expose the underlying assumptions of all dating methods. So in effect, the assumptions are calculated into real equations as absolute values.

#47 skeptic

skeptic

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Heidelberg, Germany

Posted 02 June 2010 - 01:04 AM

I haven't read through all the posts on this topic. I think I understand pretty well how C14 dating and the rest of the radiometric dating methods work. We know the radioactive material decays at a very steady rate. So by rewinding the clock of this steady decay, we find out how old it is, right? My question is, how do you know how much it started with? If you don't know for sure how much C14 was in the object being dated, how do you know when to stop rewinding the clock?

If I'm not understanding something here, please explain it to me.


That is different with different radiometric dating methods. First 14C: The ratio in the atmosphere of 14C/12C is not constant, that´s right, but you could measure the variations by comparing the ratios of objects of known age with the measured age through 14C. So you can calibrate your results. There are different methods for that: Dendrochronology, Lake varves and ice cores.
Let me explain you the process with this:
Posted Image
1. is the measurement results in Libby-half-lifes. You get a typical gaussian distribution of your results.
2. Is the calibration graph from dendrochronology measurements.
If you apply the calibration on your measurement results (the gaussian graph 1) you get the curve at the bottom (3 and 4). This curve shows you the probability distribution of the actual age
of the sample. It most likely (95% probability) lies in the range of 2033 BC - 1857 BC.

So with your measurement alone you don´t get a very accurate date (up to 20% deviation) you need to calibrate it. For the 14C going up to reach equilibrium: that is not correct. It goes up and down depending on the suns activity and our activities on earth. When the industrial times started we blew a lot of fossil CO2 in the air, so we lowered the ratio. With the atom bomb testings we produced a lot of 14C so the ratio went up again (thats why we can´t measure dates after 1950). The suns activity is rather low at the moment so the ratio is slowly going down.
So there is no indication it is constantly rising

I also believe the question applies to the other dating methods as well. How can you pick up a rock and know how much potassium or uranium it had in it when it was formed? You absolutely have to know this in order to know its age.

To answer this question you have to know something about cristallography. When the rock cools off and solidifies from lava or magma. The atoms of the different elements arrange themselves to form a specific mineral. The composition of most minerals is fixed, some elements get included to a certain amount and some get excluded. So it is safe to say that when the mineral formed you have a distinct amount of one element and none of the other. That´s why you get nonsense results by measuring whole rock ages because of different minerals in it. There the composition might not be known. Also the different minerals in a rock might have formed at different ages. Thats very well known with zircons. They are formed in the magma plume ages before the vulkan spits it´s lava and the other minerals with the zircons in it are formed.
To have an error indication in your measurements, you can use different minerals of different composition. In the molten state the composition was the same for all resulting minerals, but after the cooling you have different compositions depending of the kind of mineral you have. After that the radioactive elements decay to form different compositions. If you plot the ratios of daughter element/some stable reference element against mother element/the same reference element you get a straight line. The slope gives the age and the deviation from the linearity the uncertainty of measurement. Thats the isochron method.

Was this helpful? I can tell you more if you want.

#48 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 16 May 2011 - 09:35 AM

The slope gives the age and the deviation from the linearity the uncertainty of measurement. Thats the isochron method.

Was this helpful? I can tell you more if you want.

View Post


It wasn't, and no. :blink: Isocrons often give meaningless geologic dates, how do we know which ones we can trust? Some examples here, and in this Nature magazine article.

Basically two assumptions are needed for a "good" isochron: The same initial daughter isotope ratios for ALL samples at the time of formation, and a closed system for the parent/daughter and secondary daughter isotopes.

Fred

#49 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 17 May 2011 - 05:56 AM

Basically two assumptions are needed for a "good" isochron: The same initial daughter isotope ratios for ALL samples at the time of formation, and a closed system for the parent/daughter and secondary daughter isotopes.

Fred

View Post


Hi

I believe the isochron method does not assume that the initial daughter isotope ratios are the same at the time of formation:

The advantage of isochron dating as compared to simple radiometric dating techniques is that no assumptions are needed about the initial amount of the daughter nuclide in the radioactive decay sequence. Indeed the initial amount of the daughter product can be determined using isochron dating. This technique can be applied if the daughter element has at least one stable isotope other than the daughter isotope into which the parent nuclide decays.

Basis for method

All forms of isochron dating assume that the source of the rock or rocks contained unknown amounts of both radiogenic and non-radiogenic isotopes of the daughter element, along with some amount of the parent nuclide. Thus, at the moment of crystallization, the ratio of the concentration of the radiogenic isotope of the daughter element to that of the non-radiogenic isotope is some value independent of the concentration of the parent. As time goes on, some amount of the parent decays into the radiogenic isotope of the daughter, increasing the ratio of the concentration of the radiogenic isotope to that of the daughter. The greater the initial concentration of the parent, the greater the concentration of the radiogenic daughter isotope will be at some particular time. Thus, the ratio of the daughter to non-radiogenic isotope will become larger with time, while the ratio of parent to daughter will become smaller. For rocks that start out with a small concentration of the parent, the daughter/non-radiogenic ratio will not change quickly as compared to rocks starting with a large concentration of the parent.


You stated the assumption of the same initial daughter ratios applies to "all samples" - I'm not certain whether what you said agrees with Wikipedia.

Regards - S.

#50 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 17 May 2011 - 09:08 AM

Hi

I believe the isochron method does not assume that the initial daughter isotope ratios are the same at the time of formation:
You stated the assumption of the same initial daughter ratios applies to "all samples" - I'm not certain whether what you said agrees with Wikipedia.

Regards - S.

View Post


Wrong-a-mundo.

"The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement." - Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises http://geology.geosc...bstract/33/1/29

#51 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 17 May 2011 - 09:12 PM

Wrong-a-mundo.

"The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement." - Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises http://geology.geosc...bstract/33/1/29

View Post


Hi Fred

Ok, I see now what you were saying, and you are correct. The various different samples must be cogenetic i.e. formed at the same time with the same homogeneous mix of isotopes.

But if the samples are not cogenetic, the measurements will not fall on a line, so you will not have a good isochron, and you will know you cannot determine any dates from those particular samples. The same will apply if the sample was not a closed system i.e. elements or isotopes moved in or out of the sample.

In this sense, the isochron method is "self-checking". The method does not claim perfection on every possible rock, but is very useful in many cases. Additionally, scientists do cross-check dating methods that use different underlying physical processes, to confirm their procedures and results. The consequence is virtual certainty, in the scientific community, that the earth is billions of years old.

Regards - S.

#52 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 19 May 2011 - 06:06 AM

Hi Fred

Ok, I see now what you were saying, and you are correct. The various different samples must be cogenetic i.e. formed at the same time with the same homogeneous mix of isotopes.

But if the samples are not cogenetic, the measurements will not fall on a line, so you will not have a good isochron, and you will know you cannot determine any dates from those particular samples. The same will apply if the sample was not a closed system i.e. elements or isotopes moved in or out of the sample.

In this sense, the isochron method is "self-checking". The method does not claim perfection on every possible rock, but is very useful in many cases. Additionally, scientists do cross-check dating methods that use different underlying physical processes, to confirm their procedures and results. The consequence is virtual certainty, in the scientific community, that the earth is billions of years old.

Regards - S.

View Post


It might help if you took time time to actually read the article. Note the following [emphasis added]:

"The occurrence of significant isotope variation among mineral
phases in Holocene volcanic rocks questions a fundamental tenet in
isochron geochronology—that the initial isotope composition of the
analyzed phases is identical. If variations in isotopic composition are
common among the components (crystals and melt) of zero-age rocks,
should we not expect similar characteristics of older rocks
?"

The point is, if we can't trust dates for rocks with a known age (ie 30 year old Mt St Helens rocks dating to millions of years old), why should we be expected to trust dates of rocks where we don't know the age? Isochron dates are just as flawed as traditional radiometric dates.

Real science has blown a big hole in the old earth view, and statements like "The consequence is virtual certainty, in the scientific community, that the earth is billions of years old", is a religious statement, not a scientific one.

Fred

#53 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 19 May 2011 - 03:21 PM

It might help if you took time time to actually read the article.  Note the following [emphasis added]:

"The occurrence of significant isotope variation among mineral
phases in Holocene volcanic rocks questions a fundamental tenet in
isochron geochronology—that the initial isotope composition of the
analyzed phases is identical. If variations in isotopic composition are
common among the components (crystals and melt) of zero-age rocks,
should we not expect similar characteristics of older rocks
?"

The point is, if we can't trust dates for rocks with a known age (ie 30 year old Mt St Helens rocks dating to millions of years old), why should we be expected to trust dates of rocks where we don't know the age? Isochron dates are just as flawed as traditional radiometric dates.


Hi Fred

You're right, I hadn't read the paper. Now I have. But it agrees with what I said, and I agreed with what you said, so we all agree on this point:

Fred: Basically two assumptions are needed for a "good" isochron: The same initial daughter isotope ratios for ALL samples at the time of formation, and a closed system for the parent/daughter and secondary daughter isotopes.
SeeJay: Ok, I see now what you were saying, and you are correct. The various different samples must be cogenetic i.e. formed at the same time with the same homogeneous mix of isotopes.
Davidson et al.: ... a fundamental tenet in isochron geochronology [is] that the initial isotope composition of the analyzed phases is identical.


You're also right it would have helped if I read the paper first. They say "Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron." This is an important point, which undermines my earlier comment that different initial isotope concentrations should yield measurements that don't fall on a statistically significant line - namely, sometimes they do, yielding a statistically "good" isochron that gives a false age. Apparently this issue has been well known for many years (e.g. the Zheng 1989 article referenced).

Ultimately, the authors advise that Rb/Sr isochrons for these sorts of volcanic rocks should not be trusted unless cross-checked with petrographic examination and against other methods, such as K/Ar. And, as I said, scientists do cross-check many age readings against other methods, which is why they maintain confidence in the old earth view.

Real science has blown a big hole in the old earth view, and statements like "The consequence is virtual certainty, in the scientific community, that the earth is billions of years old", is a religious statement, not a scientific one.
Fred

View Post


You know, I'm very much inclined to agree with you that the virtual certainty of the scientific community about the earth's age is in many ways a religious view. It is based on adherence to the scientific method, which they cannot justify from first principles but instead they justify on the ex post facto basis that "it works". Personally, I find it hard to fault them for this; they really do perform lots of cross-checks from different angles on the question of the age of the earth, and they appear to always come up with roughly the same answer, so based on the assumptions of the scientific method their conclusions appear to be warranted.

Thanks and regards - SeeJay

#54 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 21 May 2011 - 05:42 AM

It might help if you took time time to actually read the article.  Note the following [emphasis added]:

"The occurrence of significant isotope variation among mineral
phases in Holocene volcanic rocks questions a fundamental tenet in
isochron geochronology—that the initial isotope composition of the
analyzed phases is identical. If variations in isotopic composition are
common among the components (crystals and melt) of zero-age rocks,
should we not expect similar characteristics of older rocks
?"

The point is, if we can't trust dates for rocks with a known age (ie 30 year old Mt St Helens rocks dating to millions of years old), why should we be expected to trust dates of rocks where we don't know the age? Isochron dates are just as flawed as traditional radiometric dates.

Real science has blown a big hole in the old earth view, and statements like "The consequence is virtual certainty, in the scientific community, that the earth is billions of years old", is a religious statement, not a scientific one.

Fred

View Post

Yes Fred,
Just what creationists have been pointing out for years. The ratio of isotopes in a rock can not prove age, unless you know the beginning istotope ratio at crystallization, and that none of the original isotopes leeched from the rock/mineral/crystal, nor that new isotopes leeched into the same. It's just the hard truth evos hate to admit, since their theory is entirely built on an old earth.

#55 nightfoot92

nightfoot92

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • you don't need to know

Posted 09 October 2013 - 11:54 AM

Seriously? Carbon dating is not the only way to measure the age of the earth. There are hundreds of methods for accurately measuring the decay of radioactive elements in anything. In fact, here's a list of a few. http://en.wikipedia....iometric_dating And besides, light takes millions of years to travel a certain distance. We can see how old the observable is by measuring the light. And we can measure the distance of light because of the doplar effect. It is not just dating of the earth that lets us know that the earth is billions of billions years old.



#56 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 09 October 2013 - 01:19 PM

Seriously? Carbon dating is not the only way to measure the age of the earth. There are hundreds of methods for accurately measuring the decay of radioactive elements in anything. In fact, here's a list of a few. http://en.wikipedia....iometric_dating And besides, light takes millions of years to travel a certain distance. We can see how old the observable is by measuring the light. And we can measure the distance of light because of the doplar effect. It is not just dating of the earth that lets us know that the earth is billions of billions years old.

 

1. We all know that. But none of the radiometric dating methods can do any better because no one knows what the original content of the samples were (except samples from known dates like Mount St. Helens or the  1797 volcanic eruption on Hawaii). Not having knowledge of the original content causes the calibration of the methods to be assumptions. Well, assumptions might fit into the category of 'hypothesis' but nothing better than that.

 

2. They do not take into account accelerated decay rates. (i.e. the R.A.T.E. discoveries).

 

3. Starlight distances; though it makes sense that it takes millions of years for starlight to travel from the distant galaxies to earth it is still nonetheless an assumption because there has been no observer for such a thing beyond written human history. If indeed God expanded the universe like as is said in scripture (in 17 different places no less) then the skies that Adam and Eve saw were far different in appearance than ours.

 

starryskyinAdamstimeperhaps.jpg

 

In other words the stars and galaxies were much closer to earth just after the creation than they were now. 



#57 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 13 October 2013 - 04:34 PM

I think what nightfoot92 is trying to say is that one flawed ad-hoc speculation-ridden dating method gathers explanatory power when coupled with other flawed ad-hoc speculation-ridden dating methods. Makes sense to me.

As for light... It belongs in another thread.

#58 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 13 October 2013 - 11:22 PM

Seriously? Carbon dating is not the only way to measure the age of the earth. There are hundreds of methods for accurately measuring the decay of radioactive elements in anything. In fact, here's a list of a few. http://en.wikipedia....iometric_dating

 

I'm a bit mystified at how measuring the rate of decay of an element says anything about the age of the Earth / the universe etc.

 

Element X decays at X rate.... And?... How does this say anything about the age of the Earth? Perhaps if they claim

 

Element X decays at X rate and half of the initial amount has decayed THEN they can claim something about the age of the Earth because they have an amount with which they can apply the rate of decay to, (the amount that had decayed, the difference between the initial amount and the current amount)... However this is assuming they know the initial amount, which is literally impossible.



#59 46and2

46and2

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, WA

Posted 25 October 2013 - 07:20 PM

I'm a bit mystified at how measuring the rate of decay of an element says anything about the age of the Earth / the universe etc.

 

Element X decays at X rate.... And?... How does this say anything about the age of the Earth? Perhaps if they claim

 

Element X decays at X rate and half of the initial amount has decayed THEN they can claim something about the age of the Earth because they have an amount with which they can apply the rate of decay to, (the amount that had decayed, the difference between the initial amount and the current amount)... However this is assuming they know the initial amount, which is literally impossible.

No, this is not impossible. In fact, they routinely determine the initial amount using isochrons. The initial amount is not an assumption. It is determined through the analysis. Even the RATE team accepts this, if I recall correctly. 



#60 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 25 October 2013 - 11:19 PM

No, this is not impossible. In fact, they routinely determine the initial amount using isochrons. The initial amount is not an assumption. It is determined through the analysis. Even the RATE team accepts this, if I recall correctly. 

 

What analysis?

 

Did they use a time machine to go back in the past to get the INITIAL amount? think.gif

 

Perhaps you can elaborate more.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users