Geological dating techniques

[time]

Yes, we do.

CF210: Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates

From your link


"The radioactive decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measurable--"

Man has directly observed for how long!? Ridiculously weak argument.

 

[time]

There are more details in the original paper, 'Possible hominin footprints from the late Miocene (c. 5.7 ma) of Crete?' by G.D. Gierlinski et al. (2017), Proc. Geologists' Association. You can read the full paper on http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S00167878170113X or Redirecting .

So the prints were either some early man, or some sort of ape. You don't know.

 

[time]

Just for fun, I calculated a regression for these data points and came up with an average speed of 7.7 cm/year for the Pacific plate. The measured speed of the Pacific plate is reported to be 7-11 cm/year.

Plate Tectonics | Pacific Northwest Seismic Network

Coincidence? I think not.

Fun with math? I guess we could make that 1011 miles in ones day, and 8 cm for the last 4000 years also. Or maybe 500 miles a day for a few days and...etc. Coincidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't want to argue with your beliefs. Ratios are evidence that ratios exist, not why they exist. I already told you I believe dad had it right on that issue. Nothing you can say about it. As long as there may have been another nature nothing you say really matters. I am not here to ask you if you are capable of realizing you lost a long time ago. Believe whatever you like.


Not unless the ratios were formed the way we now see them being formed. That you don't know. So the changes in ratios could be representing weeks rather than millions of years for all we know. I can't allow the genie of great ages to be invoked.

Once again we are not talking about what I believe, but what I know.

You have only mere belief. I have knowledge. Knowledge is demonstrable.

And unless you try to learn all you ever have will be mere belief. Just as the Catholic Church in Galileo's time believed that the Earth was stationary you are demonstrably wrong.

Would you care to learn? Once again we should start with what counts as evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the prints were either some early man, or some sort of ape. You don't know.

No, no, no . . . You don't know. You should not assume that because you don't know hat others do not know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fun with math? I guess we could make that 1011 miles in ones day, and 8 cm for the last 4000 years also. Or maybe 500 miles a day for a few days and...etc. Coincidence?

Sorry, but the evidence says that you are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

On the issue of suducted plates, and tectonics we already saw in the article that science doesn't understand. What more can you say?

Wrong again. You found an article that you did not understand. You forgot that by your standards the Bible says "There is no God". Quote mining is a losing technique for creationists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There was a flood. There was a first man as far as anyone knows.

Wrong on both counts. The global flood myth was refuted long before Darwin's time and there was no more a "first man" than there was a "first speaker of English".

Once again, how about trying to learn?

 

[Job 33:6]

Ridge push and slab pull? Well, how fast was the push or pull? Addressing some issues vaguely many posts back, followed by some childish charges and vague accusations later is hardly really addressing the issues.

I think someone already addressed the question of the speed of tectonic motion with the classic hawaiin hotspot dating. Aside from that, you also have dating of the mid atlantic ridge and basalt that has been produced from it over the past 200 million years. The dates yielded throughout the 200 million year expanse of the atlantic ocean, give us rates of spreading similar to those today.

 

[Job 33:6]

Why does it show any rate of movement? Rather it shows changes in isotope ratios, does it not?

I wonder if you understand what it is that person depicted of the hawaiin hotspot.

 

[Job 33:6]

Just catching up on comments, Time doesnt seem to know what he is talking about. He proposes the idea that continents moved several thousands of miles per day, or several thousands of miles in the past few thousand years, but such rates of motion defy physics. The energy it would take to shift an entire continent around the planet in a few thousand years would be so great, rocks would instantaneously melt, or when the continents would flow into eachother, they wouldnt form the mountains that we see today, they would have so much energy, they would crumble.

It just doesnt make any sense, and there is no evidence for such a proposal, and beyond that this idea defies all of physics and chemistry and geology among other fields.

Im going to move on now...

 

[Astrophile]

So the prints were either some early man, or some sort of ape. You don't know.

No, I don't know; it's not my subject. I was merely giving a link to the full paper, so that anyone who is interested can read a full account. However, I don't think that this discovery gives any support to young Earth creationism.

 

[Loudmouth]

From your link


"The radioactive decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measurable--"

Man has directly observed for how long!? Ridiculously weak argument.

You obviously didn't read the whole page because the evidence from Supernova 1987a and the naturally occuring nuclear reactors at Oklo both demonstrate that radioactive decay rates were the same in the past.

 

[Loudmouth]

Fun with math? I guess we could make that 1011 miles in ones day, and 8 cm for the last 4000 years also. Or maybe 500 miles a day for a few days and...etc. Coincidence?

You can't make that work with the data I already presented. The line connecting those dots should be nearly flat, and none of them should date older than 6k years if what you claim is true.

 

[Astrophile]

From your link


"The radioactive decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measurable--"

Man has directly observed for how long!? Ridiculously weak argument.

For about a sixtieth of the age of the Earth on your argument.

 

[USincognito]

I heared of living creatues being dated in thousands of years .

You heard wrong. They would need to be dead before you could date them. And you're referring to marine organisms or those that feed on marine organism like seals. It's a known issue with radiocarbon dating.

 

[USincognito]

Hello Kylie.

Do you have a scientific technique apart from radiometric dating?

What happens if radiometric dating is incorrect on samples in deep time, how would we know?

The are a few different methods that give deep time results. One is measuring the buildup of Helium-3 on rocks. We've done that on rocks recovered from the moon showing they are billions of years old and on rocks in the Atacama desert showing they are millions of years old. We also have 800,000 years worth of ice core samples from Antarctica and 60,000 years worth of varves from lake Suigetsu in Japan.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

And another interesting question concering the idea that they are "all wrong", is ...

If they are indeed wrong, how come they all seem to be wrong in the exact same way?
Because after all, when multiple methods are used (independent from one another), they converge on the same concluded age.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Another case of "when reality doesn't conform to my beliefs, then clearly reality must be incorrect"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Exactly. Any arguments will never make us change our minds.

Just so you know, when you say such things, you're actually exposing intellectual dishonesty.

The very concept of being intellectual honest (and open minded), is the ability to change your beliefs when evidence demands it.

What would be the point of faith if we just gave up as soon as we had supposed evidence

This sentence just confirms my above comment.

Maybe you should ask a different question. That question being: what is the point of evidence, if you're just going to stick to what you already believe anyway - no matter what the actual evidence is?


And by extension: what is even the point about arguing about your beliefs with those who don't believe as you do, if that is your approach?

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.

Let me stop you right there.
Science isn't a case of "whatever it says is right".

Science can tell you what is likely.
Yes, sometimes ideas in science because SO likely, that we may just as well call them "facts" or "right". But even then, we're talking about a certainty of 99.99999%. It never gets to 100%. Science doesn't deal in absolute certainties.

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?

Science doesn't rely on the word of the scientists.
It relies on evidence.

The age of the earth isn't accepted because some "authority" in science said so. It's accepted because of the demonstrable, verifiable and objective evidence that lead to the conclusion of the age.

And, as said earlier, it's only accepted tentatively as well.
New evidence has the potential of leading to a more accurate conclusion.

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?

The science that makes a computer works, is the very same science that makes nukes explode and dating methods work. Physics and quantum mechanics.

You guys just don't seem to realise this. Or don't want to realise this.
There're these fundamental theories like Atomic theory, quantum theory, etc.
These theories explain how atoms and particles work.

That knowledge enables us to use those models in practical applications. Practical applications like nukes, power stations, airplanes, computers and, yes, dating methods.

If you're going to state that dating methods don't work, then you are saying that atomic theory is wrong. But if atomic theory is wrong, then why do nukes explode and computers boot?

Is not science just a guessing game and theories?

No. It's a method of inquiry wich involves gathering data through observations, coming up with hypothesis to explain the data, gathering more data and/or engaging in experiments to test said hypothesis, etc.

It's not "guessing". It is the opposite.

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.

Yes, it's called "learning" and "making progress".

Earth was flat. Everything revolved around earth. Flying was impossible....etc.

Science, as a standardized method, is actually only a few centuries old and models like flat earths etc date from before that time.

Not that it matters though. As I said: it's called learning and making progress.
It's a good thing.

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.

Yes, absolutely. Why do you say this again as if it's a bad thing?
I would actually consider it a problem if 500 years of now, we wouldn't have made any progress....

See my point?

So far... your point seems to be that you object to making progress and learning more.

How can anyone be confident in something that always changes?

Because every time it changes, it means progress was made and thus that the "new" idea's are more accurate then those that were replaced.

Contrast that with a dogmatic system of beliefs that not only didn't change for millenia, but are FORBIDDEN to be changed and where questioning is actually discouraged....

I sure don't have to think twice about which method of knowledge gathering I'ld go for....

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.

Yep. There it is. You'ld "rather" believe something. Indeed. You want to believe. You don't seem to care much about how accurate (or not) those beliefs are. You just like them.

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?

Why would we need to be able to do such?

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.

Good for you. You value faith based beliefs over evidence based models. Whatever floats your boat.

It's kind of hypocritical though, since your every day life is like literally ruled by all the fruits of the evidence based models.