Granite disprov a 6000 year old Earth.

[mark kennedy]

The thing that troubles me most with creation science, with respect to geologic dating methods, is that I have an academic background in that area, and can see how not only the reasoning is flawed, but much misleading and in some cases out-right false claims are made. When reading the creation science article linked ("Radio-Dating in Rubble"), there are numerous problems with it. But for the time being, let's focus on one aspect of it, the claim that Mount St Helens is not a million years old.

One thing specific to all radiometric dating methods is that they all have limitations. That is why specific methods are used for specific minerals and of approximate age. This is due to the isotope(s) being measured with respect to their half-life and method of application. When sending samples to a laboratory, dating labs provide information sheets about the samples to be tested. This is so the lab can apply the proper test method to all samples.

Now, back to the article. One of the statements in the article is, "The lava dome at Mount St Helens is not a million years old!". The implication there is that Mount St Helens is thought to be a million years old by geologists. That is not only misleading, but an incorrect statement as well. The first eruption of Mount St Helens dated by geologists/volcanologists is 40,000 - 30,000 years. Also stated, "At the time of the test, it was only about 10 years old". There it is implied that the samples sent to the testing lab were only 10 years old.

So what's the problem? The rocks dated were sent to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts. The paper work provided by Geochron Laboratories they had to fill out accompanying the samples included the following statement, "We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y." Now, ask yourself, why did the AiG article imply an incorrect age of Mount St Helens and why were samples sent to a laboratory that clearly states it cannot date rocks by the K-Ar method less than 2 million years of age? Would the lab have dated the rocks if they knew that were less than 2 million years old? Of course not. So, what does that imply about those seeking to get radiometric dated ages of those rocks?

So what happens when a fossil is unearthed and we are told that it's 2 million years old based on radiometric dating? Were just supposed to take their word for it with no way of confirming that the methodology is valid. That's why I like genetics because they can tell me all day long that the divergence between humans and chimps is just over one percent but I can refer to the actual genomic comparison that clearly states its over 4 percent. This is a classic example of an argument from credulity.

Assumption 1: Conditions at Time Zero.
Assumption 2: No Contamination.
Assumption 3: Constant Decay Rate. (Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions)
​

This isn't the only time the age was known and the date from this kind of testing was wrong. This is a way of isolating the nature of the underlying assumptions that the theory of evolution is predicated on.

Idols of the Theater are those which are due to sophistry and false learning. These idols are built up in the field of theology, philosophy, and science, and because they are defended by learned groups are accepted without question by the masses. When false philosophies have been cultivated and have attained a wide sphere of dominion in the world of the intellect they are no longer questioned. False superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end systems barren of merit parade their grandeur on the stage of the world. (Francis Bacon, Idols of the Mind)
​

Whether you work in the field or not the validity of these methods are not beyond skepticism. I reserve the right to remain unconvinced because I've seen entirely too much of this. Time and again I've seen cultivating a 'wide sphere of dominion in the world of the intellect' and it's little more then drama. Virtually no chimpanzee ancestors except for three teeth found in the Rift Valley, a place where a lot of hominid fossils were found and not one of the skulls is ever considered an ape ancestor. There is an alternative, there is room here for skepticism. I don't think it's AIG who is being disingenuous, I think we are having these underlying assumptions imposed on us and I refuse to accept it based on academic and professional credentials alone.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[RickG]

So what happens when a fossil is unearthed and we are told that it's 2 million years old based on radiometric dating? Were just supposed to take their word for it with no way of confirming that the methodology is valid.

Assumption 1: Conditions at Time Zero.
Assumption 2: No Contamination.
Assumption 3: Constant Decay Rate. (Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions)​

​

First, let me ask, do you understand the problems I pointed out in my previous post to you? (1) The incorrect age of Mount St Helen's asserted by the AiG article. (2) The fact that known samples sent to be tested were misrepresented. If not, then we need to discuss them in more detail.

Now, look at the three assumptions that you listed and address them one by one.

Assumption 1: Conditions at Time Zero: In the early days of radiometric dating that would be the case. However, science has advanced quite significantly with new information, understanding, methods and equipment since then. There are now methods and techniques now used where conditions at "time zero" (time of formation) are taken into account and are verifiable. Even if it were not, any excess daughter isotope would only skew the result by a few percent.

Assumption 2: No Contamination: Actually assumption 1 & 2 are both the same, not separate assumptions.

Assumption 3: Constant Decay Rate: That also is incorrect on a number of orders of magnitude.

1: Decay rates are constantly measured and remeasured, not to see if they change but to refine the accuracy of their half-life with more accurate instruments and techniques.

2: There have been numerous experiments to try to change those rates using temperatures (high & low), pressures, , especially with nuclear waste, etc. in excess of those occurring naturally on earth, all unsuccessful.

3: What an atom (isotope) is, is dependent upon its sub-atomic structure. Change that structure and you have a completely different isotope or atom. If any physics had changed in the past, it would show up in the isotopes present and their ratios. An excellent way to show this is through one of the Uranium or Thorium decay series, where they go through numerous (daughter) decays before reaching the stable lead (Pb) isotope. Each of those decays have their own specific half-life and therefore leave a specific ratio among all the isotopes in the decay series. If physics or decay rate of any one of those had changed it would show up.

The only assumptions being made are by those people saying science is assuming. Furthermore, unlike science, which possesses many verification and versification's that rates have not changed over time, those making the claim have zero evidence to support their claims.

4. Decay rates of radioisotopes have been measured in Supernovae Gamma-ray emissions hundreds of thousands of light years distant and found to be the same there as here on earth.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9706025
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9706024
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9912131
​

This isn't the only time the age was known and the date from this kind of testing was wrong.

Again, wrong dates were obtained on the Mount St Helen's samples because they were misrepresented.​

Whether you work in the field or not the validity of these methods are not beyond skepticism.

That is absolutely true. However, and sadly, the creation science community is not showing skepticism, rather confirmation bias through misrepresentation of how the science actually works, as I have shown.

 

[Jezmeyah]

Yes. It was called the first day, and lasted 24 hours.

I disagree. The phrase used of the world being without form and void occurs before the creation of the first day.
And, from the first day there was no mention of the world being without form and void.
So clearly there was a pre-adamic age when the world was without form and void before the creation of the first day.

I am in agreement however that each creative day and hence onward as each day in our present time, lasted 24 hours.

 

[mark kennedy]

​

First, let me ask, do you understand the problems I pointed out in my previous post to you? (1) The incorrect age of Mount St Helen's asserted by the AiG article. (2) The fact that known samples sent to be tested were misrepresented. If not, then we need to discuss them in more detail.

Now, look at the three assumptions that you listed and address them one by one.

Assumption 1: Conditions at Time Zero: In the early days of radiometric dating that would be the case. However, science has advanced quite significantly with new information, understanding, methods and equipment since then. There are now methods and techniques now used where conditions at "time zero" (time of formation) are taken into account and are verifiable. Even if it were not, any excess daughter isotope would only skew the result by a few percent.

Assumption 2: No Contamination: Actually assumption 1 & 2 are both the same, not separate assumptions.​

​

I understand just fine, I just disagree that the method is going to get you an actual age. Even if it does, the age of the earth is irrelevant since all we know about the creation of the earth and cosmos were, 'in the beginning'. I'm not all that interested in the technical details because they are always skewed. You appear to have me mistaken for a young earth creationist which technically I am with regards to the origin of life. Geology has long been a minor curiosity, I'm more into the life sciences and this whole buisness of daughter isotopes and setting the clock back to zero isn't going to get us anywhere, I've seen this before and it will invariably come down to a conflict of worldviews.

Assumption 3: Constant Decay Rate: That also is incorrect on a number of orders of magnitude.

1: Decay rates are constantly measured and remeasured, not to see if they change but to refine the accuracy of their half-life with more accurate instruments and techniques.

2: There have been numerous experiments to try to change those rates using temperatures (high & low), pressures, , especially with nuclear waste, etc. in excess of those occurring naturally on earth, all unsuccessful.

3: What an atom (isotope) is, is dependent upon its sub-atomic structure. Change that structure and you have a completely different isotope or atom. If any physics had changed in the past, it would show up in the isotopes present and their ratios. An excellent way to show this is through one of the Uranium or Thorium decay series, where they go through numerous (daughter) decays before reaching the stable lead (Pb) isotope. Each of those decays have their own specific half-life and therefore leave a specific ratio among all the isotopes in the decay series. If physics or decay rate of any one of those had changed it would show up.

The only assumptions being made are by those people saying science is assuming. Furthermore, unlike science, which possesses many verification and versification's that rates have not changed over time, those making the claim have zero evidence to support their claims.

4. Decay rates of radioisotopes have been measured in Supernovae Gamma-ray emissions hundreds of thousands of light years distant and found to be the same there as here on earth.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9706025
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9706024
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9912131
​

Again, wrong dates were obtained on the Mount St Helen's samples because they were misrepresented.​

​

Wrong dates were applied because the testing found to be much older then we know to be the fact. That happens a lot when looking at a fossils bed and the appearance of age is either an illusion based on assumptions or perhaps the material really is very old, that doesn't mean life is old, just because it's embedded in earth that is of great antiquity.

That is absolutely true. However, and sadly, the creation science community is not showing skepticism, rather confirmation bias through misrepresentation of how the science actually works, as I have shown.

That's always the case, if it's coming from Creationists their conclusions must be disingenuous, I don't appreciate the attitude. Science is a limited epistemology, confining itself to discrete natural phenomenon. In order to take in something as profoundly significant as creation or a miracle you have to broaden your scope, something Darwinians are loathe to do. It's not just how we know something, but how do we know anything.

Think what you like but panning through these tomes of highly detailed specifics doesn't interest me because I have been down that road before. Invariably it comes down to fundamental assumptions.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Jimmy D]

​

Think what you like but panning through these tomes of highly detailed specifics doesn't interest me because I have been down that road before. Invariably it comes down to fundamental assumptions.

Have a nice day
Mark

Why can't people ever admit their mistakes on this forum or just accept an answer? Rick has given a detailed response to your objections, including links to verifiable research yet you still have to try and play the assumption 'card'.

I don't think it's AIG who is being disingenuous, I think we are having these underlying assumptions imposed on us and I refuse to accept it based on academic and professional credentials alone.

To be frank, it's you who is appearing disingenuous, no one has asked you to accept anything based on "academic credentials alone" links have been provided which you refuse to read as you "aren't interested".

 

[mark kennedy]

Why can't people ever admit their mistakes on this forum or just accept an answer? Rick has given a detailed response to your objections, including links to verifiable research yet you still have to try and play the assumption 'card'.

Why can't we ever have a conversation without it turning into a contest. The details are invariably predicated on assumptions, that's pretty obvious at the outset.

To be frank, it's you who is appearing disingenuous, no one has asked you to accept anything based on "academic credentials alone" links have been provided which you refuse to read as you "aren't interested".

Notice nothing of substance is added here, your argument has a subject and a predicate, me and something negative to say about me. That's called an ad hominem and it's the last resort of Darwinians, usually the heart of the emphasis. It's a fallacy, an argument that never happened.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

All I've seen on this thread from creationists is a combination of personal incredulity, poor science, refusals to read scientific sources and refusals to admit they are wrong.
Par for the course unfortunately.

 

[AV1611VET]

All I've seen on this thread from creationists is a combination of personal incredulity, poor science, refusals to read scientific sources and refusals to admit they are wrong.

Maybe it's because that's what you expect to see.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Maybe it's because that's what you expect to see.

No, it's because that's all that's ever seen from creationists on this sort of thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it's because that's all that's ever seen from creationists on this sort of thread.

Would you expect taxi drivers, musicians or farmers to be equally adept at science as you are?

 

[Jimmy D]

Why can't we ever have a conversation without it turning into a contest. The details are invariably predicated on assumptions, that's pretty obvious at the outset.



Notice nothing of substance is added here, your argument has a subject and a predicate, me and something negative to say about me. That's called an ad hominem and it's the last resort of Darwinians, usually the heart of the emphasis. It's a fallacy, an argument that never happened.

Have a nice day
Mark

OK, I have no wish to derail the thread. I disagree though.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Would you expect taxi drivers, musicians or farmers to be equally adept at science as you are?

And that excuses the fact that creationists commit all of the things that I said above, how?

 

[AV1611VET]

And that excuses the fact that creationists commit all of the things that I said above, how?

Maybe it's because that's what you expect to see.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Maybe it's because that's what you expect to see.

Really? You're doing this?

 

[AV1611VET]

Really? You're doing this?

Doing what?

And here you go again, creating a storm so you can play warden.

 

[HitchSlap]

Maybe it's because that's what you expect to see.

Maybe not.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Doing what?

Childishly repeating a comment to get a rise out of me.

And here you go again, creating a storm so you can play warden.

Nothing of the sort.

 

[RickG]

​

I understand just fine, I just disagree that the method is going to get you an actual age.

Generally geologic ages are expressed as either relative or absolute. With "relative" they are expressed as a range. For example, fossils and rocks of the Triassic Period fall under a relative age that spans 50.9 million years from the end of the Permian Period 252.17 million years ago (Mya), to the beginning of the Jurassic Period 201.3 Mya. An "absolute" date is just that, absolute, with one exception. It is express with a statistical margin of error; that is +/- "X" yrs. or even +/- "X" %.

I'm not all that interested in the technical details because they are always skewed.

How are technical details skewed? Attention to detail is what narrows any margin of error.

You appear to have me mistaken for a young earth creationist which technically I am with regards to the origin of life.

That would be because I have never encountered anyone who questions geologic dating techniques other than YECs.

Geology has long been a minor curiosity, I'm more into the life sciences and this whole buisness of daughter isotopes and setting the clock back to zero isn't going to get us anywhere, I've seen this before and it will invariably come down to a conflict of worldviews.

Then I remind you of the topic of this thread, "Granite disproves a 6,000 year old earth".

​

Wrong dates were applied because the testing found to be much older then we know to be the fact.

No, wrong dates were applied because known very young samples (10 yrs) were sent to be tested by the K-Ar method that was inappropriate. It is even stated in the labs literature that it cannot obtain accurate dates of samples less than 2 million years. Honesty, I can view that in no other terms than being a deliberate misrepresentation with intent to obtain erroneous results.

That's always the case, if it's coming from Creationists their conclusions must be disingenuous, I don't appreciate the attitude.

I just pointed out one example, there are many, many more.

Back in the summer I created a thread showing a quote where it was stated both the mainstream science and creation science communities have the same data, just different interpretations. In that thread I asked for examples of same data different interpretations. I have of yet to have an example of same data different interpretations presented.

 

[mark kennedy]

Generally geologic ages are expressed as either relative or absolute. With "relative" they are expressed as a range. For example, fossils and rocks of the Triassic Period fall under a relative age that spans 50.9 million years from the end of the Permian Period 252.17 million years ago (Mya), to the beginning of the Jurassic Period 201.3 Mya. An "absolute" date is just that, absolute, with one exception. It is express with a statistical margin of error; that is +/- "X" yrs. or even +/- "X" %.

Slow down Rick, remember your talking to a layman with no real background in physics. I must admit though, I'm getting kind of curious. For the first time in 20 years of being interested in Creationism I'm finally taking an interest in Geology. I'm a big history buff so when it comes to this kind of thing I actually learn more looking to historical figures and how knowledge builds over time. It's one of the reasons I have long been more interested in Mendel then Francis Crick or Francis Collins, it's just how I go about this sort of thing. Just to let you know, I'm currently trying to read:

Determining the Age of the Earth, LORD KELVIN’S THEORY: THERMODYNAMICS OF THE EARTH AND SUN. Scientific American 2013.​

This was all just philosophy for me for years when a college biology teacher happened upon on of my posts. She showed me a list of links after I mentioned Mendel and it literally took me an entire Saturday to get through them, it was how genetics developed, been into it ever since. The forum is drying up so even though I'm not big on this stuff, I'm actually intrigued now.

How are technical details skewed? Attention to detail is what narrows any margin of error.

I won't cite or quote it but there was an article on the dating of the burning of Ai, connected to the invasion of Israel during the time of Joshua. The dating originally coincided to the date expected from the Biblical account but because it was ash dating it took some calibration I honestly had no clue about. It's frustrating for us pseudo scientific types to realize we don't know everything, as surprising as that might be for you to believe. I found Lord Kelvin's controversies in a book, Great Feuds in Science, and that's what sparked the interest.

You seem like a gentleman, nothing abrasive in your posts and I respect that, I would like to return the courtesy. Give me some time and I'll try to wrap my mind around some of this but you should know a couple of things about me. Creationist and Evolutionist sites like Talk Origins and AIG are just primers, I like to get my information from something a little more credible not that there is anything wrong with them as far as they go.

That would be because I have never encountered anyone who questions geologic dating techniques other than YECs.

Guess I have a different perspective, I do take the Scriptures literally as I try to do with all historical narrative whether I accept it as accurate or not. Early on I realized that the Genesis account is ambiguise with regards to the age of the earth and the cosmos so I consider the age of the earth irrelevant. What's more I think the world is a very messy place, I lived in LA for a year and you get a lot of tremors. I remember I was walking toward a house when a tremor hit, it made the landscape look like a wave. I guess I should have been troubled that this could be the one that would crack southern California off and drop it into the ocean but I thought it was neat. My point is we have top soil that is largely organic in nature and other things mixed in to make dating things from details taken from a spectrometer a little hard to decipher, at least for a layman like myself.

I don't get the ratios but I do get that spectrometers are used for everything from DNA to analyzing the properties of the sun.

Then I remind you of the topic of this thread, "Granite disproves a 6,000 year old earth".

To answer that, it might and a big fat so what? I don't mean to be blunt but it doesn't contradict the clear testimony of Scripture from my perspective. Uranium changing into lead, now there is something I can get into, it sounds like a fascinating concept. Granite I'm not so sure of right now but as slow headed as I can be, I have to admit, it seems worth pursuing.

​

No, wrong dates were applied because known very young samples (10 yrs) were sent to be tested by the K-Ar method that was inappropriate. It is even stated in the labs literature that it cannot obtain accurate dates of samples less than 2 million years. Honesty, I can view that in no other terms than being a deliberate misrepresentation with intent to obtain erroneous results.

I would think this one is obvious, what they were doing is a kind of duck blind study. Of course they knew the samples were not millions of years old but so often you dig up fossils and know nothing of the history of the geology. They have done this kind of thing around modern volcanoes and the Grand Canyon and other places and find some hard to explain inconsistencies in the dating methods. I've even had creationists tell me he (Austin) was using the wrong dating method, not that I had the slightest interest at the time.

I just pointed out one example, there are many, many more.

With all due respect, I really don't know that. Now if you take that as an argument from incredulity so be it but I can't have a determined opinion about things too technical for me to process. I'll just offer this, I'll spend some time on this and we can see where it goes.

Back in the summer I created a thread showing a quote where it was stated both the mainstream science and creation science communities have the same data, just different interpretations. In that thread I asked for examples of same data different interpretations. I have of yet to have an example of same data different interpretations presented.

That's odd but not really all that unusual in my experience. Creationists and evolutionists have a strong tendency to talk past one another. Biology, Geology and even Theology are riddled with these fundamental problems understanding one another. All I can tell you I'm curious now and I'll do some reading and see what I come up with. The culture wars are over and apparently the main stream Darwinians and Creationists have found other things to occupy themselves. Just a personal note, I have had a couple of Creationists put me on blast for daring to question the age of the earth being young. I have to tell you, for an evangelical with a Calvinist background and a strong apologetic interest in the subject matter I found it disconcerting.

Bottom line I'm still trying to figure out how to have an interpretation, science is kind of a slow cooker on that account.

I'll fish around, glean what I can and I'll let you know what I come up with.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Loudmouth]

​

I understand just fine, I just disagree that the method is going to get you an actual age.

The problem is that you don't have a justifiable reason for doing so. You appear to disagree simply because you don't like the answer.

Wrong dates were applied because the testing found to be much older then we know to be the fact.

If you are talking about the Mt. St. Helens dacites, the dating was entirely correct. The average age of the material was exactly what they reported. The mistake you are making is in assuming the dacites completely melted prior to the eruption.

That happens a lot when looking at a fossils bed and the appearance of age is either an illusion based on assumptions or perhaps the material really is very old, that doesn't mean life is old, just because it's embedded in earth that is of great antiquity.

First, you have been corrected on those assumptions several times now, so why keep beating that drum?

Second, when a dinosaur dies, does it dig hundreds of feet into the ground in order to bury itself under ancient lava flows? How did dinosaurs determine the K/Ar ratios of rocks so that they always buried themselves under lava flows and lava deposits that were at least 65 million years old?

That's always the case, if it's coming from Creationists their conclusions must be disingenuous, I don't appreciate the attitude.

We can demonstrate that they are disingenuous.