Dating Methods

[RickG]

There are numerous dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric. I know there have been numerous threads on the topic, but I have yet to have any actual serious discussion on the topic.

For those who insist they are unreliable, I would genuinely like to have an honest open discussion concerning them. In this discussion I want to discuss the actual method(s) and follow the process through. I am not interested at all in seeing any copy/paste material. Please read and try to understand from whatever source(s) you choose and express your/their concerns in your own words.

 

[lasthero]

Hi, Rick! Glad to see you back. Been missing your posts.

Nothing to add, just watching for now.

 

[selfinflikted]

I am very interested in seeing dissenters' reasons for questioning dating methods. But I sincerely believe no real discussion will ever take place.

 

[RickG]

Hi, Rick! Glad to see you back. Been missing your posts.

Nothing to add, just watching for now.

Thanks lasthero, aside from just needing a break I've been engaged in some other areas of interest to me which have kept me quite busy for an old retiree.

 

[florida2]

There a numerous dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric. I know there have numerous threads on the topic, but I have yet to have any actual serious discussion on the topic.

For those who insist they are unreliable, I would genuinely like to have an honest open discussion concerning them. In this discussion I want to discuss the actual method(s) and follow the process through. I am not interested at all in seeing any copy/paste material. Please read and try to understand from whatever source(s) you choose and express your/their concerns in your own words.

Should prove interesting.

Waiting for the word 'assumptions' to be thrown around.

 

[selfinflikted]

ED, that's your cue!

 

[bhsmte]

This will be interesting.

 

[RickG]

Should prove interesting.

Waiting for the word 'assumptions' to be thrown around.

Assumptions are based on know physical evidence and repeatable results, not want-a-be's or wild ideas that pop into ones head. We assume assume the sun will rise and set every day, because that has been observed and found to have never varied. We assume that specific radiogenic isotope decay rates have always been the same because they are constantly measured which improves resolution and accuracy. They have also been observed and measured in gamma ray bursts from supernovae hunderds of thousands of light years distant (thus that old when reaching earth), and found to be the same as we measure today. We assume rates have not changed because the physical structure of all isotopes, whether radiogenic or non-radiogenic would be seen to have different physical structures prior to claimed rate changes.

 

[bhsmte]

Assumptions are based on know physical evidence and repeatable results, not want-a-be's or wild ideas that pop into ones head. We assume assume the sun will rise and set every day, because that has been observed and found to have never varied. We assume that specific radiogenic isotope decay rates have always been the same because they are constantly measured which improves resolution and accuracy. They have also been observed and measured in gamma ray bursts from supernovae hunderds of thousands of light years distant (thus that old when reaching earth), and found to be the same as we measure today. We assume rates have not changed because the physical structure of all isotopes, whether radiogenic or non-radiogenic would be seen to have different physical structures prior to claimed rate changes.

Look for the likes of ED to state; science is making illogical assumptions and just guessing. At the same time he will state; the bible is historical accurate and terrific evidence, that does not include any guesses or assumptions.

 

[RickG]

Look for the likes of ED to state; science is making illogical assumptions and just guessing. At the same time he will state; the bible is historical accurate and terrific evidence, that does not include any guesses or assumptions.

Then ED would need to show, in his own words, where and how these illogical assumptions are being made in the scientific literature. That is why I stated in the OP that I want to discuss the method(s) and how they work. As for discussion on the bible, that is for the apologetic forums, not the the Physical and Life Sciences Forums.

 

[selfinflikted]

Different State Past! The "assumption" is that things operated in the same way and physical laws were also the same in the past. We have no proof that things were the same in the past. We were not there to observe it.

Just playing devil's advocate here. We do have evidence that a same-state past existed. Some people just don't like to acknowledge it.

 

[florida2]

Then ED would need to show, in his own words, where and how these illogical assumptions are being made in the scientific literature. That is why I stated in the OP that I want to discuss the method(s) and how they work. As for discussion on the bible, that is for the apologetic forums, not the the Physical and Life Sciences Forums.

It seems that 'assumptions' is usually tagged onto decay rates though when presented with information about decay rates it usually gets hand waved away.

Oh, and polystrate fossils may make an appearance in order to change the subject.

 

[RickG]

It seems that 'assumptions' is usually tagged onto decay rates though when presented with information about decay rates it usually gets hand waved away.

Oh, and polystrate fossils may make an appearance in order to change the subject.

See post 8 on assumptions and decay rates. Polystrate is a term made up by creationists, the correct term is "in situ" fossils. All descriptions of polystrate fossils are 100% made up assumptions on their part, and nothing more than misrepresentations of what they actually are.

 

[keith99]

Different State Past! The "assumption" is that things operated in the same way and physical laws were also the same in the past. We have no proof that things were the same in the past. We were not there to observe it.

Just playing devil's advocate here. We do have evidence that a same-state past existed. Some people just don't like to acknowledge it.

But the assumption is not what quite an assumption. It is a starting point a reasonable starting point.

The degree to which some try to say things were different in the past is so huge as to make the very idea of measuring time doubtful or at the least subject to argument as to what the valid measure of time would have been if we were there to observe it.

 

[florida2]

See post 8 on assumptions and decay rates. Polystrate is a term made up by creationists, the correct term is "in situ" fossils. All descriptions of polystrate fossils are 100% made up assumptions on their part, and nothing more than misrepresentations of what they actually are.

So it's actually creationists making unfounded assumptions? Who'da thunk it?

 

[EternalDragon]

ED, that's your cue!

Well, there is the logical side and the scientific side. Science says
decay rates are stable but they really are not. Especially when
considering the creation of a planet and land in one day (or 6).
They can be accelerated.

https://answersingenesis.org/geolog...eration-of-radioactivity-shown-in-laboratory/

The logical side is, that if God were to make a cake, he would not
bother to mix ingredients and bake it. He would just produce it in
a second. If you were to dissect and study said cake it would show
all the ingredients needed to make the cake and appear baked for the
allotted time period. As if it were really mixed and baked for a few
hours.

And before everyone yells, "God deceived us!", God did very clearly
state that he made everything in 6 days. (which would normally take
much longer under natural processes.)

 

[lasthero]

The logical side is, that if God were to make a cake, he would not
bother to mix ingredients and bake it. He would just produce it in
a second. If you were to dissect and study said cake it would show
all the ingredients needed to make the cake and appear baked for the
allotted time period. As if it were really mixed and baked for a few
hours.

Would God's cake have lingering heat from baking that never took place? Would it already have the amount of bacteria and staleness that you would expect from a cake that had been made naturally? Would the icing already be crumbled and would you be able to find things like fingerprints and human DNA in it, even though no one ever touched it? Because those are all things you would expect to find on a cake that had been baked naturally and normally.

 

[EternalDragon]

Would God's cake have lingering heat from baking that never took place? Would it already have the amount of bacteria and staleness that you would expect from a cake that had been made naturally? Would the icing already be crumbled and would you be able to find things like fingerprints and human DNA in it, even though no one ever touched it? Because those are all things you would expect to find on a cake that had been baked naturally and normally.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, and no.

What do fingerprints and DNA have to do with the formation of the earth?
I would bet you couldn't find those things on 99% of baked cakes.

 

[lasthero]

Yes, yes, yes, yes, and no.

What do fingerprints and DNA have to do with the formation of the earth?

The point is that there's not just age in the Earth. There's history.

I would bet you couldn't find those things on 99% of baked cakes.

Based on what? Your incredulity?

Humans leave traces of themselves behind. Your skin flakes. Your hair falls off. Little parts of you come off all the time. A cake that's been baked is going to have at least some small trace of the person who baked it inside. That's before we get into organisms that sneak into food, like ants, and leave traces of themselves behind. It's very common. Even the best food has some level of rot to it.

WARNING: Don't look at that link if you're about to eat something.

The Food Defect Action Levels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When you consider how many ingredients make a cake and all the places they go around the country, it's insane to think that at least some small amount of foreign matter won't get into it. A cake that came out of nowhere shouldn't these things, unless the being who made it wanted whoever was looking at it to think it was an age it really wasn't.

 

[RickG]

Well, there is the logical side and the scientific side. Science says decay rates are stable but they really are not. Especially when considering the creation of a planet and land in one day (or 6). They can be accelerated.

ED, there is some truth to your generalization and that is what young earthers play on, the generalization as if it were all there was to it, excluding "those facts" that destroy the assertion.

Here are the facts. Decay rates are stable. However, the cosmogenic nuclides, such as 14C, 10Be and 36Cl do oscillate with respect to the distance from the sun and angle of inclination during earth's orbit. That is not a rate change and it only amounts to a fraction of a percent and in no way influences any dating methods. The non-cosmogenic nuclides, of which deep time is measured are unaffected due the nature of their origin.

May I ask with what "scientific" data is your claim that rates are not stable during the process of planet formation based on?