Carbon dating

[Orogeny]

Well, all you've done here is demonstrate your ability to be taken in by people who intentionally misrepresent science to advance their own agenda and to pad their pockets. Nothing in that article is even remotely close to good, accurate science. First of all, they make the unevidenced assumption that the 'Flood' is historical fact, when all geological evidence points to the contrary. Second, the C14/C12, U-Pb, and Polonium radiohalo arguments used in the article are PRATTs that anybody with a modest understanding of geochronology (or access to Google) can refute.

Third, your assertion that only YECers are bible believers is highly offensive to christians who accept the abundant evidence of an ancient earth, a group that makes up the majority of christians.

For the record, ICR has never actually done any valid scientific research of their own in an attempt to disprove evolution or an old earth. Their 'RATE' experiments are simply a massive misuse of carbon dating, and they know this. There is a reason ICR and AiG are not taken seriously in the scientific community. If their findings were valid, they would be recognized as such, but they are not.

 

[juvenissun]

The earth is about 6000 years old, give or take a few years. Any young earth (Bible) believer can find all the scientific support they need from www.icr.org including how carbon dating proves the earth cannot be millions (never mind billions) of years old. Here's one for starters........
Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages

(This reply is also meant for Papias)

If data from geochronological methods do not make sense at all, then there will be no such study. The fact that this methodology has been developed and commonly applied, it must means that it is useful, both theoretically and practically. (So, Papias, you can save all those successful examples about dating. They are not the point. I know them better than you do).

Like many other scientific systems, geochronology has its unsolved problems. it ranges from the uncertainty of major principle, to the inconsistent unexplained data. This type of problem is not rare, but is commonly observed in daily practice.

Practically, we can try to use the geochronology data and hope it would help us to solve other practical problems, such as resources exploration. But, it does not always succeed. It is similar to a carpenter who can construct a house may not be good enough to make a furniture. We can overlook these problems and focus on the general purpose. But this does not make the common problems go away. They will appear again and again in nearly every geochronological studies. As a result, any so-called age data includes many more uncontrollable factors than those used in the basic physics of radioactive decay. We can not say that any radiometric data is "accurate". We can only use it as a reference toward a certain purpose.

I think I must have said all these in vain. Without a careful examination on an example, people simply won't appreciate the problem. ICR people did good job to raise the questions. But people will not consider the questions seriously because first, they do not know the answer, and second, these questions are not significant enough to render the dating technique useless. However, exactly because the existing of these unsolved problems, the radiometric data can not be considered as the real age of anything. This is a scientific conclusion and is not related to any religious thought.

In short, we should separate the application of radiometric dating statistics entirely from taking the data as the true age of anything.

 

[Orogeny]

If data from geochronological methods do not make sense at all, then there will be no such study. The fact that this methodology has been developed and commonly applied, it must means that it is useful, both theoretically and practically.

Well done so far.

(So, Papias, you can save all those successful examples about dating. They are not the point. I know them better than you do).

Hmm... In your last post you said you did not understand the physics of radioactive decay. Did a lot of learning between then and now, huh? Or is this another one of your contridictions?

Like many other scientific systems, geochronology has its unsolved problems. it ranges from the uncertainty of major principle, to the inconsistent unexplained data. This type of problem is not rare, but is commonly observed in daily practice.

Examples please, as I am not sure exactly what problems you speak of.

Practically, we can try to use the geochronology data and hope it would help us to solve other practical problems, such as resources exploration. But, it does not always succeed.

Where it does not succeed, it can usually be chalked up to incorrect application or failure to correctly impliment methods. This is human error, and not the fault of the technique itself.

But this does not make the common problems go away. They will appear again and again in nearly every geochronological studies.

What exactly are these problems you speak of? Specific examples, please.

As a result, any so-called age data includes many more uncontrollable factors than those used in the basic physics of radioactive decay.

Such as?

We can not say that any radiometric data is "accurate".

Yes we can.

I think I must have said all these in vain. Without a careful examination on an example, people simply won't appreciate the problem.

Give us an example then.

ICR people did good job to raise the questions.

ICR deliberately or ignorantly misrepresented the data they used.

But people will not consider the questions seriously because first, they do not know the answer, and second, these questions are not significant enough to render the dating technique useless. However, exactly because the existing of these unsolved problems, the radiometric data can not be considered as the real age of anything.

Yes it can. Where the techniques are properly implimented, the results can be quite accurate, with the correct age of a sample almost certainly falling within the reasonable error of the technique.

In short, we should separate the application of radiometric dating statistics entirely from taking the data as the true age of anything.

False. You are making unevidenced claims about the invalidity of radiometric dating, against mounds of evidence that it works accurately and repeatedly. Unless you provide definitive evidence as to the inaccuracy of these techniques, the weight of the evidence stands against you.

 

[berachah]

Well, all you've done here is demonstrate your ability to be taken in by people who intentionally misrepresent science to advance their own agenda and to pad their pockets.

Glass houses maybe.... I watched an interesting video recently called "expelled" Any scientist, educator or even journalist who raised the question of Intelligent design immediately found their positions redundent, their funding ceased or they were often sidelined and rediculed as misrepresenting science. I wonder about that. What are evolutionists so afraid of. You'd think that evolution was more than a theory already.....

Nothing in that article is even remotely close to good, accurate science. First of all, they make the unevidenced assumption that the 'Flood' is historical fact, when all geological evidence points to the contrary.

Absolute rubbish. There is much evidence to support a worldwide flood. The fact is evolutionist interpret according to their unbelief.

Third, your assertion that only YECers are bible believers is highly offensive to christians who accept the abundant evidence of an ancient earth, a group that makes up the majority of christians.

Christians are encouraged to not take offense easily and I suggest such Chrsitians exercise such restraint. Majority? Maybe in your neck of the woods. Or have you researched this worldwide? The fact of the matter is the Bible is quite clear how and when the earth was created and if you do not believe that account how on earth do you say you believe the Bible. What else is ignored I wonder?

For the record, ICR has never actually done any valid scientific research of their own in an attempt to disprove evolution or an old earth. Their 'RATE' experiments are simply a massive misuse of carbon dating, and they know this. There is a reason ICR and AiG are not taken seriously in the scientific community. If their findings were valid, they would be recognized as such, but they are not.[/quote]

They have been many attempts to discredit them and one has to ask the question why. Perhaps you can shed some more light on your accusation above.

The problem with the science evolutionists talk about is that it is not so scientific. It is presumption. No one knows what the atmosphere was like 6000 years ago never mind 50 000. .

 

[Papias]

Juvie, Orogeny did a good job addressing most of your points. However, I will add one:

Juvie wrote:

However, exactly because the existing of these unsolved problems, the radiometric data can not be considered as the real age of anything. This is a scientific conclusion and is not related to any religious thought.

So, is that perhaps why practically all real geologists know that these dating methods are real and accurate? Because you yourself acknowledged that back in point #4, your statement above shows that you are again saying that you know better than the actual experts in the field. Such hubris.


from our list:

4. Do you acknowledge that the Geological Society of America (which includes geologists worldwide, and to my knowledge is the main geological society worldwide) has issued a statement that shows that the many different dating methods give consistent and reliable results?

Resolved - Yes. post 426.

Br wrote:

I watched an interesting video recently called "expelled" ...

Ouch, now he's bringing up the many falsehoods in "Expelled". You may want to check out www.expelledexposed.com before you embarrass yourself further.

No one knows what the atmosphere was like 6000 years ago never mind 50 000.

This statement, like so many others, ignores huge amounts of real data, entire fields of scientific research, and much more. It amounts to little more than the advertisement of one's lack of scientific literacy. Maybe Augustine's quote would be useful here:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. (Augustine, 5th Century)

Papias

 

[juvenissun]

Juvie, Orogeny did a good job addressing most of your points. However, I will add one:

Juvie wrote:


So, is that perhaps why practically all real geologists know that these dating methods are real and accurate? Because you yourself acknowledged that back in point #4, your statement above shows that you are again saying that you know better than the actual experts in the field. Such hubris.


from our list:

What I said does not contradict to what they said at all, not a single word.

 

[Orogeny]

Glass houses maybe.... I watched an interesting video recently called "expelled" Any scientist, educator or even journalist who raised the question of Intelligent design immediately found their positions redundent, their funding ceased or they were often sidelined and rediculed as misrepresenting science. I wonder about that. What are evolutionists so afraid of. You'd think that evolution was more than a theory already.....

Glass houses indeed: Evangelical scholar forced out after endorsing evolution - USATODAY.com

As Papias already posted, there are multiple and significant problems with the film Expelled. I would check out his link if I were you, as it addresses most of them. In short, the film is merely an argument ad ignorantiam followed by an argument from personal incredulity, finished with a steaming pile of reducto ad hitlerum.

Absolute rubbish. There is much evidence to support a worldwide flood. The fact is evolutionist interpret according to their unbelief.

Evidence is not subject to 'belief' or 'unbelief'. Real evidence stands immune to personal opinion. Geologists and christians alike have been looking for flood deposits for the last 200 years, and have found nothing even remotely pointing towards a global flood as described in the bible. In fact, the very first true geologists set out with the express purpose of finding evidence for the flood. After decades of searching, nearly all of them concluded that it does not exist. Nothing has changed.

If you think you've got evidence for the flood, and if you think you're a good enough geologist to defend this evidence, then feel free to pop into the Biblical Flood thread here. If you decide to make this jump, please do read the thread before posting, as we will not be dealing with points already addressed. I hope you do. I'd like a new opponent. Juve isn't much of a challenge.

Christians are encouraged to not take offense easily and I suggest such Chrsitians exercise such restraint. Majority? Maybe in your neck of the woods. Or have you researched this worldwide?

I apologize. I thought I remembered a specific poll of christians world wide, but I can't seem to find it. Suffice it to say that YEC is significantly more popular in the US than in the world as a whole, so your personal experience may not exactly be representative.

The fact of the matter is the Bible is quite clear how and when the earth was created and if you do not believe that account how on earth do you say you believe the Bible.

Your interpretation of the bible is that the creation story should be taken literally. All physical evidence that I am aware of contridicts this (Disagree? Present your testable evidence.). Since the physical world is the only direct evidence of god's work that we have (the bible was written by fallable men, and has since been translated by the same), its evidence outweighs your personal interpretation. Where your faith is contradictory to physical evidence and fact, your faith is mistaken.

They have been many attempts to discredit them and one has to ask the question why. Perhaps you can shed some more light on your accusation above.

They have been discredited because their science is bad. They start with a conclusion (earth is young, flood occured), and set out to fit the data to this conclusion. This is not how science is done. If you would like me to discuss a particular example of their 'research', please outline it and I will respond.

The problem with the science evolutionists talk about is that it is not so scientific. It is presumption.

No, this is presumption. You presume to understand more about how science should be done than the entirety of the scientific community. All of biology relies on the premise that the principles of evolutionary theory are valid, and the application of evolutionary theory produces wonderful medicines as well as industrial and commercial products that could not otherwise be produced. If it didn't work, the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of biologists, anthropologists, geneticists, and geologists around the world would have probably would have figured it out by now. If you've got a better theory that is scientifically testable, and you've got evidence that can support this theory only, please present it. There's a Noble prize in it for you if you're successful.

No one knows what the atmosphere was like 6000 years ago never mind 50 000.

Wrong again. We can use oxygen isotopes, carbon isotopes, fluid inclusions, paleosols, various faunal and floral morphological indicators, depositional environments, and probably some other techniques that I'm unaware of to assertain the nature of the paleoatmosphere. Making uninformed statements based on incredulity doesn't disprove science, but nice try.

 

[Papias]

Juvie wrote:
What I said does not contradict to what they said at all, not a single word.

Wow, Juvie is a the master of knowing when things contractict. He states that radiometric ages aren't real, then says that the GSA doesn't contradict him when they say they are, he earlier said that his idea that the flood happened when Noah wasn't around didn't contradict Genesis, which has Noah's interaction with the whole flood being the main point of the whole story, and he earlier also had lots of other contradictions to himself, often in the same post. And now he turns around and again says their is no contradiction. Good show!

Papias

 

[RickG]

Can anyone give a reason why cosmic ray flux normal to the earth's surface for all time must be a constant?

It does indeed vary, no scientist worth his/her salt says any different. These fluxes are well documented in several different media. Because the flux has changed is the reason a calibration scale is necessary.