The Earth is young

[The Barbarian]

Rock layers will bend over time, if the pressure is not too great, and there is a lot of time.

Sometimes, though, the pressure is too great and the rock fractures.

This would not happen, if the rock was soft when it was folded.

 

[The Barbarian]

So far, no one has found soft tissue in fossils. They haven't even found intact cells. What they have found is some organic molecules and declared (without offering evidence) that such molecules could not exist for millions of years.

This isn't news; organic molecules from marine invertebrates have been known to survive for millions of years.

However it is instructive to look at the molecules. Not long ago, a bit of heme (fragment of the hemoglobin molecule) was found in a T. rex. Injected into rabbits to form antibodies, the antibodies reacted more strongly to the heme of birds than it did the heme of reptiles, thus confirming that dinosaurs are more closely related to birds than either is to other reptiles.

 

[The Barbarian]

Short-lived comets are replenished from the Kuiper Belt. Because Kepler's Laws permit us to know the entire orbit of a comet if we observe it moving near the Sun, scientists inferred the existence of a large collection of icy rocky objects out beyond Pluto.

Late on, the existence of the Kuiper Belt was confirmed by observation of some of the larger objects in it.

Due to their small size and extreme distance from Earth, the chemical makeup of KBOs is very difficult to determine. The principal method by which astronomers determine the composition of a celestial object is spectroscopy. When an object's light is broken into its component colors, an image akin to a rainbow is formed. This image is called a spectrum. Different substances absorb light at different wavelengths, and when the spectrum for a specific object is unravelled, dark lines (called absorption lines) appear where the substances within it have absorbed that particular wavelength of light. Every element or compound has its own unique spectroscopic signature, and by reading an object's full spectral "fingerprint", astronomers can determine its composition. Analysis indicates that Kuiper belt objects are composed of a mixture of rock and a variety of ices such as water, methane, and ammonia.
Kuiper belt - Wikipedia

"Answers in Genesis" merely denied what has been observed about the composition of these bodies. It was the only way they could maintain their claim about short-lived comets.

 

[The Barbarian]

Is anyone surprised by this? If their beliefs are well-substantiated, why would they post falsehoods to support them?

 

[mark kennedy]

"Answers in Genesis" staff is well aware of the reason for this, but they chose to hide it from you. C14 is produced when radiation strikes nitrogen atoms. There is both radioactive material and nitrogen in coal and diamond deposits. Diamonds often have significant nitrogen atoms in the carbon lattice of the crystals, and thorium is found in the blue earth deposits where diamonds have formed. However, there isn't very much radiation, and the amount of C-14 produced over millions of years is rather small.

Hence, if you test these things, you will get a result that pegs the meter on the test for age.

All you will get from an empirical test is a ratio of one element to a daughter element. The half life is an exaggerated assumption and the scientific lingo clouds the mind from the fact that the decay rate is an assumed phenomenon, ultimately unprovable.

 

[mark kennedy]

My understanding is that after 60000 years the amount of C14 is worthless for dating cause there simply is not enough of it left. So if you have readable amounts in diamonds or coal these samples cannot be older than 60000 years.

In which case you cannot date a diamond at a billion years if it has readable amounts of carbon 14 in it.

The oldest confirmed dating of a tree is 5000 years ( counted by its rings) . The Swedish tree dated at 9500 years was done so by carbon 14 dating, but the possibility of contamination and other factors makes this a guess.

You hit on a key aspect there, contamination. Carbon 14 is pretty important when it comes to dating things of relatively recent age, at least as far as I can tell. But that's a measurement of something originally organic, when it comes to the ratios involved in inorganic matter the process is convoluted in that you never will get a pristine sample. The decay rate appears to be a constant but it's only measured over months and years and then projected over millions if not billions of years. There are too many other factors involved, radiometric dating never struck me as being anything other then fanciful assumption.

 

[The Barbarian]

All you will get from an empirical test is a ratio of one element to a daughter element. The half life is an exaggerated assumption and the scientific lingo clouds the mind from the fact that the decay rate is an assumed phenomenon, ultimately unprovable.

It can be directly tested and calculated.

For very long-lived isotopes, one accurately measures the mass, measures the radioactivity from that mass, and calculates the half-life from there. One gram of U-238 has about 3 million nucleii decay per second.

Shorter-lived elements like C-14 can be found directly from the radiation rate.

 

[mark kennedy]

It can be directly tested and calculated.

For very long-lived isotopes, one accurately measures the mass, measures the radioactivity from that mass, and calculates the half-life from there. One gram of U-238 has about 3 million nucleii decay per second.

Shorter-lived elements like C-14 can be found directly from the radiation rate.

They can be tested over weeks, months and years and then projected over thousands, millions and even billions of years. It's a load of pseudo scientific semantically induced hewy.

 

[The Barbarian]

They can be tested over weeks, months and years and then projected over thousands, millions and even billions of years.

Yep. And every time we test it, it works. Of course, there's always the possibility that God switches the rules just to prank us every so often, but observations of things like the Oklo reactor shows that He doesn't do that.

It's a load of pseudo scientific semantically induced hewy.

Maybe it magically changes from time to time, and God covers up all the stuff that would be different (like the speed of light) to fool us. But even then, if the half-life of isotopes was shortened that much, the radiation would have cooked all living things on Earth.

Unless God stepped in and fitted everything out in radiation-resistant suits.

Or it all could just be the way that the evidence shows it is. One of those.

 

[The Barbarian]

All you will get from an empirical test is a ratio of one element to a daughter element. The half life is an exaggerated assumption and the scientific lingo clouds the mind from the fact that the decay rate is an assumed phenomenon, ultimately unprovable.

No, that's wrong. You can simply measure the mass and radiation from an isotope to learn the half-life.

 

[mindlight]

Short-lived comets are replenished from the Kuiper Belt. Because Kepler's Laws permit us to know the entire orbit of a comet if we observe it moving near the Sun, scientists inferred the existence of a large collection of icy rocky objects out beyond Pluto.

Late on, the existence of the Kuiper Belt was confirmed by observation of some of the larger objects in it.

Due to their small size and extreme distance from Earth, the chemical makeup of KBOs is very difficult to determine. The principal method by which astronomers determine the composition of a celestial object is spectroscopy. When an object's light is broken into its component colors, an image akin to a rainbow is formed. This image is called a spectrum. Different substances absorb light at different wavelengths, and when the spectrum for a specific object is unravelled, dark lines (called absorption lines) appear where the substances within it have absorbed that particular wavelength of light. Every element or compound has its own unique spectroscopic signature, and by reading an object's full spectral "fingerprint", astronomers can determine its composition. Analysis indicates that Kuiper belt objects are composed of a mixture of rock and a variety of ices such as water, methane, and ammonia.
Kuiper belt - Wikipedia

"Answers in Genesis" merely denied what has been observed about the composition of these bodies. It was the only way they could maintain their claim about short-lived comets.

Inference proves nothing. The facts are comets of a certain size , moving at a certain speed, in a certain orbital path, losing mass at an accelerated rate the nearer they get to the sun, composed of certain elements. And even though the precision of our observations is quite questionable it seems there are body of icy/rocky objects out there in a place that intersects with the potential orbits of these comets. That does not prove the comets came from there or will even make it back there.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yep. And every time we test it, it works. Of course, there's always the possibility that God switches the rules just to prank us every so often, but observations of things like the Oklo reactor shows that He doesn't do that.



Maybe it magically changes from time to time, and God covers up all the stuff that would be different (like the speed of light) to fool us. But even then, if the half-life of isotopes was shortened that much, the radiation would have cooked all living things on Earth.

Unless God stepped in and fitted everything out in radiation-resistant suits.

Or it all could just be the way that the evidence shows it is. One of those.

Really? Why is it that this kind of testing is anecdotal at best? You tell me about this supposed testing, and then make a sweeping generality that it works. You don't tell me how it works and you don't tell why? Just that it always works, whatever that means.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, that's wrong. You can simply measure the mass and radiation from an isotope to learn the half-life.

Yea I'm familiar with the ratios, that's why the potassium-argon Dacite tested to date 40,000 to 2.8 million years old at Mt. St. Helens, ten years after the eruption. Inductive methodologies are sometimes a stretch but the assumptions supporting radiometric dating is obviously exaggerated to the point of absurdity.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yea I'm familiar with the ratios, that's why the potassium-argon Dacite tested to date 40,000 to 2.8 million years old at Mt. St. Helens, ten years after the eruption.

That was kind of an embarrassment for creationists. The sample submitted contained xenocrysts, unmelted (and therefore very ancient) rock within the hardened lava. The lab warned Austin that the sample he submitted would give inaccurate results, but he told them to do it anyway.

And then he tells us that he was shocked to learn that it gave inaccurate results.

Inductive methodologies are sometimes a stretch but the assumptions supporting radiometric dating is obviously exaggerated to the point of absurdity.

No, that's wrong. As you see, Austin deliberately took a sample known to be contaminated with unmelted material, and had it analyzed, knowing it would give a false result. It's the kind of ethics we often see in professional creationists.

 

[The Barbarian]

Really? Why is it that this kind of testing is anecdotal at best?

It's well documented in the literature. No point in denying it. And it's routinely done for graduates during their training.

You tell me about this supposed testing, and then make a sweeping generality that it works.

Observably so. You can directly check the method, but using isotopes of shorter half-lives, directly measuring the amount of isotope after a given time.

You don't tell me how it works

Measure the mass of the isotope and the amount of radiation being given off. That tells you how much of it decays at a specific time. The data nicely show the specific half-life.

 

[The Barbarian]

Inference proves nothing.

It merely helps us find accurate answers. For example, the Kuiper Belt was predicted long before it was found, on the basis of the orbits of short-term comets. Spectroscopy has since confirmed that Kuiper objects have the same compositions as comets. And the mystery of where those comets come from has been solved. So how did we know it was a belt, and not a cloud? You see, the orbits all came in around the plane of the solar system.

The facts are comets of a certain size

Actually, they vary a lot in size. Some are mere specks. Others are dwarf planets.

, moving at a certain speed, in a certain orbital path, losing mass at an accelerated rate the nearer they get to the sun, composed of certain elements. And even though the precision of our observations is quite questionable it seems there are body of icy/rocky objects out there in a place that intersects with the potential orbits of these comets. That does not prove the comets came from there or will even make it back there.

Actually, we do know this. Kepler's laws make it very clear from where the comets came. That's how we discovered the Kuiper Belt before we could actually see it.

 

[mark kennedy]

That was kind of an embarrassment for creationists. The sample submitted contained xenocrysts, unmelted (and therefore very ancient) rock within the hardened lava. The lab warned Austin that the sample he submitted would give inaccurate results, but he told them to do it anyway.

And then he tells us that he was shocked to learn that it gave inaccurate results.



No, that's wrong. As you see, Austin deliberately took a sample known to be contaminated with unmelted material, and had it analyzed, knowing it would give a false result. It's the kind of ethics we often see in professional creationists.

No it's what happens when you don't know the history of the sample. All you know is what it is, not where it's been or how it came to be there. It really doesn't matter, it's irrelevant on so many levels but it's a prime example of how radiometric basis all of it's findings on false assumptions. When that fails it's the inevitable ad hominem fallacy that moves front and center.

I don't care about the testing, it's obviously bogus, it's the lack of candor with regards to the limitations of the testing that turns me cold.

 

[mark kennedy]

It's well documented in the literature. No point in denying it. And it's routinely done for graduates during their training.

I find it hard to believe your well read on the subject.

Observably so. You can directly check the method, but using isotopes of shorter half-lives, directly measuring the amount of isotope after a given time.

Only in a controlled setting, the earth isn't that neat and tidy.

Measure the mass of the isotope and the amount of radiation being given off. That tells you how much of it decays at a specific time. The data nicely show the specific half-life.

It's still weeks and months projected over thousands if not millions of years. It's a well crafted false assumption, nothing more. I just got flamed by a creationist who considers me compromised because I favor an old earth. I don't really, just consider it irrelevant to the doctrine of creation.

 

[JacksBratt]

In the industry of running tests on samples of any type... you need three things to keep good QA/QC.... one is duplicates.... another is blanks and the one that is missing from carbon dating..... a standard...

A standard is a sample of a known value....You need to have a quality sample that is certified to be of known value for whatever you are testing... Whether it is percent of a certain element, a pH or EMF buffer....

Carbon dating is a crap shoot and gives random values on things of known ages...

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

All you will get from an empirical test is a ratio of one element to a daughter element. The half life is an exaggerated assumption and the scientific lingo clouds the mind from the fact that the decay rate is an assumed phenomenon, ultimately unprovable.

The half life is MEASURED in our labs, not merely assumed. Folks like you make the UNWARRENTED ASSUMPTION that half lives, though constant now, must have varied in the past. A made up assumption to explain why scientists can't be right.