Why do they do it?

[Gracchus]

Subject: Dating methods--are they reliable?
To: "AiG-US News" <aignews@email.answersingenesis.org>

8 August 2003

Q: Almost daily we read something in a newspaper or on television, where we're told that scientists have dated something to be millions or billions of years old. Can these dating methods really be trusted?
A: First of all most dating methods do not show that rocks are millions or billions of years old. You see, there are many ways scientists can try to age-date things. Actually, most dating methods that scientists use give results far younger than evolutionists need.

There is some smoke and mirrors here. Here are some of the decay series that are used in radiometric dating:

[b]Isotope Product Half-Life S.N.[/b]
Samarium-147 Neodymium-143 106 billion 1.06E+11
Rubidium-87 Strontium-87 48.8 billion 4.88E+10
Rhenium-187 Osmium-187 42 billion 4.20E+10
Lutetium-176 Hafnium-176 38 billion 3.80E+10
Thorium-232 Lead-208 14 billion 1.40E+10
Uranium-238 Lead-206 4.5 billion 4.50E+09
Potassium-40 Argon-40 1.26 billion 1.26E+09
Uranium-235 Lead-207 0.7 billion 7.00E+08
Beryllium-10 Boron-10 52 million 1.52E+07
Chlorine-36 Argon-36 300000 3.00E+05
Uranium-234 Thorium-230 248000 2.48E+05
Thorium-230 Radium-226 75400 7.54E+04
Carbon-14 Nitrogen-14 5715 5.715E+3

Note that the series from Samarium through Lutetium have half-lives greater than the age of the universe, 13-14 billion years. In the Uranium-Lead the half-life is approximately the age of the Earth. The half-lives are determined by counting decay events in a sample of the parent isotope. Thus, the half-lives are known to very high degree of accuracy and certainty.

All dating methods involve something that changes over time. For instance, radioactive Uranium, over time, changes into a form of lead. Therefore, if scientists assume
1) they know how much was there at the beginning;

This may or may not be necessary, but in many cases this is easily determined. Crystals are used in some dating techniques. For instance, Potassium often occurs in nature in the form of crystals of Potassium compounds. Thus we can know what percentage of the crystal started out as Potassium. . Argon is one of the "noble" gasses and so does not combine chemically with other elements to form crystals. Since the Argon escapes during the molten phase before crystals are formed it is hypothesized that any Argon found in the crystal must have formed by the decay of Potassium-40. A mass spectrometer can sort and count the occurrences of all isotopes of Potassium as well as the occurrences Argon.

2) this rate of change has not been disrupted through time;…

Short of a chain reaction, impossible in crystals containing the low concentrations of Potassium-40 found in nature, there is no known mechanism for changing the decay rate. Nor are there usually found in nature any naturally occurring chain reactions, although I have read about at least one, the exception that proves the rule. As far as I know, no one has put forth any hypothetical method other than a chain reaction to change any decay rate.

…3) there's been no contamination, they can calculate how long this has been happening.

There are methods of ruling out contamination. In fact in one case some "creation scientist", whose name escapes me at the moment, once tried to show that granite cooled much faster than was scientifically recognized by pointing to Polonium "haloes" in biotite mica. It was later found that the granite containing this mica was collected from a formation that that had been contaminated by ground water seeping through nearby Uranium ore which contained Polonium. Since biotite is laminate, with each crystal made of easily separate sheets of biotite, the "creation scientist's" findings were explained without recourse to correcting the theory of how long granite takes to cool.
Science is not just a matter of putting a sample into a machine and reading out the numbers. From past mistakes, scientists know they have to think about what they are doing. They have to take into consideration where the sample was collected and the surrounding formations and the type of crystals. By using the isochronal method of dating the process becomes self checking.

This is how they get millions of years. But all of these assumptions have been shown to be invalid.

No, AiG asserts they have been shown to be invalid. But the facts and reasoning put forth by AiG are faulty.

Not only this, but other dating methods--such as the amount of salt transported into the oceans, or the amount of helium built up in the atmosphere--indicate that the earth can't be billions or millions of years old.

One cannot make a falsified hypothesis true by relying on other falsified hypotheses. Both the claim about the salinity of the oceans and Helium in the atmosphere have been falsified, and if anyone disputes this, I will be glad to address this on another thread.

All dating methods are fallible, but God's Word, beginning with Genesis, is infallible.

I note with amusement and disgust, that only the nearly exhaustive method of radiometric dating, is claimed to be falsified, why the very problematic method of dating by the salinity of the oceans and the thoroughly falsified claims about atmospheric Helium are trotted in as "evidence" for a young earth.

I obtained the information in the above report from:
Wiens, Roger C., Ph.D. "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective"

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html 8/18/03

A more complete discussion of radiometric dating can be found there.

Nevertheless, what I am submitting for discussion is not the method of radiometric dating, which AiG (Answers in Genesis) claims is flawed.

The question I would like to discuss is: Why, since the information falsifying their article is so readily available on the internet in a simple search on "radiometric dating", the AiG published an article based on falsehood.
1. Are they stupid? They can apparently read and write, and maintain a website and support themselves financially.
2. Are they ignorant? If so, then why didn't they inform themselves before publishing incorrect data? (Which brings us back to question 1.)
3. Are they too lazy to do a fifteen minute web search?
4. Do they know their target audience is stupid, ignorant and/or lazy, and will parrot any erroneous claim without question or verification?
5. Or are they neither stupid nor ignorant but know they can make a good living off the income generated from their ignorant, stupid and lazy disciples.
6. If anyone can think of some other reason, feel free to reply.

 

[goat37]

The question I would like to discuss is: Why, since the information falsifying their article is so readily available on the internet in a simple search on "radiometric dating", the AiG published an article based on falsehood.
[/size][/font]1. Are they stupid? They can apparently read and write, and maintain a website and support themselves financially.
2. Are they ignorant? If so, then why didn't they inform themselves before publishing incorrect data? (Which brings us back to question 1.)
3. Are they too lazy to do a fifteen minute web search?
4. Do they know their target audience is stupid, ignorant and/or lazy, and will parrot any erroneous claim without question or verification?
5. Or are they neither stupid nor ignorant but know they can make a good living off the income generated from their ignorant, stupid and lazy disciples.
6. If anyone can think of some other reason, feel free to reply.

Can I pick #7: all of the above?

 

[Vance]

I think 4 and 5. Although I would use the words "not educated on the subject" and "likely to not research the matter thoroughly".

 

[Gracchus]

Sorry, about the table, but I made a spelling error, and when I corrected it the table lost all the formatting I had worked so carefully to inculcate. In short the <code> </code> do not work as they should.
The original table can be found at the posted link.

 

[revolutio]

You can always find information to support the opinions you already have. In this case they got a bit giddy and didn't bother to double check the information they got.

 

[LorentzHA]

One more time...why is the age of the Earth SO important to Christians? Someone tell me, please? If someone verified that the Earth was 6,000 years without a doubt it would not do a thing for Christianity. It would in no way make any of their nonsense true. Why does the age of the Earth bother these people SO much. "Daayyytttonnn, sweeetie, come in for dinner and your bath..mommy is calling, I miss you!!!!"

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The mission of AiG is to fool the faithful into thinking there is scientific evidence for their interpretation of the Bible and keep the donations rolling in. They are very good at it and never let facts get in the way. To be fair many of them are probably also fooling themselves at least to some extent but sometimes they seem outright deceptive to me. You will notice that they ask for a donation at the end of every page. To solve most mysteries just follow the money.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Dayton]

One more time...why is the age of the Earth SO important to Christians? Someone tell me, please? If someone verified that the Earth was 6,000 years without a doubt it would not do a thing for Christianity. It would in no way make any of their nonsense true. Why does the age of the Earth bother these people SO much. "Daayyytttonnn, sweeetie, come in for dinner and your bath..mommy is calling, I miss you!!!!"

I never even posted in this thread, so I don't see why you have to attack me. Grow up. I will not respond to inane personal attacks such as this one. I came here for intelligent debate.

AiG may be ignorant of some things, and they are not the best Creation Science organization out there. However, they are not deliberately lying about anything. They are a Christ-centered ministry, not a scientific institution, it is acceptable if some of their scientific statements are incorrect.

 

[Arikay]

AIG does claim to be about science. If they are not lying, maybe you can explain why they refuse to fix their mistakes?
Maybe you can tell me why they misquote people (that is, lie about what they really say) then refuse to fix the quote?
I never knew lieing for christ was an acceptable thing for a ministry to do.

Personally, I would say ICR is the Best one out there. They still get things wrong, however they are one of the few to actually say "we may be wrong" and make a correction.

 

[Vylo]

They are a Christ-centered ministry, not a scientific institution, it is acceptable if some of their scientific statements are incorrect.

Not when trying to make a scientific claim.

 

[LorentzHA]

I never even posted in this thread, so I don't see why you have to attack me. Grow up. I will not respond to inane personal attacks such as this one. I came here for intelligent debate.

Praise the lord!! I have been TRYING to get intelligent debate from you, but you just keep referring back to the text of your belief system as "proof"!! If you would like to have an intelligent debate, let me know when and we can give that a try! It is not a personal attack but out of Godly love and like you told me before..my own insecurities, so just pray for me, OK...I have major problems. I am a wayward soul that left Christianity. As a Christian you should not let my childish attacks bother you. I am a mental case that just does not understand the pure logic behind your faith. Stay patient and pray for me...I will fast on this end.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I think AiG and other creationist ministries have basicaly backed themselves into a corner.

They have made their interpretation of the Bible so important in their minds that if it is shown to be incorect their faith fails.

They are literaly afraid that if they have made a mistake that Christianity will fall.

They might know they are lying, but they figgure that if they don't then all their fallowers will fall away, so they are traped in a vicious cycle of lying to cover up past lies We can only hope that they will someday be able to see their mistakes without loosing their faith and be honest enough to admit and repent of their wrongs.

 

[Philosoft]

The mission of AiG is to fool the faithful into thinking there is scientific evidence for their interpretation of the Bible and keep the donations rolling in.

I think this is the explanation. AIG realizes they don't have to cater to those who are scientifically literate and who doubt the infallibility of the Bible - those people are lost causes, and are few enough and silent enough that the voice of militant skepticism is a mere whisper. Rather, they are most successful at pandering to the lay-Christian who is probably more likely to trust an openly Christian organization, and is less likely to be skeptical enough to do his own research.

 

[Gracchus]

AiG may be ignorant of some things, and they are not the best Creation Science organization out there. However, they are not deliberately lying about anything.

...and you know this because...?

They are a Christ-centered ministry, not a scientific institution, it is acceptable if some of their scientific statements are incorrect.

So, is it your position that they are too stupid or too lazy to check their own statements, submitted as arguments in a controversy? Are you saying that uttering falsehoods is acceptable if you are a "Christ-centered ministry"?

 

[Washington]

Dayton
I came here for intelligent debate

Wrong place. If you truly want intelligent debate I suggest going HERE

 

[Dayton]

Internet Infidels? That's an atheist/agnostic anti-Christian board. It's for atheists only, right?

 

[revolutio]

I don't go to that site but if you would actually look in there religious section it would appear they discuss things from a purely objective stance (if that can be said to exist) so its not like your personal beliefs would matter so long as you approached everything in a logical manner.

Thanks for the site Washington it looks very promissing. I always enjoy being over my head in philosophical or scientific debate. Nothing helps you build character and neurons like being beaten to a philosophical pulp.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I think AiG and other creationist ministries have basicaly backed themselves into a corner.

They have made their interpretation of the Bible so important in their minds that if it is shown to be incorect their faith fails.

They are literaly afraid that if they have made a mistake that Christianity will fall.

They might know they are lying, but they figgure that if they don't then all their fallowers will fall away, so they are traped in a vicious cycle of lying to cover up past lies We can only hope that they will someday be able to see their mistakes without loosing their faith and be honest enough to admit and repent of their wrongs.

Indeed. They've chained their particular dogma to science, little realizing that science carries with it the tools to falsify dogma. They run the risk of pulling Christianity down like an anchor.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Internet Infidels? That's an atheist/agnostic anti-Christian board. It's for atheists only, right?

Not at all. There's an Atheist/Agnostic majority, to be sure, but it's an open membership. Rather like the reverse of this board. Expect to be in the minority, but you're welcome there.

Just make sure to do your homework before you type. My impression of them has been that they don't play with kid gloves like we do around here. You need more than a Bible to back up your ideas: dogma tends to get gutted like a trout over there.

And you'll absolutely want a different sig line.

 

[Dayton]

I registered over there, and if I have time I will post tomorrow. I will be posting in the Creation/Evolution forum.