Evidence for an earth much older than 6,000 years

[RickG]

You cannot possibly know if uranium, or any other isotope for that matter, has been affected by water or heat or leeched to give a closed system. You cannot possibly know what the initial content of lead in the initial rock sample was.

You are wrong, geochemists/geochronologists can detect those things and quantify them. And the initial amount of lead in a sample is totally irrelevant with today's technology, instrumentation and techniques. Have you been immersing yourself in the 'young earth proponents' literature? One of their tools of deception is to make reference to antiquated dating methods that are no longer in use and present them as if they were.

Now worst of all, and the icing on the cake, is that decay rates are not constant in sm146 and you have an average uranium ratio that differs remarkably. Now you cannot say decay rates are stable. You have proof in at least one shorter lived isotope that this is not the case.

Yep, create doubt where there actually is none. Why do you insist upon making erroneous statements? 146Sm is an "extinct" radionuclide. It does not exist naturally in this solar system. Extinct radionuclides have specific applications. Being an extinct radionuclide, its decay rate cannot be directly measured. In the past it was determined mathematically based on the known properties of radionuclides. However, recently scientists have been able to synthesize 146Sm in a reactor so the decay rate and other properties could actually be physically measured. WOW! Science advances and you consider it going backwards.

 

[NailsII]

Otzi is dated at 5,300 years old, and had intact clothing and even intact red blood cells. His stomach contents could be analysed and his last meal identified.

These hominin remains, dated by science as being 3.2 million years old, are not in such a good condition and are fossilised.

If both of these are only 6,000 years old, why is one petrified and the other is in pretty good condition?
Even allowing for the different conditions in which they were found, only time (and huge amounts of it) can adequately explain the differences.
If there was a huge global flood 4,000 years ago, how can a human body remain buried in the ice - would it not have been washed away or damaged by the floodwaters?

Young-earth creationism is not supported by evidence one little bit - but I know that some of you will try and argue your case regardless.

 

[RickG]

I think it might be interesting to show how misleading information is often conveyed in "young earth proponent" literature. I am going to copy a single paragraph from a textbook I have titled, Quaternary Dating Methods, Mike Walker, 2006. This is from the section on Uranium Series Dating, "Some Problems Associated with U-Series Dating".

I will highlight in "red" what is usually conveyed and "blue" what is generally left out.

A second potential source of error relates to the assumption that the daughter isotopes in the measured sample are entirely radiogenic in origin. In other words, it is assumed that the 230Th content of a sample of speleothem, for example, was 0 at the time of crystal formation, and hense the measured 234U/230Th activity ratio is a reflection purely of the reappearance of 230Th through radioactive decay. However, it is not uncommon for carbonate materials to be contaminated by detrial materials that already contain daughter nuclides. Such contamination can lead to U-series ages that aare older than the true age of the sample. However, detritus may also carry 234U and 238U and, if uncorrected for will result in ages that are younger than the true sample age. Fortunately, the effects of detrital contamination can be corrected for by measuring the activity of 232Th that is present in the sample but which plays no part in the decay chain of uranium. This isotope is present in detritus, but not in pure calcite, and hence the 232Th/230Th ratio can be used to corrected for detrital addition of 230Th. This is usually done using the isochron technique, in which multiple-sample leaching analysis are undertaken and the activity ratios of the different isotopes in each of the samples are plotted against each other (Schwarcz and Latham, 1989). This will show the extent to which detrital contamination has influenced the 230Th/234U and 234U/238U ratios, the isotopic ratios from which ages are calculated (Figure 3.7). The correction for ratio can be corrected by plotting versus 234U/232Th against 238U/232Th. These corrected ratios, which are reflected in the gradients of the lines on the isochron plots, are then inserted into the normal age equation to calculate the age of the sample.
​

The first blue text I highlighted above could have been included in the red text, but I wanted to emphasize the fact that that specific problem is well know and understood as later blue text describes.

 

[AV1611VET]

I would like to know what methods people here in the CF are familiar with or would like to know more about.

May I have a status report please?

 

[RickG]

Here's a more complete chart of the the Uranium series I described earlier. Included in it are the half-lives as well as the type of decay, alpha (vertical) or beta (diagonal). Isotopes involved are in the far left column. Note that there are three separate series that can be used in conjunction. Sorry for the small size, but it does give a better over view of the process.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Here's a more complete chart of the the Uranium series I described earlier. Included in it are the half-lives as well as the type of decay, alpha (vertical) or beta (diagonal). Isotopes involved are in the far left column. Note that there are three separate series that can be used in conjunction. Sorry for the small size, but it does give a better over view of the process.

Your chart seems very small...

 

[RickG]

Your chart seems very small...

Yes, sorry.

It's the best I could provide for now, perhaps a better on in the future when I have more time. The main thing to understand that there are many decay steps in the uranium series that culminate with a stable isotope of lead. It's not just a single decay as in the 40K/40Ar process.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes, sorry.

It's the best I could provide for now, perhaps a better on in the future when I have more time. The main thing to understand that there are many decay steps in the uranium series that culminate with a stable isotope of lead. It's not just a single decay as in the 40K/40Ar process.

Ah, maybe it's just my browser, but I can't actually see any chart - hence why it's 'very small'

 

[RickG]

Ah, maybe it's just my browser, but I can't actually see any chart - hence why it's 'very small'

See if this is any better. I guess each computer and browser is a little different, but I can do "control +" and zoom in and a "control -" to zoom out. I have Windows 7 OS and Firefox as my browser. I avoid MS Explorer like the plague, except at work where I don't have a choice.

(Source: USGS)

 

[SkyWriting]

How long was Adam before Eve? How long were Adam and Eve before the serpent? The serpent introduced death. God built eternal. Don't buy into that 6,000 year creation or 13k, 14k, bigbang bologna. God is perfect and none can contend.

I like the "God built eternal. "

That sums up what evolution is all about.

God built for eternity, then humans mucked it up.
Now we have to keep track of time and changes
and a bunch of stuff we weren't supposed to have
to deal with. Death, misery, injustice...stuff like that.
Good points.

 

[suzybeezy]

MOD HAT ON

Thread closed for review

MOD HAT OFF

 

[suzybeezy]

MOD HAT ON

Thread has been reopened after a clean up to remove flaming and off topic posts. Let's try to get back on topic please without the snarky remarks.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[RickG]

In my last post I showed a diagram of the Uranium series showing the entire decay chains. The important thing to understand there is that Uranium doesn’t just decay into Lead, but rather goes through a chain of decays utilizing both alpha and beta decays.


All too often, when research is reported in non-professional literature, or a when a scientist is interviewed, many details are left out; thus creating the opportunity for the layperson to misunderstand the significance or even what the research is all about. The general media also tends to focus on specific points for the purpose of drawing the interest of its readers/viewers, leaving out important information its audience is unaware of.



I think the most important point not brought out by the media is that the narrowing of the uncertainty of the 238U/235U ratio from 137.88 to 137.818, neither affects all radiometric dating or even Uranium series dating. In fact, the only thing it affects is Lead/Lead (Pb/Pb) dating, utilizing the ratio of the two uranium isotopes 238 and 235 which are the “parent” isotopes of stable “daughter” lead isotopes, which bypasses the entire decay chain series. This method was first developed by Nier, A.O., Thompson, R.W. and Murphy, B.F.(1941). The isotopic constitution of lead and the measurement of geological time 3. Phys. Rev. 60, 112-17.



Another significant fact is that the previously determined Uranium ratios have not always been the same. They have become more precise throughout the years as measuring techniques and especially the development of accelerated mass spectrophotometry (AMS), which counts individual atoms rather than the previously less precise method of counting particle emissions. Some previous ratios used have been from 137.409 to 137.885. Even those do not yield significantly different dates than the newly determined ratio of 137.818, which also carries an uncertainty of +/- 0.45.


Even stated in the paper, this change only lowers dates in the oldest rocks that are 4.5 Ga (Ga = billion years) and older by only some 700,000 years and even less with younger rocks. That means that all the rocks dated with the previous ratio are still statistically significant and don’t really need to be updated, except to report more precise information.


Another thing to understand is that the new ratio is still under review. Further research will ultimately support those findings, retain the previous ratio value, or determine a new ratio value. In any event, it still does not alter already achieved dates using the ratio method by any significant amount.


For those who may be interested, in Pb/Pb dating here’s how the math works out:

Just as an incidental note in case anyone is wondering, I purposely left out any discussion of the Thorium Series, as not to cause confusion. I feel that it is unnecessary at this time.


Cheers!

 

[RickG]

Varves, dendrochronology, speleothems and ice cores, all exceed 6,000 years in their capabilities.

 

[SkyWriting]

Varves, dendrochronology, speleothems and ice cores, all exceed 6,000 years in their capabilities.

The scientific method, a time-honored approach for discovering and testing scientific truth, does not and cannot work for the forensic sciences in its standard form because it does not work for past events. Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally.

 

[sandwiches]

The scientific method, a time-honored approach for discovering and testing scientific truth, does not and cannot work for the forensic sciences in its standard form because it does not work for past events. Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally.

Special pleading.

We, as humans, do this ALL THE TIME. When you see a clean bathroom, we deduce someone cleaned it. When we see ashes, we deduced something burned. When we see a puddle of oil under the car, we deduce it must have leaked from said car. When we have food poisoning, we deduce we must have eaten something that made us ill. When we wash our car, we deduce it must have gotten dirty at some point. When we see someone walking from near our open front door with our TV, we deduce they must have taken our TV from our house. When we find tools in our neighbor's tool shed which have our imprinted name on it, we deduce our neighbor took our tools.

So, please, spare us the nonsense of not being able to deduce the past from the present only when it suits you. We do this on a daily, continuous basis for as long as we live or we simply cannot function.

 

[SkyWriting]

We, as humans, do this ALL THE TIME.

Often wrong.

When you see a clean bathroom, we deduce someone cleaned it.

Or the users are neat,
or the key has been missing
or creeps hang around the outside
or you have the ladies key and not the mens.

When we see ashes, we deduced something burned.

One of my home care clients worked as a detective for The Milwaukee County Medical Examiner's Office for 30 years. He believes that Spontaneous Human Combustion is a fact based on his observations.

Perhaps you have other theories.

So, please, spare us the nonsense of not being able to deduce the past from the present only when it suits you. We do this on a daily, continuous basis for as long as we live or we simply cannot function.

Science cannot predict or prove the past,
only predict future results.

You are free to voice opposing views.

 

[sandwiches]

Often wrong.

Or the users are neat,
or the key has been missing
or creeps hang around the outside
or you have the ladies key and not the mens.

I like that you're supporting my idea! See? I knew you could it, sky!

You can make SEVERAL deductions about the past from present conditions and you can test them based on what you know. Good going!

One of my home care clients worked as a detective for The Milwaukee County Medical Examiner's Office for 30 years. He believes that Spontaneous Human Combustion is a fact based on his observations.

Combustion, otherwise known as "burning." You're a lot smarter than you even think! Have a cookie!

Perhaps you have other theories.

Science cannot predict or prove the past,
only predict future results.

You are free to voice opposing views.

You supported my point on the only examples you thought you could counter. We deduce things about the past based on present conditions, all the time as long as we live. Thanks for your help in my experiment! So, based on present conditions, we can tell your little pet idea was wrong.

Wanna try again, old chum?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Often wrong.

Or the users are neat,
or the key has been missing
or creeps hang around the outside
or you have the ladies key and not the mens.

And yet, human interference can be deduced.

One of my home care clients worked as a detective for The Milwaukee County Medical Examiner's Office for 30 years. He believes that Spontaneous Human Combustion is a fact based on his observations.

Perhaps you have other theories.

English may not be your first language - 'combustion' is synonymous with 'burning'. Moreover, even if SHC were an alternate explanation to sandwiches one of 'something burnt here' (protip, they're the same), the fact remains that science can be used to fathom out the most probable explanation - we have explanations, and we have evidence. Tests can be performed to acquire more evidence.

Science cannot predict or prove the past,
only predict future results.

How do you think forensics works? Magic?

I get mail through the post, ipso facto, someone sends me mail. At some point in the past, a letter was fashioned and delivered to my door.

I have thus made a scientific deduction about the past. Now, explain to me, if science cannot do that, how it just did?

 

[Split Rock]

The scientific method, a time-honored approach for discovering and testing scientific truth, does not and cannot work for the forensic sciences in its standard form because it does not work for past events. Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally.

Quote mining from this website in multiple threads I see... Still ignoring that your source utilizes a modified scientific method (according to his words) where eye witness testimony is available. Not only that, but utilizes scientific methodology to vet the eye witness testimony, because of its inaccuracy.