6,000 Years?

[FaithT]

River, I see that you’re a Lutheran, as was I but I was LCMS which is very theologically conservative. That’s what prompted my starting this thread. They believe in YEC and I just never could. That, among other things led me back to Catholicism. What kind of Lutheran are you?

 

[FaithT]

I’ve spent numerous hours researching this topic. And I don’t mean reading or listening to commentaries, I mean actually studying the subject first myself, both the science side of it and the theological side of it. So yeah it greatly interests me and as for what I would do if the article does say what you’re suggesting, I would compare it to other sources to test its credibility.

Would you be willing to change your position, then?

 

[FaithT]

I guess I still don't understand. If it turns out isochron dating doesn't require and/or tests the assumptions you posted, then what?


Scriptural interpretations are not something I enjoy debating. Sorry, but I've had some very bad experiences that I don't want to risk repeating.


You didn't answer what I asked and that's a couple of times you've done it. But I won't push, so here's some of the material from the article:

Initial daughter product

The amount of initial D is not required or assumed to be zero. The greater the initial D-to-Di ratio, the further the initial horizontal line sits above the X-axis. But the computed age is not affected.

If one of the samples happened to contain no P (it would plot where the isochron line intercepts the Y-axis), then its quantity of D wouldn't change over time -- because it would have no parent atoms to produce daughter atoms. Whether there's a data point on the Y-axis or not, the Y-intercept of the line doesn't change as the slope of the isochron line does (as shown in Figure 5). Therefore, the Y-intercept of the isochron line gives the initial global ratio of D to Di.

For each sample, it would be possible to measure the amount of the Di, and (using the ratio identified by the Y-intercept of the isochron plot) calculate the amount of D that was present when the sample formed. That quantity of D could be subtracted out of each sample, and it would then be possible to derive a simple age (by the equation introduced in the first section of this document) for each sample. Each such age would match the result given by the isochron.

Contamination - parent isotope​

Gain or loss of P changes the X-values of the data points:

In order to make the figures easy to read (and quick to draw), the examples in this paper include few data points. While isochrons are performed with that few data points, the best ones include a larger quantity of data. If the isochron line has a distinctly non-zero slope, and a fairly large number of data points, the nearly inevitable result of contamination (failure of the system to remain closed) will be that the fit of the data to a line will be destroyed.

For example, consider an event which removes P. The data points will tend to move varying distances, for the different minerals will have varying resistance to loss of P, as well as varying levels of Di:

The end result is that the data are nearly certain not to remain colinear:

Even in our simple four-data-point example isochron, a change to two of the samples...

... would require exact changes to the remaining two samples in order for the data to remain colinear:

Note: In the special case where the isochron line has a zero slope (indicating zero age), then gain or loss of P may move the data points, but they will all still fall on the same horizontal line. In other words, random gain or loss of P does not affect a zero-age isochron. This is an important point. If the Earth were as young as young-Earth creationists insist, then the "contamination" which they suggest to invalidate dating methods would have no noticeable effect on the results.

Contamination - daughter isotope​

In the case of Rb/Sr isochron dating, the most common form of isotope migration is a preferential loss of radiogenic daughter (87Sr). Faure (1986, p. 123) notes:


This will change the vertical position of the data points:

As with gain or loss of P, in the general case it is highly unlikely that the result will be an isochron with colinear data points:

Good work! It’s over my head but it’s good work.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I guess I still don't understand. If it turns out isochron dating doesn't require and/or tests the assumptions you posted, then what?


Scriptural interpretations are not something I enjoy debating. Sorry, but I've had some very bad experiences that I don't want to risk repeating.


You didn't answer what I asked and that's a couple of times you've done it. But I won't push, so here's some of the material from the article:

Initial daughter product

The amount of initial D is not required or assumed to be zero. The greater the initial D-to-Di ratio, the further the initial horizontal line sits above the X-axis. But the computed age is not affected.

If one of the samples happened to contain no P (it would plot where the isochron line intercepts the Y-axis), then its quantity of D wouldn't change over time -- because it would have no parent atoms to produce daughter atoms. Whether there's a data point on the Y-axis or not, the Y-intercept of the line doesn't change as the slope of the isochron line does (as shown in Figure 5). Therefore, the Y-intercept of the isochron line gives the initial global ratio of D to Di.

For each sample, it would be possible to measure the amount of the Di, and (using the ratio identified by the Y-intercept of the isochron plot) calculate the amount of D that was present when the sample formed. That quantity of D could be subtracted out of each sample, and it would then be possible to derive a simple age (by the equation introduced in the first section of this document) for each sample. Each such age would match the result given by the isochron.

Contamination - parent isotope​

Gain or loss of P changes the X-values of the data points:

In order to make the figures easy to read (and quick to draw), the examples in this paper include few data points. While isochrons are performed with that few data points, the best ones include a larger quantity of data. If the isochron line has a distinctly non-zero slope, and a fairly large number of data points, the nearly inevitable result of contamination (failure of the system to remain closed) will be that the fit of the data to a line will be destroyed.

For example, consider an event which removes P. The data points will tend to move varying distances, for the different minerals will have varying resistance to loss of P, as well as varying levels of Di:

The end result is that the data are nearly certain not to remain colinear:

Even in our simple four-data-point example isochron, a change to two of the samples...

... would require exact changes to the remaining two samples in order for the data to remain colinear:

Note: In the special case where the isochron line has a zero slope (indicating zero age), then gain or loss of P may move the data points, but they will all still fall on the same horizontal line. In other words, random gain or loss of P does not affect a zero-age isochron. This is an important point. If the Earth were as young as young-Earth creationists insist, then the "contamination" which they suggest to invalidate dating methods would have no noticeable effect on the results.

Contamination - daughter isotope​

In the case of Rb/Sr isochron dating, the most common form of isotope migration is a preferential loss of radiogenic daughter (87Sr). Faure (1986, p. 123) notes:


This will change the vertical position of the data points:

As with gain or loss of P, in the general case it is highly unlikely that the result will be an isochron with colinear data points:

Ok so correct me if I’m wrong here but isn’t this just indicating a shorter time frame where the parent hasn’t decayed into daughter elements yet? The top graphs showing a horizontal line are indicating no daughter elements because there hasn’t been a significant enough time for the parent to decay into daughter elements yet. And the lower graphs are indicating contamination because the parent elements haven’t decayed yet. So if I’m reading this correctly it still doesn’t tell us when the material was created or how much decay it had when it was created because in order to know how much P or D increased over a period of time you’d have to know how much it had originally had to begin with. This looks to me like a material that was tested then tested again later so that the P and D elements could be compared to the first test to see how much they increased either by accumulating more P or by contaminating of more D elements from an outside source. This isn’t a dating method, this is measuring the rate of change in P & D elements over a specific amount of time. If you don’t know the amount of time it took for the P or D elements to increase then you can’t calculate the rate that they increased. You can’t date something with this method without first knowing how many parent elements the material possessed to begin with. You’d have to test the material then wait for a period of time then test it again to measure the increase to get the rate and hope that the rate of increase doesn’t change in order to use this method for any kind of time measurement. I mean that’s what I’m seeing here.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Good work! It’s over my head but it’s good work.

Let me explain what the graph shows. The horizontal movement indicates the amount of increase in the parent elements. The vertical movement indicates the amount of increase in the daughter elements. So the line moving up indicates an accumulation of parent elements and the line moving to the right indicates an accumulation of daughter elements. If the line moves straight horizontally from left to right with no upward movement it indicates a period of time that is less than the half life of the parent element which is why there’s no decay from the parent element into the daughter element. It also indicates that the amount of parent element is increasing but in order to know that it’s increasing and the rate that it’s increasing you’d first have to know how much it had beforehand. So in order to know how much it increased you’d have to test the material to see how much parent element it has then wait for a period of time and test it again to see how much it increased. The same goes for the daughter element moving on the vertical plane. The way radiometric dating works is they know the decay rate of certain elements and that they remain consistent, so they measure the amount of parent elements and compare that to the amount of daughter elements to determine how much time passed from when the parent element got trapped in the material and started decaying. This all sounds great in theory unless something miraculous happened that they didn’t expect like perhaps maybe the material contained both parent and daughter elements in it when it was created. Scientists are going to completely ignore that because they don’t believe in God, and any scientist who suggests such a theory would be completely discredited in the scientific community because they think God is a fairy tale. So you can’t expect scientists to consider such an idea as being even remotely plausible. They can’t test it, they’ve never observed it, it sounds ridiculous to them, so it’s not even an option for them. What they’re doing makes perfect sense for a secular community, it’s completely logical. Miracles on the other hand are, by design, completely illogical. They’re specifically intended to be illogical in order to show God’s glory. So yes for a Christian to have the idea that these materials might’ve contained both parent and daughter elements the day it was created is absolutely ridiculous to the scientific and secular communities, just as ridiculous as a man walking on water or coming back to life after being dead for 3 days. If that’s the people you want to put your trust in then that’s your choice. They’re going to think you’re just as ridiculous as I am for believing that a man walked on water and came back to life after being dead for 3 days if that’s what you believe.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Would you be willing to change your position, then?

If it was actually proven to me yes. I don’t ignore logic and reasoning. But as I explained, that article does not prove that they know how many parent or daughter elements any materials contained the day they were created 6,000 years ago. Like I said before, it’s like seeing a glass of water sitting under a dripping faucet and trying to determine how long the glass has been sitting there by dividing the amount of water in the glass by the rate that the faucet is dripping. That only works if the glass was placed there empty. If the glass wasn’t empty when it was placed there then it’s impossible to calculate how long it’s been sitting there.

 

[River Jordan]

River, I see that you’re a Lutheran, as was I but I was LCMS which is very theologically conservative. That’s what prompted my starting this thread. They believe in YEC and I just never could. That, among other things led me back to Catholicism. What kind of Lutheran are you?

That's interesting because mine is also LCMS but isn't conservative. I guess that's why our leadership regularly points how the LCMS' role is advisory and we are fully independent.

 

[River Jordan]

Ok so correct me if I’m wrong here but isn’t this just indicating a shorter time frame where the parent hasn’t decayed into daughter elements yet? The top graphs showing a horizontal line are indicating no daughter elements because there hasn’t been a significant enough time for the parent to decay into daughter elements yet. And the lower graphs are indicating contamination because the parent elements haven’t decayed yet. So if I’m reading this correctly it still doesn’t tell us when the material was created or how much decay it had when it was created because in order to know how much P or D increased over a period of time you’d have to know how much it had originally had to begin with. This looks to me like a material that was tested then tested again later so that the P and D elements could be compared to the first test to see how much they increased either by accumulating more P or by contaminating of more D elements from an outside source. This isn’t a dating method, this is measuring the rate of change in P & D elements over a specific amount of time. If you don’t know the amount of time it took for the P or D elements to increase then you can’t calculate the rate that they increased. You can’t date something with this method without first knowing how many parent elements the material possessed to begin with. You’d have to test the material then wait for a period of time then test it again to measure the increase to get the rate and hope that the rate of increase doesn’t change in order to use this method for any kind of time measurement. I mean that’s what I’m seeing here.

Remember the reason I posted that section? It was because you said radiometric dating assumes there was no initial daughter element or later contamination. That's what the section I copied addressed.

With both daughter and parent element contamination, the resulting plot wouldn't fit a line and such a scattered plot is a clear sign of contamination. So contamination isn't assumed, it's tested for.

With initial daughter element:

The amount of initial D is not required or assumed to be zero. The greater the initial D-to-Di ratio, the further the initial horizontal line sits above the X-axis. But the computed age is not affected.​

​

If one of the samples happened to contain no P (it would plot where the isochron line intercepts the Y-axis), then its quantity of D wouldn't change over time -- because it would have no parent atoms to produce daughter atoms. Whether there's a data point on the Y-axis or not, the Y-intercept of the line doesn't change as the slope of the isochron line does (as shown in Figure 5). Therefore, the Y-intercept of the isochron line gives the initial global ratio of D to Di.​

​

For each sample, it would be possible to measure the amount of the Di, and (using the ratio identified by the Y-intercept of the isochron plot) calculate the amount of D that was present when the sample formed. That quantity of D could be subtracted out of each sample, and it would then be possible to derive a simple age (by the equation introduced in the first section of this document) for each sample. Each such age would match the result given by the isochron.​

Just like with contamination, the amount of initial daughter element isn't assumed, it's tested for.

This all sounds great in theory unless something miraculous happened that they didn’t expect like perhaps maybe the material contained both parent and daughter elements in it when it was created. Scientists are going to completely ignore that because they don’t believe in God, and any scientist who suggests such a theory would be completely discredited in the scientific community because they think God is a fairy tale.

That's a terrible thing to say! Why would you say such a thing? You really believe every scientist who doesn't share your belief that God manipulated radioactive elements is an atheist?

I'm a scientist who doesn't share that belief and I'm not an atheist. Neither are several of my co-workers.

 

[FaithT]

That's interesting because mine is also LCMS but isn't conservative. I guess that's why our leadership regularly points how the LCMS' role is advisory and we are fully independent.

I wish mine wasn’t conservative. I had many talks with one of the pastors about this topic I posted in the OP.

 

[FaithT]

Let me explain what the graph shows. The horizontal movement indicates the amount of increase in the parent elements. The vertical movement indicates the amount of increase in the daughter elements. So the line moving up indicates an accumulation of parent elements and the line moving to the right indicates an accumulation of daughter elements. If the line moves straight horizontally from left to right with no upward movement it indicates a period of time that is less than the half life of the parent element which is why there’s no decay from the parent element into the daughter element. It also indicates that the amount of parent element is increasing but in order to know that it’s increasing and the rate that it’s increasing you’d first have to know how much it had beforehand. So in order to know how much it increased you’d have to test the material to see how much parent element it has then wait for a period of time and test it again to see how much it increased. The same goes for the daughter element moving on the vertical plane. The way radiometric dating works is they know the decay rate of certain elements and that they remain consistent, so they measure the amount of parent elements and compare that to the amount of daughter elements to determine how much time passed from when the parent element got trapped in the material and started decaying. This all sounds great in theory unless something miraculous happened that they didn’t expect like perhaps maybe the material contained both parent and daughter elements in it when it was created. Scientists are going to completely ignore that because they don’t believe in God, and any scientist who suggests such a theory would be completely discredited in the scientific community because they think God is a fairy tale. So you can’t expect scientists to consider such an idea as being even remotely plausible. They can’t test it, they’ve never observed it, it sounds ridiculous to them, so it’s not even an option for them. What they’re doing makes perfect sense for a secular community, it’s completely logical. Miracles on the other hand are, by design, completely illogical. They’re specifically intended to be illogical in order to show God’s glory. So yes for a Christian to have the idea that these materials might’ve contained both parent and daughter elements the day it was created is absolutely ridiculous to the scientific and secular communities, just as ridiculous as a man walking on water or coming back to life after being dead for 3 days. If that’s the people you want to put your trust in then that’s your choice. They’re going to think you’re just as ridiculous as I am for believing that a man walked on water and came back to life after being dead for 3 days if that’s what you believe.

It’s insulting to call all scientists atheists. Some scientists are very faithful.
Now back to my OP, so are you saying there are no scientists who believe in a 6000 year old universe? Bc I’ve read about some but they aren’t well respected in their fields. You know, people who work for Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministeries International. Scientists like that.

 

[FaithT]

That's interesting because mine is also LCMS but isn't conservative. I guess that's why our leadership regularly points how the LCMS' role is advisory and we are fully independent.

I thought all LCMS churches were conservative.

 

[FaithT]

It’s insulting to call all scientists atheists. Some scientists are very faithful.
Now back to my OP, so are you saying there are no scientists who believe in a 6000 year old universe? Bc I’ve read about some but they aren’t well respected in their fields. You know, people who work for Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministeries International. Scientists like that.

My priests even think the universe is very, very old.

 

[truthpls]

Isochron dating doesn't require those assumptions, and there are also lots of other ways to date things besides radiometric dating.

They all use the same basic principles. Looking at isochron dating I see this in Wiki


"where

is the concentration of the non-radiogenic isotope of the daughter element (assumed constant), D ∗

is the present concentration of the radiogenic daughter isotope, D 0

is the initial concentration of the radiogenic daughter isotope, and P t

is the present concentration of the parent isotope that has decayed over time t

."

How do we determine the initial concentration of the daughter and parent? This seems to still assume that all the daughter material got there as a result of decay from the parent. I think the other poster here was questioning that basic assumption. For example if some rock was there at creation week, and got crystallized somehow, we could not use isochron dating.Why? Because we do not know the original ratios it was created with. So how could you claim that all daughter material that was in the sample rock got there by decay when it was made yesterday?

 

[BNR32FAN]

It’s insulting to call all scientists atheists. Some scientists are very faithful.
Now back to my OP, so are you saying there are no scientists who believe in a 6000 year old universe? Bc I’ve read about some but they aren’t well respected in their fields. You know, people who work for Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministeries International. Scientists like that.

No I was referring to the majority of the scientific community.

 

[BNR32FAN]

They all use the same basic principles. Looking at isochron dating I see this in Wiki


"where

is the concentration of the non-radiogenic isotope of the daughter element (assumed constant), D ∗

is the present concentration of the radiogenic daughter isotope, D 0

is the initial concentration of the radiogenic daughter isotope, and P t

is the present concentration of the parent isotope that has decayed over time t

."

How do we determine the initial concentration of the daughter and parent? This seems to still assume that all the daughter material got there as a result of decay from the parent. I think the other poster here was questioning that basic assumption. For example if some rock was there at creation week, and got crystallized somehow, we could not use isochron dating.Why? Because we do not know the original ratios it was created with. So how could you claim that all daughter material that was in the sample rock got there by decay when it was made yesterday?

Exactly!

 

[BNR32FAN]

Remember the reason I posted that section? It was because you said radiometric dating assumes there was no initial daughter element or later contamination. That's what the section I copied addressed.

I never said anything about contamination. I said they assume that at some point there were no daughter elements in the material. So do you agree that the article doesn’t cover this situation?

 

[BNR32FAN]

That's a terrible thing to say! Why would you say such a thing? You really believe every scientist who doesn't share your belief that God manipulated radioactive elements is an atheist?

I'm a scientist who doesn't share that belief and I'm not an atheist. Neither are several of my co-workers.

I was speaking in a broader sense referring to the vast majority of scientists, not every scientist in the world. I would’ve thought that was obvious.

 

[River Jordan]

I wish mine wasn’t conservative. I had many talks with one of the pastors about this topic I posted in the OP.

I thought all LCMS churches were conservative.

It might have to do with where we are geographically. By local standards, some might still consider us conservative.

 

[River Jordan]

They all use the same basic principles. Looking at isochron dating I see this in Wiki


"where

is the concentration of the non-radiogenic isotope of the daughter element (assumed constant), D ∗

is the present concentration of the radiogenic daughter isotope, D 0

is the initial concentration of the radiogenic daughter isotope, and P t

is the present concentration of the parent isotope that has decayed over time t

."

How do we determine the initial concentration of the daughter and parent? This seems to still assume that all the daughter material got there as a result of decay from the parent. I think the other poster here was questioning that basic assumption. For example if some rock was there at creation week, and got crystallized somehow, we could not use isochron dating.Why? Because we do not know the original ratios it was created with. So how could you claim that all daughter material that was in the sample rock got there by decay when it was made yesterday?

All that is explained at the link I posted and the sections I copied and pasted.

 

[River Jordan]

I never said anything about contamination. I said they assume that at some point there were no daughter elements in the material. So do you agree that the article doesn’t cover this situation?

Yes, it does cover that. I copied the part that does, twice. Here it is again.

The amount of initial D is not required or assumed to be zero. The greater the initial D-to-Di ratio, the further the initial horizontal line sits above the X-axis. But the computed age is not affected.​

If one of the samples happened to contain no P (it would plot where the isochron line intercepts the Y-axis), then its quantity of D wouldn't change over time -- because it would have no parent atoms to produce daughter atoms. Whether there's a data point on the Y-axis or not, the Y-intercept of the line doesn't change as the slope of the isochron line does (as shown in Figure 5). Therefore, the Y-intercept of the isochron line gives the initial global ratio of D to Di.​

For each sample, it would be possible to measure the amount of the Di, and (using the ratio identified by the Y-intercept of the isochron plot) calculate the amount of D that was present when the sample formed. That quantity of D could be subtracted out of each sample, and it would then be possible to derive a simple age (by the equation introduced in the first section of this document) for each sample. Each such age would match the result given by the isochron.​

I was speaking in a broader sense referring to the vast majority of scientists, not every scientist in the world. I would’ve thought that was obvious.

It very much gives the impression that you think any scientist who doesn't share your belief that God manipulated parent/daughter elements and/or decay rates must be an atheist. But if that's not what you think, I'm glad.