Geological dating techniques

[GatodeQ]

In the documentary "Is Genesis History", they mention that all geological dating techniques are wrong, or misleading if you will. The narrator states a few times during the documentary that geological dating is a fundamental question, but unfortunately, no arguments are given to support the idea.

After all, there are a dozen dating techniques out there. Some based on radioactive elements half-lives, some on chemical reactions, some on light, some on biochronology, some on dendrochronology, some on paleomagnetism.

Could all of these techniques be totally misleading in assessing the age of the Earth and fossils?

 

[Non sequitur]

In the documentary "Is Genesis History", they mention that all geological dating techniques are wrong, or misleading if you will. The narrator states a few times during the documentary that geological dating is a fundamental question, but unfortunately, no arguments are given to support the idea.

After all, there are a dozen dating techniques out there. Some based on radioactive elements half-lives, some on chemical reactions, some on light, some on biochronology, some on dendrochronology, some on paleomagnetism.

Could all of these techniques be totally misleading in assessing the age of the Earth and fossils?

Here is one and here is another, about radiometric dating. They can get complicated.

As far as the others, I'm sure those more qualified could speak on it or direct you to previous discussions on it.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Yes science is wrong about dating things. I mean think about it for a minute. When you think of God and how smart He is, then think of our scientists.... they are nothing in terms of smart. God is about 10,000,000,000,000,000 times smarter.

So when a less intelligent human scientist creates a tool based on various data they "think" may be right and then use this flawed tool to date stuff that can date stuff based on what the data the scientists put into the tool.... does that seem like it could be accurate? No. I'm not saying all science is wrong obviously. I mean we know how babies are made and we know how humans grow because we can literally see and study the subject. But we can't guess the age of anything at all because there is no real way to observe it in crazy long lengths.

I mean unless a scientist has been around 65 million years, how we can claim that is the age of anything? At this point we are just throwing darts at a dart board and hoping some things we land on somehow line up. I'd also add the devil is good at what he does, so maybe hes using things to throw science off so he can get us to doubt God. That is his goal after all. What better way then to have science tell us the age of the everything, how we came about, how the universe came about...etc.

In the end we can't really say we as christians have total evidence of certain things (like Genesis stuff), but we required to have faith and believe nothing is impossible with God. So with that in mind no scientists can ever make me believe what they say is true about something like if the flood happened or how long it was or when earth was made...etc. Because even if I were to put faith aside, I realize humans are "dumb and flawed" compared to the intelligence of God. I mean He created everything after all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes science is wrong about dating things. I mean think about it for a minute. When you think of God and how smart He is, then think of our scientists.... they are nothing in terms of smart. God is about 10,000,000,000,000,000 times smarter.

So when a less intelligent human scientist creates a tool based on various data they "think" may be right and then use this flawed tool to date stuff that can date stuff based on what the data the scientists put into the tool.... does that seem like it could be accurate? No. I'm not saying all science is wrong obviously. I mean we know how babies are made and we know how humans grow because we can literally see and study the subject. But we can't guess the age of anything at all because there is no real way to observe it in crazy long lengths.

I mean unless a scientist has been around 65 million years, how we can claim that is the age of anything? At this point we are just throwing darts at a dart board and hoping some things we land on somehow line up. I'd also add the devil is good at what he does, so maybe hes using things to throw science off so he can get us to doubt God. That is his goal after all. What better way then to have science tell us the age of the everything, how we came about, how the universe came about...etc.

In the end we can't really say we as christians have total evidence of certain things (like Genesis stuff), but we required to have faith and believe nothing is impossible with God. So with that in mind no scientists can ever make me believe what they say is true about something like if the flood happened or how long it was or when earth was made...etc. Because even if I were to put faith aside, I realize humans are "dumb and flawed" compared to the intelligence of God. I mean He created everything after all.

Nonsense. Science deniers just can't stand the fact that the Genesis stories are myths. Radiometric dating is very reliable, providing that one knows what one is looking for.

By the way, unlike the Bible, you can't pick and choose which parts of science that you believe. All of the sciences are interwoven.

Perhaps you should try to learn how radiometric dating works. I know that you can't refute it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In the documentary "Is Genesis History", they mention that all geological dating techniques are wrong, or misleading if you will. The narrator states a few times during the documentary that geological dating is a fundamental question, but unfortunately, no arguments are given to support the idea.

After all, there are a dozen dating techniques out there. Some based on radioactive elements half-lives, some on chemical reactions, some on light, some on biochronology, some on dendrochronology, some on paleomagnetism.

Could all of these techniques be totally misleading in assessing the age of the Earth and fossils?

Sadly there are very dishonest believers in the creation myth. Some of them know better, but the still lie to defend their creation story. Yet there are countless scientists that do accept science and are still Christians. You do not need to believe the myths of the Bible to be a Christian.

 

[Gene2memE]

I mean unless a scientist has been around 65 million years, how we can claim that is the age of anything?

By using a variety of methods and cross referencing them to see if there's correlation?

At this point we are just throwing darts at a dart board and hoping some things we land on somehow line up.

Nah, its more like throwing slightly darts at all at the same dart board and having them hit the bullseye.

Every single time.

There is no good evidence to think that radioactive decay rates are anything but constant, and plenty of good evidence that they are.

 

[USincognito]

I mean unless a scientist has been around 65 million years, how we can claim that is the age of anything?

I snipped all of your well poisoning and other logical flaws and will just point out that "were you there" is one of the silliest "arguments" ever. Physical events leave behind evidence of having happened. And over the past several hundred years, scientists have gotten pretty good at figuring out ways of measuring things including deep time.

They have gotten so good that they can explain why a certain deposit of uranium has a different isotope ratio than expected when analyzed.
The Workings of an Ancient Nuclear Reactor
>> in these samples, which came from the Oklo deposit in Gabon (a former French colony in west equatorial Africa), uranium 235 constituted just 0.717 percent. That tiny discrepancy was enough to alert French scientists that something strange had happened. Further analyses showed that ore from at least one part of the mine was far short on uranium 235: some 200 kilograms appeared to be missing

Physicists confirmed the basic idea that natural fission reactions were responsible for the depletion in uranium 235 at Oklo quite soon after the anomalous uranium was discovered. Indisputable proof came from an examination of the new, lighter elements created when a heavy nucleus is broken in two. The abundance of these fission products proved so high that no other conclusion could be drawn. A nuclear chain reaction very much like the one that Enrico Fermi and his colleagues famously demonstrated in 1942 had certainly taken place, all on its own and some two billion years before. <<

 

[Non sequitur]

I snipped all of your well poisoning and other logical flaws and will just point out that "were you there" is one of the silliest "arguments" ever. Physical events leave behind evidence of having happened. And over the past several hundred years, scientists have gotten pretty good at figuring out ways of measuring things including deep time.

They have gotten so good that they can explain why a certain deposit of uranium has a different isotope ratio than expected when analyzed.
The Workings of an Ancient Nuclear Reactor
>> in these samples, which came from the Oklo deposit in Gabon (a former French colony in west equatorial Africa), uranium 235 constituted just 0.717 percent. That tiny discrepancy was enough to alert French scientists that something strange had happened. Further analyses showed that ore from at least one part of the mine was far short on uranium 235: some 200 kilograms appeared to be missing

Physicists confirmed the basic idea that natural fission reactions were responsible for the depletion in uranium 235 at Oklo quite soon after the anomalous uranium was discovered. Indisputable proof came from an examination of the new, lighter elements created when a heavy nucleus is broken in two. The abundance of these fission products proved so high that no other conclusion could be drawn. A nuclear chain reaction very much like the one that Enrico Fermi and his colleagues famously demonstrated in 1942 had certainly taken place, all on its own and some two billion years before. <<

I never fail to laugh at the unseen irony of "were you there" going both ways...

 

[GatodeQ]

Thanks for taking the time to give me so much information, Nothingisimpossible. However, assuming that one of your premises is true (that God exists) is a logical fallacy. I would encourage you to read about logical debates.

 

[Non sequitur]

Thanks for taking the time to give me so much information, Nothingisimpossible. However, assuming that one of your premises is true (that God exists) is a logical fallacy. I would encourage you to read about logical debates.

Well, you'll find a decent amount of that essential response here. God will be superimposed, so all arguments will fall short.

Also, they'll get kinda derailed (from your POV) by going back to the premise.

Unless someone who can comment, Christian or otherwise, from a secular POV. Those are always a learning experience, for me.

 

[AirPo]

Nonsense. Science deniers just can't stand the fact that the Genesis stories are myths. Radiometric dating is very reliable, providing that one knows what one is looking for.

By the way, unlike the Bible, you can't pick and choose which parts of science that you believe. All of the sciences are interwoven.

Perhaps you should try to learn how radiometric dating works. I know that you can't refute it.

Technically, science deniers can pick and chose all they want, hence they're deniers.

 

[pitabread]

Could all of these techniques be totally misleading in assessing the age of the Earth and fossils?

While there are certainly error margins associated with dating techniques, at lot of effort is put into calibration and correlation of different techniques. In order for YECism to be true, the dating methods would have to be several orders of magnitude off and yet inexplicably still be correlated. It just wouldn't make any sense.

On top of that there are zero dating methods that actually corroborate the age of the Earth per YEC timelines. YECs have no independent way of verifying their purported age of the Earth.

 

[juvenissun]

Could all of these techniques be totally misleading in assessing the age of the Earth and fossils?

Of course not. It misleads only when you do not know how to understand the date.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Thanks for taking the time to give me so much information, Nothingisimpossible. However, assuming that one of your premises is true (that God exists) is a logical fallacy. I would encourage you to read about logical debates.

Well, you'll find a decent amount of that essential response here. God will be superimposed, so all arguments will fall short.

Also, they'll get kinda derailed (from your POV) by going back to the premise.

Unless someone who can comment, Christian or otherwise, from a secular POV. Those are always a learning experience, for me.

Exactly. Any arguments will never make us change our minds. What would be the point of faith if we just gave up as soon as we had supposed evidence. I will always say man is flawed and God is perfect, thus I will always say everything science says is not accurate because man is not smarter than God.

Lets strictly for sake of conversation put aside God and christianity. Lets just assume religion in general does not exist. Only an atheist world of non-believers who learn that whatever science says is right. So in this world how can you trust a scientist about issue that are so much bigger than them? Like the age of the universe? I mean sure we can believe in the science of lets say how gravity works or how a computer works. But some subjects do you not think are just to big for man to tackle?

Is not science just a guessing game and theories? Some that actually cannot truly be proven? I mean couldn't science in these bigger areas essentially be like conspiracy theories? Where science does a few test and thinks about a few things and tries to tie them all together and say "This is your answer for the age of the universe!". To me that seems weird. Especially with the history of science being what it is. It was constantly changing its mine about how things work through the ages. Earth was flat. Everything revolved around earth. Flying was impossible....etc.

Now one argument I hear back is "But today is the age of technology, science is very good at figuring things out now!". Ok, problem is during every age science said at that time it was "modern" and accurate. Such is the same with this age of technology. And maybe 350 years from now alot of what we were taught will be changed yet again because maybe we will have normal nano technology, understand quantum pshysics and being messing around with it all the time to find out even more accurate answers to things. And another 500 years after that last age will be considered not accurate either.

See my point? Its a never ending cycle of have new tools, learning new things, revising or creating new theories, reprinting (in our case digitizing) books for schools about the most recent views on things. How can anyone be confident in something that always changes? Its why I myself cannot buy into some of the claims science makes about the big bang for example. I'd rather believe in a perfect God who created everything and knows everything. We can't even create a planet or create a human out of thin air yet, so how I believe a human scientist on these big things then?

God is constant and never changing. Its a bet I will always win. BTW just because I know panic when I say that, I am not actually "betting" anything when it comes to God. My christianity is not a wager game on if Hes real or not. I know He is. Just used the word bet for sake of making it easier to understand for non-belivers since they understand the concept of betting.

 

[klutedavid]

Nonsense. Science deniers just can't stand the fact that the Genesis stories are myths. Radiometric dating is very reliable, providing that one knows what one is looking for.

By the way, unlike the Bible, you can't pick and choose which parts of science that you believe. All of the sciences are interwoven.

Perhaps you should try to learn how radiometric dating works. I know that you can't refute it.

Hello SZ.

I will accept a radio dating as long as there is no contamination of the sample. I reject all radio dates until the samples are 100% free of contamination. I once saw a radio carbon dating of a dead sea scroll, four tests delivered four different results?

The dating of the dead sea scroll is a mere touch over two thousand years ago, a recent sample in the realm of history. How can we trust carbon dating for any sample further back in history?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello SZ.

I will accept a radio dating as long as there is no contamination of the sample. I reject all radio dates until the samples are 100% free of contamination. I once saw a radio carbon dating of a dead sea scroll, four tests delivered four different results?

The dating of the dead sea scroll is a mere touch over two thousand years ago, a recent sample in the realm of history. How can we trust carbon dating for any sample further back in history?

Yes, carbon dating can be subject to contamination. Other methods, not so much.

 

[klutedavid]

Yes, carbon dating can be subject to contamination. Other methods, not so much.

Hello SZ.

Is there another radio dating technique free from the possibility of contamination?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly. Any arguments will never make us change our minds. What would be the point of faith if we just gave up as soon as we had supposed evidence. I will always say man is flawed and God is perfect, thus I will always say everything science says is not accurate because man is not smarter than God.

Then you have just admitted that you are not thinking rationally. Are you sure that is the route that ou want to go?

Lets strictly for sake of conversation put aside God and christianity. Lets just assume religion in general does not exist. Only an atheist world of non-believers who learn that whatever science says is right. So in this world how can you trust a scientist about issue that are so much bigger than them? Like the age of the universe? I mean sure we can believe in the science of lets say how gravity works or how a computer works. But some subjects do you not think are just to big for man to tackle?

Not if the evidence is clear and can be interpreted consistently. And be tested. Guess what? Those concepts can and have been tested. Science does not work in a vacuum. If a person cannot justify his concepts they are not accepted.

Is not science just a guessing game and theories? Some that actually cannot truly be proven? I mean couldn't science in these bigger areas essentially be like conspiracy theories? Where science does a few test and thinks about a few things and tries to tie them all together and say "This is your answer for the age of the universe!". To me that seems weird. Especially with the history of science being what it is. It was constantly changing its mine about how things work through the ages. Earth was flat. Everything revolved around earth. Flying was impossible....etc.

You clearly do not know what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is an idea that explains a wide number of problems. It also has to be testable. A concept does not become a theory until it been tested many times by many different scientists. In the world of science laws do NOT outrank theories. That is a common misconception.

Now one argument I hear back is "But today is the age of technology, science is very good at figuring things out now!". Ok, problem is during every age science said at that time it was "modern" and accurate. Such is the same with this age of technology. And maybe 350 years from now alot of what we were taught will be changed yet again because maybe we will have normal nano technology, understand quantum pshysics and being messing around with it all the time to find out even more accurate answers to things. And another 500 years after that last age will be considered not accurate either.

Yep, that is going to happen. But guess what? The changes in science tend to get smaller and smaller as we get closer and closer to the "correct" idea. There is no going back to old myths.

See my point? Its a never ending cycle of have new tools, learning new things, revising or creating new theories, reprinting (in our case digitizing) books for schools about the most recent views on things. How can anyone be confident in something that always changes? Its why I myself cannot buy into some of the claims science makes about the big bang for example. I'd rather believe in a perfect God who created everything and knows everything. We can't even create a planet or create a human out of thin air yet, so how I believe a human scientist on these big things then?

Actually it is a never ending cycle of more and more accurate answers. You are looking at the little bit of uncertainty and clinging to a concept that was shown to be wrong a long long time ago.

God is constant and never changing. Its a bet I will always win. BTW just because I know panic when I say that, I am not actually "betting" anything when it comes to God. My christianity is not a wager game on if Hes real or not. I know He is. Just used the word bet for sake of making it easier to understand for non-belivers since they understand the concept of betting.

That may be true. God may be that way. But the Bible is a work of man. Even in your myth God could not get it right. How does an imperfect created creature write a perfect book?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello SZ.

Is there another radio dating technique free from the possibility of contamination?

One has to look at materials on a case by case basis. Grasping at straws in not an honest technique. That is what you are trying to do right now.

 

[pitabread]

Especially with the history of science being what it is. It was constantly changing its mine about how things work through the ages. Earth was flat. Everything revolved around earth. Flying was impossible....etc.

I've never understood this objection to the acquisition of knowledge. Isn't it a good thing that we continually improve our understanding of universe in which we live? It's the reason we have advances in technology and consequently, our standard of living.

If collectively as a species we decided "oh well, we've learned as much as we ever can, might as well stop now", we might well be still living in caves.

See my point? Its a never ending cycle of have new tools, learning new things, revising or creating new theories, reprinting (in our case digitizing) books for schools about the most recent views on things. How can anyone be confident in something that always changes? Its why I myself cannot buy into some of the claims science makes about the big bang for example.

Scientific knowledge always comes with the caveat that it's our best understanding at the moment based on the knowledge and data available to us at a given time. But to see the value in that, you don't have to look much further than the technology it's given us. Even your standard of living today is likely much higher than what you would have had 50, 100 or 200 years ago, and a lot of that is the result of improvements to our collective scientific knowledge.

God is constant and never changing.

Beliefs in god(s) are constantly changing though. The beliefs you have today are a product of the culture in which you were born. If you were born in a different culture or a different time, you may well profess an entirely different belief system.

For example, there was a time when polytheistic beliefs were the dominant view. That shifted over the last couple thousand years towards monotheistic beliefs. Who knows how things will continue to shift in the future.