Radioisotope Dating Procedure Unfounded Assumptions

[DerelictJunction]

In the YEC and Meteors thread, Zosimus made the claim that radioisotope dating procedures made many unfounded assumptions. I requested that he defend this claim in another thread. See below how the conversation went.

You're the one who claims that radioisotope dating processes make a lot of unfounded assumptions. Are you not prepared to support that statement with evidence?
Are you so unsure of your pronouncement that you shy away from a discussion of it?

I cannot presume to know what "assumptions" you are referring to, so how can I start a thread on them?

Here is Zosimus' reply. I leave it out of quote boxes so it can be easily replied to.

There are many assumptions underpinning the radioisotope dating process. However, since this is a Christian forum, I will focus on the ones that are most appropriate for discussion on this forum.

First of all, as far as I understand, Christian theology specifically states that the laws that governed the solar system were substantially different some 5775 years ago (give or take 10 percent) and before the time that Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit. According to the text, things never wore out. People never died. Animals didn't die either, nor did they kill one another. The current system of physics that we experience now came into effect at the time that this fruit was eaten.

Did radioactivity exist (according to Christian theology) before that point? No one knows. Did the sunlight create C14 isotopes? No one knows. Moses never, as far as I know, said anything about U238 in all of his life.

Radioisotope dating usually starts by assuming that all of the above is wrong. Later people come on fora such as this one claiming that science has proved the Bible wrong or proved YEC wrong. Personally I am unimpressed by a system of logic that starts by assuming the opposing point is wrong and then reasons around in a circle to demonstrate that it is so.

Most people agree that science is based on induction. I do not agree and neither did Karl Popper for that matter, but it's common to find the belief expressed on fora such as this one that induction leads to truth. This belief is based on the assumption that the past is a good guide to the future. When asked to defend this assumption most people say that since this assumption has worked well in the past, it will continue to work well in the future. This is not a valid logical chain. It's begging the question. It's circular reasoning. There is no reason to believe that it is so.

Many people come on this forum demanding to see evidence for some position. Your own post is a fine example. The assumption that is made is that evidence is important. This is usually a subset of verificationism. Things that are unverified are usually rejected as either untrue or meaningless. Since God cannot be verified, many Darwinists adopt the position that God's existence is false or that the claim that God exists is meaningless. The problem with this belief is that the verification principle cannot be verified and is, therefore, either false or meaningless.

More specific to U238 dating are additional assumptions. Most lead observed is Pb204 whereas U238 decays into Pb206. Radiometric dating usually assumes that there was no daughter product at the beginning of the time period in question. I consider this assumption to be dubious.

Shall I continue or is that enough to get you started?

 

[DerelictJunction]

In the YEC and Meteors thread, Zosimus made the claim that radioisotope dating procedures made many unfounded assumptions. I requested that he defend this claim in another thread. See below how the conversation went.


Here is Zosimus' reply. I leave it out of quote boxes so it can be easily replied to.

There are many assumptions underpinning the radioisotope dating process. However, since this is a Christian forum, I will focus on the ones that are most appropriate for discussion on this forum.

First of all, as far as I understand, Christian theology specifically states that the laws that governed the solar system were substantially different some 5775 years ago (give or take 10 percent) and before the time that Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit. According to the text, things never wore out. People never died. Animals didn't die either, nor did they kill one another. The current system of physics that we experience now came into effect at the time that this fruit was eaten.

Did radioactivity exist (according to Christian theology) before that point? No one knows. Did the sunlight create C14 isotopes? No one knows. Moses never, as far as I know, said anything about U238 in all of his life.

Radioisotope dating usually starts by assuming that all of the above is wrong. Later people come on fora such as this one claiming that science has proved the Bible wrong or proved YEC wrong. Personally I am unimpressed by a system of logic that starts by assuming the opposing point is wrong and then reasons around in a circle to demonstrate that it is so.

Let us start with this part of your claim.

Even if we assume that no radioactive decay started until 5775 years ago, how would that affect the radioisotope dating process? I say it would affect the process minimally.
Since the isotopes checked for in the process have ranges of applicability, then the assumption of a young age for the beginning of radioactive decay would limit the use of the dating techniques to isotopes with shorter to mid-range half lives.

However, if there were no decay prior to 5775, Uranium 238 would not have had enough time with its 4.47×10^9 year half life to damage the zircon crystal structure and produce the "halos". These halos have been observed by both creationists and conventional scientists. Therefore the assumption that radioactive decay has been occurring for a very long time is justified.

That is unless someone is suggesting that the zircon halos were put in place when the zircons were created. Would God build zircon crystals with damage already in them?

 

[keith99]

I'm just going to go for a simple question.

If nothing decayed until 5775 years ago than why do the various dating methods give a wide range of dates?

It should instead give pretty much either the same date always or the same date for the specific method. It clearly does not.

 

[bhsmte]

This should be entertaining.

 

[selfinflikted]

This should be entertaining.

I somehow doubt that.

 

[bhsmte]

I somehow doubt that.

If a certain poster or two chimes in, I certainly will be entertained.

 

[keith99]

If a certain poster or two chimes in, I certainly will be entertained.

Yes if.

Fair warning. Math geeks like me quickly figure out which direction a change in assumptions would push a result. This is usually not good for certain posters.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Yes if.

Fair warning. Math geeks like me quickly figure out which direction a change in assumptions would push a result. This is usually not good for certain posters.

Frankly, I expect that we will have to address each one of the unfounded assumptions on Zosimus' list just to keep the thread alive.

After that, I doubt any young Earth proponents will respond beyond "Nun-uh!!"

 

[selfinflikted]

Frankly, I expect that we will have to address each one of the unfounded assumptions on Zosimus' list just to keep the thread alive.

After that, I doubt any young Earth proponents will respond beyond "Nun-uh!!"

Of course. Because there are no "assumptions" in radiometric dating.

 

[EternalDragon]

I'm just going to go for a simple question.

If nothing decayed until 5775 years ago than why do the various dating methods give a wide range of dates?

It should instead give pretty much either the same date always or the same date for the specific method. It clearly does not.

If Adam was created as an adult, and no human existed before he
was created, how was he an adult?

If plants and trees were created on day 3 all across the planet, and nothing
actually had time to grow, how were there mature plants and trees all
across the planet in one day?

If the sun was created in one day, how does it have enough thermonuclear
fusion to provide energy to sustain life (the created plants) in just one
day?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If Adam was created as an adult, and no human existed before he
was created, how was he an adult?

If plants and trees were created on day 3 all across the planet, and nothing
actually had time to grow, how were there mature plants and trees all
across the planet in one day?

If the sun was created in one day, how does it have enough thermonuclear
fusion to provide energy to sustain life (the created plants) in just one
day?

I think you posted in the wrong thread.

 

[DerelictJunction]

If Adam was created as an adult, and no human existed before he
was created, how was he an adult?

If plants and trees were created on day 3 all across the planet, and nothing
actually had time to grow, how were there mature plants and trees all
across the planet in one day?

If the sun was created in one day, how does it have enough thermonuclear
fusion to provide energy to sustain life (the created plants) in just one
day?

Are you suggesting that God built the Earth with zircon crystals that had radiation damage from radioactive decay that didn't ever happen?

 

[EternalDragon]

Are you suggesting that God built the Earth with zircon crystals that had radiation damage from radioactive decay that didn't ever happen?

Depends on how God built the earth.

 

[Split Rock]

If Adam was created as an adult, and no human existed before he
was created, how was he an adult?

If plants and trees were created on day 3 all across the planet, and nothing
actually had time to grow, how were there mature plants and trees all
across the planet in one day?

If the sun was created in one day, how does it have enough thermonuclear
fusion to provide energy to sustain life (the created plants) in just one
day?

All these questions show how absurd it is to think GEN 1-2 is a literal history.

 

[Zosimus]

However, if there were no decay prior to 5775, Uranium 238 would not have had enough time with its 4.47×10^9 year half life to damage the zircon crystal structure and produce the "halos". These halos have been observed by both creationists and conventional scientists. Therefore the assumption that radioactive decay has been occurring for a very long time is justified.

Your post presupposes that Uranium has a constant 4.47x10[sup]9[/sup] half-life and has had the same for at least the last 4.47x10[sup]9[/sup] years.

How do you know that this is true?

Let me guess...scientists observed U238 for 4.47x10[sup]9[/sup] years and noted that half of the Uranium disappeared during that time.

Hahaha... no, of course not! Humans didn't know about radioactivity even a few centuries ago. So how has it been done? Well, let me see... people have observed U238 in a lab for a period of time and have observed that it seems to follow a certain trend (plus or minus a certain percentage) and so you assume that it will continue to do so in the future and was doing so in the past.

However, the question comes: How do you know that U238 behaved in the distant past the same way it has behaved in the recent past? In short, how do you know that the past is a good guide to the future?

Let me guess: You think that the past is a good guide to the future because you have observed that it has been a good guide (or at least a fairly reasonable guide) in the past and therefore assume that it will be a good guide in the future.

How is this different from a Christian saying that the Bible is true because the Bible says so? Answer: There's no difference.

This problem, known as the problem of induction, lies at the heart of all scientific claims. No one can say for sure whether a given scientific claim is true. Tomorrow a new experiment could completely upend the entire system. On the other hand, tomorrow a new experiment could show that things continue as predicted. No one can know the future.

 

[EternalDragon]

I think you posted in the wrong thread.

Yes, I am. The person who asked about nothing decaying since
6000 or so years ago, is assuming things didn't decay before or
during creation and that God created everything in an "infancy"
state.

If God had done that then Adam would have died a newborn
infant with no one to care for him, the plants he made would
have died instantly and the sun would not have been able to
warm the earth.

 

[EternalDragon]

All these questions show how absurd it is to think GEN 1-2 is a literal history.

I guess Jesus, the prophets and many writers of the books of
the bible were absurd then.

 

[bhsmte]

I guess Jesus, the prophets and many writers of the books of
the bible were absurd then.

Not Jesus, just the writers. They had a hard time keeping their stories straight and or credible.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Yes, I am. The person who asked about nothing decaying since
6000 or so years ago, is assuming things didn't decay before or
during creation and that God created everything in an "infancy"
state.

If God had done that then Adam would have died a newborn
infant with no one to care for him, the plants he made would
have died instantly and the sun would not have been able to
warm the earth.

That's an assumption on your part and you failed to address the question asked.

 

[Split Rock]

I guess Jesus, the prophets and many writers of the books of
the bible were absurd then.

Its absurd of you, not the authors. Its funny whenever I criticize creationists who post here, they respond that I am criticizing or insulting God, Jesus, or the authors. I am not.. I am criticizing them. They are the ones misinterpreting what the authors wrote and what their intentions were. Do you really think that the authors of GEN were trying to write an historically accurate account of history in GEN? How could they? They weren't there. They had no knowledge of how the earth came to be. Theologically, they believed God created the world, but they didn't know how. They used stories they were familiar with to teach that theology... not to teach a history.