Deep Time

[RickG]

That is exactly what happened in the 40's is that Hubble's Constant conflicted with radiometric dating. It turned out that Hubble's constant was in error. The steady state theory has now been discredited.

Hubbles Constant, right or wrong, has nothing to do with radiometric dating.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Hubbles Constant, right or wrong, has nothing to do with radiometric dating.

Your getting it backwards. Radiometric dating was used to help establish the Hubble Constant.

 

[RickG]

Your getting it backwards. Radiometric dating was used to help establish the Hubble Constant.

That I am not familiar with. Citation please.

 

[joshua 1 9]

That I am not familiar with. Citation please.

Hubble calculated a value for H0 of about 500 km. s-1. Mpc-1. (1 Mpc-1 is 1 megaparsec or about 3.26 million light years. Astronomers use the parsec as the unit of distance measure rather than the light year. Details about the parsec can be found in the Year 12 Astrophysics topic). This value results in an age of the Universe of 2 × 109 years, that is 2 billion years.

Even in Hubble's day this age proved problematic as it clashed with radiometric dating values for the age of the Earth that ranged from 3 to 5 billion years and other evidence on the age of stars. Obviously this posed a dilemma - the Universe could not be younger than the stars or planets it contained! The problem was eventually resolved in the 1950s when the recalibration of the Cepheid period-luminosity relationship provided an age for the Universe in the range of 10-20 billion years.

Even today astronomers spend a lot of time trying to determine a more precise and accurate value for H0 and thus also an age for the Universe.

 

[lesliedellow]

Wonderful, show me the evidence to support your claim.

Do you mean based on Schroeder theory? Here is a link for that: http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html

Completely disingenuous, and he must know how dishonest it is, but, of course, creationists can be relied upon to swallow it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You asked me a question and I answered your question.

Yes, you did. For the most part. The Adam and Eve part was off topic.

 

[RickG]

Hubble calculated a value for H0 of about 500 km. s-1. Mpc-1. (1 Mpc-1 is 1 megaparsec or about 3.26 million light years. Astronomers use the parsec as the unit of distance measure rather than the light year. Details about the parsec can be found in the Year 12 Astrophysics topic). This value results in an age of the Universe of 2 × 109 years, that is 2 billion years.

Still, how is Hubble's constant related to radiometric dating?

Even in Hubble's day this age proved problematic as it clashed with radiometric dating values for the age of the Earth that ranged from 3 to 5 billion years and other evidence on the age of stars. Obviously this posed a dilemma - the Universe could not be younger than the stars or planets it contained! The problem was eventually resolved in the 1950s when the recalibration of the Cepheid period-luminosity relationship provided an age for the Universe in the range of 10-20 billion years.

Thus, Hubble's constant has nothing to do with radiometric dating?

Even today astronomers spend a lot of time trying to determine a more precise and accurate value for H0 and thus also an age for the Universe.

I understand what you are saying but the age of the universe is not the topic of this thread. Is there a specific dating method pertaining to the dating of objects on earth you wish to discuss or express concerns with?

 

[toLiJC]

Mainstream science and "creation science" differ considerably with respect to geologic dating methods. The scope of this thread is to look at what the "creation science" literature has to say about geologic dating methods and their validity.

Keep in mind that this thread is specific about the science and only the science. Its intent is not to question anyone's religious beliefs or have any discussion pertaining to any religion. Stick to the science and only the science. Citing or posting scripture is off topic for this thread.

scientifically speaking, there is no sense in all those scientific methods of dating since angels of satan could age the dead matter up to billions of years in addition to the fact that they could also materialize many things such as fossils, skeletons, remains, findings, etc.

Blessings

 

[RickG]

scientifically speaking, there is no sense in all those scientific methods of dating since angels of satan could age the dead matter up to billions of years in addition to the fact that they could also materialize many things such as fossils, skeletons, remains, findings, etc.

Blessings

Thank you for quoting specifically what I asked for in this thread and ignoring it completely. Is there a dating method you would like to discuss or express concerns about? Discussing the topic of this thread would be much appreciated.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is there a dating method you would like to discuss or express concerns about?

You mean geologic dating method, don't you?

 

[Loudmouth]

Really? You do not need the Hubble to establish the accuracy of radiometric dating?

No. Why would we?

You would not even know how old the universe ie matter is, without the Hubble giving you that information.

We don't need to know how old the matter is in order to date rocks. That's not how radiometric dating works.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your getting it backwards. Radiometric dating was used to help establish the Hubble Constant.

No, it wasn't. The constant is measured by looking at the redshift in type Ia supernovae.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hubble calculated a value for H0 of about 500 km. s-1. Mpc-1. (1 Mpc-1 is 1 megaparsec or about 3.26 million light years. Astronomers use the parsec as the unit of distance measure rather than the light year. Details about the parsec can be found in the Year 12 Astrophysics topic). This value results in an age of the Universe of 2 × 109 years, that is 2 billion years.

Even in Hubble's day this age proved problematic as it clashed with radiometric dating values for the age of the Earth that ranged from 3 to 5 billion years and other evidence on the age of stars. Obviously this posed a dilemma - the Universe could not be younger than the stars or planets it contained! The problem was eventually resolved in the 1950s when the recalibration of the Cepheid period-luminosity relationship provided an age for the Universe in the range of 10-20 billion years.

Even today astronomers spend a lot of time trying to determine a more precise and accurate value for H0 and thus also an age for the Universe.

Your own reference shows that you are wrong.

"The problem was eventually resolved in the 1950s when the recalibration of the Cepheid period-luminosity relationship provided an age for the Universe in the range of 10-20 billion years."

Cepheid variables are not measured through radioactive decay.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Your own reference shows that you are wrong.

I can name that tune in one note: Strawman.

 

[Loudmouth]

I can name that tune in one note: Strawman.

The only strawman is your misrepresentation of how the Hubble constant is calculated.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You mean geologic dating method, don't you?

The whole point is that woosh, the whole conversation goes right over their head. Time is relative. That has been proven over and over again. Yet they want to try to prove that time is a constant. This has nothing to do with creationism, it has to do with science and their rejection of science.

Those who promote the reliability of the method spend a lot of time impressing you with the technical details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc. But they don’t discuss the basic flaw in the method: you cannot determine the age of a rock using radioactive dating because no-one was present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and no-one monitored the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.

So, the fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make.

 

[Loudmouth]

The whole point is that woosh, the whole conversation goes right over their head. Time is relative. That has been proven over and over again. Yet they want to try to prove that time is a constant.

Time is constant within a frame of reference. This has been proven over and over again. Since the rocks we are dating have been in Earth's frame of reference their entire history they are accurate clocks for measuring the constant passage of time in Earth's frame of reference.

We can add Relativity to the list of theories you don't understand.

 

[lesliedellow]

The whole point is that woosh, the whole conversation goes right over their head. Time is relative. That has been proven over and over again. Yet they want to try to prove that time is a constant. This has nothing to do with creationism, it has to do with science and their rejection of science.

You really are beginning to sound like Justatruthseeker. The universe is of pretty uniform density, so, unless you are close to something like a neutron star, or a black hole, the passage of time will not be greatly affected by gravitational fields.

 

[AV1611VET]

Those who promote the reliability of the method spend a lot of time impressing you with the technical details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc. But they don’t discuss the basic flaw in the method: you cannot determine the age of a rock using radioactive dating because no-one was present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and no-one monitored the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.

Correct.

Say you have a structure made of a substance that loses half its height every year due to loss of mass.

The structure is currently eight feet high.

Next year it will be four feet high.

The next year two feet, then one, then gone.

Question: How old is that pole right now?

Answer: It can't be answered, because we don't know how tall the structure was when it came into existence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Correct.

Say you have a structure made of a substance that loses half its height every year due to loss of mass.

The structure is currently eight feet high.

Next year it will be four feet high.

The next year two feet, then one, then gone.

Then 0.5, then 0.25, then 0.125, then 0.0625, and so on.

At the same time, as the pole decays it creates a sawdust pile on the ground equal to the amount of wood lost from the pole. By comparing the sawdust on the ground, the height of the pole, and the known decay rate of the pole, we can calculate how long the pole has been decaying.