Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Gravitational Waves Confirm Einstein's Theory

Sources are helpful, let me demonstrate:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Can We Really Believe the Dating Systems?

We have covered a lot of convincing evidence that the Earth was created a very long time ago. The agreement of many different dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric, over hundreds of thousands of samples, is very convincing. Yet, some Christians question whether we can believe something so far back in the past. My answer is that it is similar to believing in other things of the past. It only differs in degree. Why do you believe Abraham Lincoln ever lived? Because it would take an extremely elaborate scheme to make up his existence, including forgeries, fake photos, and many other things, and besides, there is no good reason to simply have made him up. Well, the situation is very similar for the dating of rocks, only we have rock records rather than historical records. Consider the following:

There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.
All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some Christians make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!
Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.
Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple.
The last three points deserve more attention. Some Christians have argued that something may be slowly changing with time so all the ages look older than they really are. The only two quantities in the exponent of a decay rate equation are the half-life and the time. So for ages to appear longer than actual, all the half-lives would have to be changing in sync with each other. One could consider that time itself was changing if that happened (remember that our clocks are now standardized to atomic clocks!). And such a thing would have to have occurred without our detection in the last hundred years, which is already 5% of the way back to the time of Christ.

Beyond this, scientists have now used a "time machine" to prove that the half-lives of radioactive species were the same millions of years ago. This time machine does not allow people to actually go back in time, but it does allow scientists to observe ancient events from a long way away. The time machine is called the telescope. Because God's universe is so large, images from distant events take a long time to get to us. Telescopes allow us to see supernovae (exploding stars) at distances so vast that the pictures take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to arrive at the Earth. So the events we see today actually occurred hundreds of thousands to millions of years ago. And what do we see when we look back in time? Much of the light following a supernova blast is powered by newly created radioactive parents. So we observe radiometric decay in the supernova light. The half-lives of decays occurring hundreds of thousands of years ago are thus carefully recorded! These half-lives completely agree with the half-lives measured from decays occurring today. We must conclude that all evidence points towards unchanging radioactive half-lives.

Some individuals have suggested that the speed of light must have been different in the past, and that the starlight has not really taken so long to reach us. However, the astronomical evidence mentioned above also suggests that the speed of light has not changed, or else we would see a significant apparent change in the half-lives of these ancient radioactive decays.

antelope_sniper,

You do realize you're "conversing" with someone who wasn't smart enough to NOT keep going to work for an employer long after that employer's checks started bouncing (as in many months of that), and someone who believes that you can defy physics and magically flatten the trajectory of a bullet by installing extra super high rings under the scope, right?

So ism that how God did the flood? He just put super high rings on a water pistol?

antelope_sniper,



Here's the scientific problem with your radiometric dating. One has to assume how much parent product there was at the begging. One has to assume there either was no daughter product or how much was there if they make that assumption. They have to assume there has been no contamination or leaching of the parent or daughter product for the multiple millions or billions of years.

Another problem. I read about a rock from the bottom of Grand Canyon that was dated using four dating methods. There was a billion years between the youngest and the oldest date of the very same rock!



There are lots of evolutionists who also question the dating system.



Legal historical evidence is different form scientific speculation and hopefulness. There were witnesses who wrote about the person and events. Prior to written records all "history" is a hopeful guess.



Exactly! When we date rocks of known ages we always get a wrong answer! It's always rocks of unknown ages when we get to claim extravagant ages.



Appealing to dendrochronology works better for the creationists than for the evolutionists. Consider the afore mentioned petrified forest of Yellow Stone and in fact ALL everywhere tested in the world. All have less than 1,700 growth rings. Even redwoods and brislecone pine, which live for thousands of years; and any other tree checked. What's the significance? Noah's Flood happened 1, 656 years after God's creation!



Base on the above flawed radiometric dating system. Let's consider the salt in the ocean. How long would it take to get the present amount if you started with distilled water, which no one assumes? Forty or fifty million years. That doesn't leave room for evolution's required hundreds of million of years. If the ocean was really three billions years old it would be so full of salts and other chemicals no life could exist.



And evolutionists used the above flawed assumptions for sixty years. A real problem with claiming sixty years as though it is a long time, consider Carl's Bad Caverns. There used to be a sign tell visitors it was a couple hundred millions years old. The as education imcreased it was revised to several million years, and now the sign is gone because it matches Creationist predictions! AnD while were at it where's the sign at yellow Stone that told visitors the petrified forest was twenty-seven million years old. O yea. They discovered the time frame based on the tree rings supported Noah's Flood.

This is enough for the serious student to get the idea evolution is a bankrupt idea. Just as one Ph.D astrophysicist said, "Evolution is a superstition with absolutely zero supporting evidence."

Except for the part where you didn't give any sources for your claims, because they have already been debunked.

The story is well known; you posted it. It wasn't about workman's comp; it was about actual paychecks.

4ager,



Sometimes it helps to know the whole story. I didn't need the money and was extremely entertained by the actions. I didn't leave until I discovered there was no workman's compensation. Since I was regularly working with industrial knives, I quit that day.



You really stretch the truth. I did a three hour test comparing 1.68" high rings with 2.2" high rings. I sighted in the rifle at 200 yards with both and fired ten shots at 100 yards and 300 yards with the different rings. The rifle fired ten shots into .450" at 100 yards so it was easy to see how high or how low in relation to the point of aim the groups were. Both at the 100 and 300 yard targets the impact of the higher rings was closer to the point of aim. Even JBM will confirm this info for those who are inclined to be informed instead of wallowing in ignorance.

A couple years later Barnes Bullets ran the same test and made the same discovery. Science is observable, testable, repeatable and verifiable. On the other hand attackers and evolutionists need no facts.

I wasn't finished when it posted.

That's laughable.

The first part, I responded to before you're second post.

You didn't quit that day (as you state in your second post). That would be a lie, Rich. A falsehood. A sin. Just in case you didn't understand that in the first place.

Here's some on that idiocy -

Wait, the checks aren't all good?

Okay, maybe I FINALLY figured it out... maybe... after my wife explained it to me again...

As to the second, we can resurrect that thread (even after it's been more than three days). Barnes DID NOT state that it flattened trajectory; and you still don't understand the difference.

Science, debunking Ringman... again

There's a point there (or more than a few), and you never will get it.

antelope_sniper,



You have any idea how silly you sound. No one was there over the billions and millions of years to debunk or not debunk the assumptions!

Okay, so you want sources to prove the points someone else makes, but say "well, no one was there so how could I have sources"?

Here's a hint - if everything prior to actual recorded history is an assumption, then your assumption lack more substance to support them than does his. He has some support that can be and has been verified, tested, and retested. You, have none.

I realize you're not smart enough to understand this, nor are you intellectually honest enough to admit it even if you do, but those are simple facts. Those facts don't change no matter how many times you choose to bold an exclamation point.

Seeing as how this thread is already sidetracked into a mudhole, I'll ask a off topic question.

If all the elements on Earth were created at the same time as the material making up the Earth, how does radioactive isotope aging work? Weren't they all created at the same time and therefore the same age? If not, where is this new material being created?

Each element and isotope thereof decays as a different rate. It's not the overall age, but the state of decay and remaining half-lives of the elemental isotope.

Barry, materials recombine and reform on a regular basis. One of the examples mentioned above is the formation of rocks during the volcanic process. In this example what you would be dating is when the materials recombined to the rock, not when the individual atoms were forged in the crucible of a supernova.

Good question Barry. Nobody really knows what happens in the earth's core.

Here is a comment at K-Ar dating:

Potassium argon dating assumes that there is “no radiogenic argon present when the rock is formed.” The theory states that since argon “is a gas” is cannot be retained by the crystallising minerals. However, igneous rocks cool slowly and it is known that olivine, in particular, can absorb argon in solution. So, the great assumption in K-Ar method is flawed.

Further, radiogenic argon that is created via the K-Ar decay can escape the rock. K-Ar dating of metamorphic rocks often show unusual results as the heating and re-crystallising allows argon to escape.

Further, igneous intrusions are not just a one time crystallizing event. An igneous mass can be formed, partially solidify and then melt again or just partially melt and so on and so forth. This process can go on through these melt/reform cycles for millions of years. The idea that there was no radiogenic argon present at the formation of the rock is a gross simplification.

Years ago, I took a course in geophysics and a well respected expert in what was called radiometric dating was asked why there was any question about the differences in dating the rocks of the geologic record if this method was accurate. He replied that the method was indeed accurate but one had to use the dating method in context with other information about the particular rock formation in question. He implied that using radiometric data alone would mislead one in determining the age of rock. I assume he answered that way due in part to his knowledge of the aformentioned difficulties.

TF

There are about 20 different radiometric dating techniques. Each has it's limitations and must be used appropriately. As an example Argon-Argon dating can be used to mitigate the issues mentioned above in many kinds of rocks.

antelope_sniper,



Here's the problem with the above statement. You start with the idea the earth is billions of years old. Since it's not the dating always comes up wrong. That's why carbon 14 is found in every fossil and every piece of coal and diamonds no matter how carefully they are tested to protect against contamination. You and I know presently the maximum anything can be dated with carbon 14 is about fifty thousand years. Of course the testers need an electron mass spectrometer.

I've already explained half lives to you.

Yes, each has its limitations and the proponents of the argon-argon method will tell you that it mitigates the limitations of the K-Ar method but as with the K-Ar method, it is unable to deal with very real issues such as crustal migration of argon.



Now, get back to your internet search engine.

TF

antelope_sniper,

I don't remember that. But it's Okay. Dr. Thomas Barnes did about thirty-five years ago when he showed the half life of the earth's magnetic field. It is one of the oldest geochronometers (earth clocks). Its half life is shown to be about 1,400 years. Of course evolutionist don't like this scientific information.

For those who don't know the half life of carbon 14 is 5,730 years. That means in 5,730 years half will be gone. In another 5,730 half of that will be gone, etc, etc.

Evolutionist don't like anything that can actually be checked to show the earth is not billions of years old. Here's a fun tidbit. When people were trying to get away from God and a 6,000 year old creation, the earth was dated to be millions of years old. Then when they gave evolution some thought the earth aged exponentially to accommodate the new theory. Then it was revised to a couple billion and now a couple billion more years were added to it. So the brainwashed evolutionist claim it is 4.6 billion years old. The idea the radiometric dating proves anything is refuted by the idea if a date disagree with a dated fossil the radiometric date is revised. The fossil is sacrosanct.

How did they get the date 4.6 Billion years? Allende, a meteorite, was dated with radiometric dating method and came up with 4.6 billions. That was the assumed age of the solar system. Odd they chose that one. I read some of the lunar rocks were older than that and some were younger than that. Of course they were rejected.

TF49,



Man, if I used that it would sure save me a lot of trying to remember the books I read and lectures I listened to.