Deep Time

[AV1611VET]

Why don't you quit attacking me and stick to the subject. I do not need to listen to anymore of your trumped up charges from your kangaroo court. This is Christmas and you people should be happy and rejoicing in the Lord for all the benefits you have received from Him. For God is good all of the time and this is our chance to give Him thanks and praise.

MERRY CHRISTMAS, Joshua!

Jesus is the Reason for the season!

 

[klutedavid]

Hello all.

There is a scientific claim that follows, that relates directly to radioactive decay, and the dating
of events in deep time.

Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms.
(wikipedia)

So is this radioactive decay of an atom, truly a random event or not?

Well folks, science does not in fact know whether or not, a radioactive decay is a random event,
this is an assumption that science has made.

Please read the following and notice the underlined sections.

On the premise that radioactive decay is truly random (rather than merely chaotic), it has been used
in hardware random-number generators. Because the process is not thought to vary significantly
in mechanism over time, it is also a valuable tool in estimating the absolute ages of certain materials.
(wikipedia)

One must be careful with accessing wikipedia, important information is often neglected.

One intriguing aspect of random processes is that it is hard to know whether a process is truly random.
(wikipedia)

The bottom line in say, the dating of the age of the earth in deep time, can there be any certainty attached to
the claim? Well that question cannot be answered in any conclusive manner.

 

[RickG]

Lots of things in life have to be calibrated, just don't ask me to trust in your calibrations.

Calibrations are based on tree rings and speleothems where dates can be measured accurately there and the amount of 14C can be measured in each ring, thus giving a very accurate calibration curve. That of course is not to say that the calibration curve doesn't have limits, it does.

With deep time it really does not matter and it does not need to be accurate.

I'm not sure whether you are referring to radiocarbon dating there or just any dating method. Regardless, improving accuracy is a continuous process with all dating methods. Also keep in mind that results are always reported with a statistical error expressed in a +/- figure, thus the accuracy of the date obtained is known.

 

[RickG]

Hello all.

There is a scientific claim that follows, that relates directly to radioactive decay, and the dating
of events in deep time.

Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms.
(wikipedia)

So is this radioactive decay of an atom, truly a random event or not?

Well folks, science does not in fact know whether or not, a radioactive decay is a random event,
this is an assumption that science has made.

Please read the following and notice the underlined sections.

On the premise that radioactive decay is truly random (rather than merely chaotic), it has been used
in hardware random-number generators. Because the process is not thought to vary significantly
in mechanism over time, it is also a valuable tool in estimating the absolute ages of certain materials.
(wikipedia)

One must be careful with accessing wikipedia, important information is often neglected.

One intriguing aspect of random processes is that it is hard to know whether a process is truly random.
(wikipedia)

The bottom line in say, the dating of the age of the earth in deep time, can there be any certainty attached to
the claim? Well that question cannot be answered in any conclusive manner.

That's an excellent observation. A stochastic process in general refers to uncertainties withing a process. The uncertainty in the case of radioactive decay of course is which atom will decay and when, thus it is called a random process. However, though random, the rate at which each specific radionuclided (isotope) decays is relatively constant and has absolutely no effect on the time scale being determined as that decay rate (half-life) remains within specifically measured parameters. For example carbon-14 has a decay rate of 5730 +/- 40 years. This is something that is monitored in an ongoing process. As instrumentation and methods improve, more accurate measurements can be determined and are utilized as they become available.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Calibrations are based on tree rings and speleothems where dates can be measured accurately there and the amount of 14C can be measured in each ring, thus giving a very accurate calibration curve. That of course is not to say that the calibration curve doesn't have limits, it does.

How far do you think you can go back using tree rings to calibrate your dating methoid?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think that it is ironic that you are off topic and accusing me of being off topic. Here we have over 200 posts and not one of them about radiometric dating. Do you have something to contribute or not?

You can't say squat about someone else being off-topic because you yourself are off-topic, every time! You have contributed nothing to the OP topic, and then you have the gall to say that Rick, who started this thread, is off topic.

 

[RickG]

How far do you think you can go back using tree rings to calibrate your dating methoid?

Only 8 to 10 thousand years with tree rings, but speleothems can go back more than 50 thousand years.

 

[RickG]

You can't say squat about someone else being off-topic because you yourself are off-topic, every time! You have contributed nothing to the OP topic, and then you have the gall to say that Rick, who started this thread, is off topic.

Well, we've had a couple of good questions/concerns lately, so maybe we can move on now.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, we've had a couple of good questions/concerns lately, so maybe we can move on now.

We can try.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can't say squat about someone else being off-topic because you yourself are off-topic, every time! You have contributed nothing to the OP topic, and then you have the gall to say that Rick, who started this thread, is off topic.

We're all guilty of that.

Including Mr. Clean here.

And if, by coincidence I'm wrong, it's because Mr. Netiquette doesn't post that often.

If he did, he'd eventually break his own self-righteous principle.

I'm sure of it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

We're all guilty of that.

Including Mr. Clean here.

And if, by coincidence I'm wrong, it's because Mr. Netiquette doesn't post that often.

If he did, he'd eventually break his own self-righteous principle.

I'm sure of it.

... what?

 

[RickG]

We're all guilty of that.

Including Mr. Clean here.

And if, by coincidence I'm wrong, it's because Mr. Netiquette doesn't post that often.

If he did, he'd eventually break his own self-righteous principle.

I'm sure of it.

Do you have a question or concern specific to geologic dating methods?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you have a question or concern specific to geologic dating methods?

If I do, I'll ask it.

 

[RickG]

If I do, I'll ask it.

Then please do not post in this thread unless you are going to actually discuss what was asked for in the OP. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Mainstream science and "creation science" differ considerably with respect to geologic dating methods.

How is it that you feel there are creationists that "differ" with main line science? I think the main point is our reference point. We are looking back on time. We are not at the beginning looking forward and we were not there when these events took place. So we can not be 100% sure all of our calibrations are accurate. There could always be something that we are not taking into consideration. Plus you have no concept of what time is and you refuse to talk about it. That in and of itself is going to create a straw-man argument.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You can't say squat about someone else being off-topic because you yourself are off-topic, every time! You have contributed nothing to the OP topic, and then you have the gall to say that Rick, who started this thread, is off topic.

DO YOU have anything to say about the topic or not?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

DO YOU have anything to say about the topic or not?

Why do suddenly feel that you should be the person to police this thread when you're the one who took it off topic?
I vouched the topic on the fact that, if the world wasn't created with the inclusion of deep time, as much of the creationist literature claims, we would see many more diamonds in the world and at much shallower depths too. And I still stand by that.

 

[lasthero]

So we can not be 100% sure all of our calibrations are accurate. There could always be something that we are not taking into consideration.

Like what?

 

[RickG]

How is it that you feel there are creationists that "differ" with main line science?

Probably because all of the creation science literature attempts to show how no geologic dating method works.

I think the main point is our reference point. We are looking back on time. We are not at the beginning looking forward and we were not there when these events took place. So we can not be 100% sure all of our calibrations are accurate. There could always be something that we are not taking into consideration. Plus you have no concept of what time is and you refuse to talk about it.

There is nothing difficult about the time scale used. It is specific to our 365.25 day year.

That in and of itself is going to create a straw-man argument.

As for a straw man argument, I would say your post is an excellent example. A straw man argument is based on refuting an argument not used by the presenter.

1. The standard for time is the same standard used world wide we use today. You presented the argument suggesting we don't know what time is.

2. You state we cannot be sure all calibrations are accurate. I previously explained to you how we calibrate a specific example (14C) and that dating calculations use a statistical error to show how far off dates may be plus/minus a central point. Your argument is only an unfounded claim, not one that argues any specifics concerning my argument. Furthermore, it is only the cosmogenic nuclides that require a calibration scale.

 

[toLiJC]

No it is not, satan is not mentioned in any of creation science literature concerning geologic dating methods at all. Is there a particular geologic dating method you wish to discuss?

and why must we necessarily find the truth (written) in distributed book(s)?!, i don't say there is no such, but why must the truth be found in distributed book(s) so that it may only then be admitted?!, when we delve into such things, we actually deal with science, it is written "God is love", and: "these three things abide: faith, hope, and love", while the science(knowledge) has been designated objectionable as a direction of (the) faith, so if we deal with such a "tree", then it will be right we make it good

Merry Christmas
Blessings