Radioisotope Dating Procedure Unfounded Assumptions

[DerelictJunction]

I never said we should be agnostic about things that happened in the past. Yesterday was my wife's birthday and I bought her a cake. There's nothing to be agnostic about. I was there and physically witnessed it.

What you are claiming, however, is that because you have viewed the behavior of U238 for some 50 years, that you can say how it has behaved over the last 4-6 billion years. So a 0.00000125% sample can tell you everything you need to know about something? Wow.

However, let's take your argument at face value and see where it leads us. You think that the past is a good guide to the future. Great–has science ever been wrong in the past? Yes? Then science will also be wrong about things in the future provided that your assumption holds true.

You start talking about pork chops in the freezer. Apparently your solution is to pretend that you know things you don't. My solution is called Decision Theory. You should look into it.

Now, having dispensed with your initial claims, I want to get to the heart of your argument. The foundation of your argument is that evidence is both important and necessary to make a positive claim. Why do you think so?

Since we've already established that no amount of evidence can prove a theory true, or even provide probable support, then what's the point of requiring evidence? What you should require, assuming that you are a pro-science kind of guy, is that the theory be testable. If I said, for example, that a certain spinning magnet will always cause cold fusion if paired with certain types of metal and heavy water, then you could test that theory. The theory is probably wrong, by the way, since I just made it up.

To go one further, your claim that evidence is necessary is a claim made without evidence to back it up! Unlike scientific theories, it's not even testable, as far as I'm aware. What experiment could I do to determine whether evidence is necessary to make a positive claim?

All you are really saying is that you have an a priori philosophical bias in favor of evidenced claims. Good for you. Not everyone does. Why should I, for example, adopt this philosophical bias?

I'm sorry. I must have missed the part where you addressed the evidence that would be left if the rates of decay were significantly different that they are today. Rates of radioisotope decay are what we are discussing rather than your philosophy of science. Discovery of evidence is science's means of lowering uncertainty.
In this case we can lower the uncertainty regarding possible changes in decay rates if we can determine what changes in materials occur as decay rates increase. I think the key is the energy given off by the process.
To get you up to speed, decay products are typically moving at a high speed and are highly ionized. In order to slow down, they must transfer their energy to the atoms of their surroundings. That energy transfer manifests itself as heat. Higher rates of decay result in more heat input in a shorter period of time. That raises the temperature.

Significant changes in decay rates result in significant increases in radioactivity.

So: 800,000 years divided into 4,500,000,000 year is 5,625.
The decay rate would have to increase by 5625 times in order to give us the evidence we see today. That is if the rate was constant up until this year.
That would mean radiation exposure for humans would be 5625 times higher than it is today. That is significant, and it is also refuted by the fact that massive numbers of humans have not died of radiation sickness in recorded history.

I'd say that your claim of increased radioactivity levels is on shaky ground.

Maybe you'd like to step up and defend your whole "nothing is certain" philosophy.

 

[Split Rock]

So since Adam was not a real person, why do they trace the lineage of
Jesus directly to him in various gospels like Luke 3:38? Why mention Adam
in Romans 5:14 as a real person? Or 1 Corinthians 15:22? Timothy 2?
Jude 1:14?

That was to connect Jesus symbolically to Adam. The genealogies are not complete and do not agree with each other, so why do you take them so seriously?

Apparently many writers of many biblical books regarded Adam and
Eve as real people. Jesus regarded Adam and Eve as real people and
Noah's flood as a real event. The only people not regarding those things
as real are you guys.

That is because your interpretation simply does not fit with reality. Mankind is not descended from a single pair of humans 6,000 years ago and there was no global flood a few thousand years ago. That is what the evidence tells us.

This is not a parable: (Note that all parables by Jesus are based on
real events and real people.)

What evidence do you have that all Jesus' parables were based on real people?

Matthew 19:3-6

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Yes, we were made male and female.. that is obvious. By what process is another question.

 

[Zosimus]

I'm sorry. I must have missed the part where you addressed the evidence that would be left if the rates of decay were significantly different that they are today. Rates of radioisotope decay are what we are discussing rather than your philosophy of science. Discovery of evidence is science's means of lowering uncertainty.
In this case we can lower the uncertainty regarding possible changes in decay rates if we can determine what changes in materials occur as decay rates increase. I think the key is the energy given off by the process.
To get you up to speed, decay products are typically moving at a high speed and are highly ionized. In order to slow down, they must transfer their energy to the atoms of their surroundings. That energy transfer manifests itself as heat. Higher rates of decay result in more heat input in a shorter period of time. That raises the temperature.

Significant changes in decay rates result in significant increases in radioactivity.

So: 800,000 years divided into 4,500,000,000 year is 5,625.
The decay rate would have to increase by 5625 times in order to give us the evidence we see today. That is if the rate was constant up until this year.
That would mean radiation exposure for humans would be 5625 times higher than it is today. That is significant, and it is also refuted by the fact that massive numbers of humans have not died of radiation sickness in recorded history.

I'd say that your claim of increased radioactivity levels is on shaky ground.

Maybe you'd like to step up and defend your whole "nothing is certain" philosophy.

Fact 1: Vitamin C prevents radiation damage.

Backing:
Vitamin C Prevents Radiation Damage: Nutritional Medicine in Japan
Vitamin C protects against ionizing radiation damage to goblet cell... - PubMed - NCBI

Fact 2: The ancestors of present-day humans synthesized vitamin C in their livers, an ability that present-day humans do not have.

Backing:
The Genetics of Vitamin C Loss in Vertebrates
Functional rescue of vitamin C synthesis deficiency in human cells ... - PubMed - NCBI

Conclusion: Present-day humans are not analogous to ancient humans under a hypothetical 800,000-year-old Earth scenario. This evidence calls into question the assumption on which your argument is based.

 

[selfinflikted]

The argument that things were "different" in the past (e.g. decay rates) is an interesting argument to me for one main reason: It seems the entire argument is based solely in trying to reconcile a personal belief with what we know about reality. The question for me, then, becomes, "Why should I consider that things were, in fact, different in the past? What evidence is there to support such an assertion?" I don't think there is any evidence at all that supports such a supposition. It seems the only reason to suggest that is to avoid cognitive dissonance between firmly held beliefs and what we know about reality.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Fact 1: Vitamin C prevents radiation damage.

Backing:
Vitamin C Prevents Radiation Damage: Nutritional Medicine in Japan
Vitamin C protects against ionizing radiation damage to goblet cell... - PubMed - NCBI

1. Neither of those research projects performed their experiment on a large enough population to get a good statistical analysis.
2. There were 4 people receiving large amounts of vitamin C (experiment group) and 12 people in the "control" group. 9 of the control group had the same results as the experiment group. The results are not statistically significant.
3. The workers were not exposed to radiation levels at over 5000 times the normal current exposure level, and they were not exposed 24-7 for their entire lives.
4. You have stated that Most published research findings are false and used that claim to dismiss research papers referenced by others. I choose to dismiss your references for this reason and the ones stated above.

Fact 2: The ancestors of present-day humans synthesized vitamin C in their livers, an ability that present-day humans do not have.

Backing:
The Genetics of Vitamin C Loss in Vertebrates
Functional rescue of vitamin C synthesis deficiency in human cells ... - PubMed - NCBI

Conclusion: Present-day humans are not analogous to ancient humans under a hypothetical 800,000-year-old Earth scenario. This evidence calls into question the assumption on which your argument is based.

Your deduction is incorrect because humans and great ape have never been able to synthesize Vitamin C, and your last two references don't mention that they ever were. They also mention the loss of that capability over 4 million years ago, which is based on mutation rate analysis and doesn't fit your timeline.
Oh...and there is this:
Most published research findings are false
So I reject the idea that there is any support for your contention that humans 800,000 years ago had an immunity to radiation sickness.

Got something realistic to present?

 

[lasthero]

If I might chime in for a second - even if we were assume that humans were immune to radiation in the past - and I think that's a big stretch - what abotu everything else on this planet? Because I'm pretty sure humans aren't the only things that are adversely affected by high levels of radiation.

 

[Split Rock]

1. Neither of those research projects performed their experiment on a large enough population to get a good statistical analysis.
2. There were 4 people receiving large amounts of vitamin C (experiment group) and 12 people in the "control" group. 9 of the control group had the same results as the experiment group. The results are not statistically significant.
3. The workers were not exposed to radiation levels at over 5000 times the normal current exposure level, and they were not exposed 24-7 for their entire lives.
4. You have stated that Most published research findings are false and used that claim to dismiss research papers referenced by others. I choose to dismiss your references for this reason and the ones stated above.

Your deduction is incorrect because humans and great ape have never been able to synthesize Vitamin C, and your last two references don't mention that they ever were. They also mention the loss of that capability over 4 million years ago, which is based on mutation rate analysis and doesn't fit your timeline.
Oh...and there is this:
Most published research findings are false
So I reject the idea that there is any support for your contention that humans 800,000 years ago had an immunity to radiation sickness.

Got something realistic to present?

I find it hilarious that all of a sudden this guy is treating scientific experiments and theories as "facts," when he has always argued they are not... even worse, that they are worthless. I guess "logic" doesn't prevent hypocrisy.

 

[Zosimus]

The argument that things were "different" in the past (e.g. decay rates) is an interesting argument to me for one main reason: It seems the entire argument is based solely in trying to reconcile a personal belief with what we know about reality.

You know things about reality. Really? How do you know them?

Greeks at the time of Aristotle knew that the Earth didn't move because when you're on a moving object you feel evidence of motion such as the wind.

Newton knew that gravity didn't bend light.

Robert Boyle knew that waves didn't travel through a vacuum and therefore knew that light couldn't travel through a vacuum of space. He knew that space was filled with a substance called luminiferous aether.

Before Pasteur, people knew that bacteria spontaneously generated from bowls of soup when left unattended.

Before 1897 everyone knew that atoms were indivisible. The idea that an atom might be made of of pieces such as protons, neutrons, and electrons was known to be false.

I know that the sun has shone for 4 minutes longer today than it did yesterday. Using this information I know that in 164 days Peru will have light 24 hours a day while the Northern Hemisphere will have continual darkness.

Here's a clue, buddy. At least half of what you "know" are things you merely believe.

 

[DerelictJunction]

You know things about reality. Really? How do you know them?

Greeks at the time of Aristotle knew that the Earth didn't move because when you're on a moving object you feel evidence of motion such as the wind.

Newton knew that gravity didn't bend light.

Robert Boyle knew that waves didn't travel through a vacuum and therefore knew that light couldn't travel through a vacuum of space. He knew that space was filled with a substance called luminiferous aether.

Before Pasteur, people knew that bacteria spontaneously generated from bowls of soup when left unattended.

Before 1897 everyone knew that atoms were indivisible. The idea that an atom might be made of of pieces such as protons, neutrons, and electrons was known to be false.

I know that the sun has shone for 4 minutes longer today than it did yesterday. Using this information I know that in 164 days Peru will have light 24 hours a day while the Northern Hemisphere will have continual darkness.

Here's a clue, buddy. At least half of what you "know" are things you merely believe.

If these things are only what we believe then how do you know that the examples you listed are no longer true? Perhaps you and most of the world only BELIEVE they are not true.

Sounds a little silly, doesn't it? However, in your philosophy of "we can't know" everything is rather silly.

Let's try what science advocates and what our common sense typically agrees with. As evidence is amassed supporting a theory or hypothesis, we have more confidence that the theory of hypothesis is representative of the truth.

With that in mind, let us return to the "unfounded assumptions" used in the process of radiometric dating.

 

[Zosimus]

1. Neither of those research projects performed their experiment on a large enough population to get a good statistical analysis.
2. There were 4 people receiving large amounts of vitamin C (experiment group) and 12 people in the "control" group. 9 of the control group had the same results as the experiment group. The results are not statistically significant.
3. The workers were not exposed to radiation levels at over 5000 times the normal current exposure level, and they were not exposed 24-7 for their entire lives.
4. You have stated that Most published research findings are false and used that claim to dismiss research papers referenced by others. I choose to dismiss your references for this reason and the ones stated above.

Your deduction is incorrect because humans and great ape have never been able to synthesize Vitamin C, and your last two references don't mention that they ever were. They also mention the loss of that capability over 4 million years ago, which is based on mutation rate analysis and doesn't fit your timeline.
Oh...and there is this:
Most published research findings are false
So I reject the idea that there is any support for your contention that humans 800,000 years ago had an immunity to radiation sickness.

Got something realistic to present?

I congratulate you on your poor reading comprehension skills.

Let's review the main conclusion of my argument, shall we? I said: that the above-mentioned facts "[call] into question" your underlying assumption.

Does "call into question" mean disprove? No. It means that it casts doubt on or weakens the assumption in question and, by doing so, weakens the conclusion of your argument.

Let's try a sample argument and see how I can weaken it.

Bob smoked a pack of cigarettes every day for 20 years. Bob got lung cancer. Cigarettes contain chemicals known to cause lung cancer. Therefore Bob got lung cancer because he smoked cigarettes.

The above argument is a causal argument. Causal arguments rely on the causal assumption, which states that there are no other causes. By suggesting an alternate cause, I can effectively weaken the argument. Here is an effective weakening statement:

Bob's house has been tested and found to contain radon gas, which is the second leading cause of cancer.

The new information casts doubt on the conclusion of the above argument. Does it prove that cigarette smoking was not responsible for Bob's lung cancer? No. Nevertheless, it undermines the conclusion. It calls the conclusion into question. It plants the seeds of reasonable doubt into the mind of a reasonable person.

You seem to think that I must accept your conclusion unless I can conclusively prove it false. This claim, known as The Argument from Ignorance Logical Fallacy, is one that I reject.
---------------------
Next we will deal with your later claim. You said, "humans and great ape have never been able to synthesize Vitamin C" but this is completely irrelevant to the argument in question. If you read my argument carefully you will see that I said, "The ancestors of present-day humans synthesized vitamin C in their livers, an ability that present-day humans do not have." I never said that these ancestors were great apes. You assumed that I meant that, when in reality, I never said anything of the kind.

Finally, when I said, "...under a hypothetical 800,000-year-old Earth scenario..." you cannot respond that the ancestors of humans lost the ability to synthesize vitamin C 4 million years ago. Stop for a moment and consider the hypothetical scenario that the Earth is a scant 800,000 years old. Hypothetical–get it? It's hypothetical. Get a dictionary and look the word hypothetical up. Thanks.

 

[Zosimus]

I find it hilarious that all of a sudden this guy is treating scientific experiments and theories as "facts," when he has always argued they are not... even worse, that they are worthless. I guess "logic" doesn't prevent hypocrisy.

Do you find it equally hypocritical when an atheist uses the Bible to demonstrate something to a Christian?

Is a mathematician hypocritical when he assumes that the square root of 2 is a rational number in order to demonstrate that it really isn't?

Are non-Christian Biblical scholars hypocritical when they quote from the Septuagint?

The answer to all these questions should be a resounding NO.

 

[Zosimus]

If these things are only what we believe then how do you know that the examples you listed are no longer true? Perhaps you and most of the world only BELIEVE they are not true.

Sounds a little silly, doesn't it? However, in your philosophy of "we can't know" everything is rather silly.

Let's try what science advocates and what our common sense typically agrees with. As evidence is amassed supporting a theory or hypothesis, we have more confidence that the theory of hypothesis is representative of the truth.

With that in mind, let us return to the "unfounded assumptions" used in the process of radiometric dating.

WTH? Common sense suggests throwing logic out the window? When did that happen?

I'll make you a simple deal. I will accept the idea that the past is a good guide to the future the day you accept the Bible as unconditionally true.

And not one day before.

 

[selfinflikted]

You know things about reality. Really? How do you know them?

Greeks at the time of Aristotle knew that the Earth didn't move because when you're on a moving object you feel evidence of motion such as the wind.

Newton knew that gravity didn't bend light.

Robert Boyle knew that waves didn't travel through a vacuum and therefore knew that light couldn't travel through a vacuum of space. He knew that space was filled with a substance called luminiferous aether.

Before Pasteur, people knew that bacteria spontaneously generated from bowls of soup when left unattended.

Before 1897 everyone knew that atoms were indivisible. The idea that an atom might be made of of pieces such as protons, neutrons, and electrons was known to be false.

I know that the sun has shone for 4 minutes longer today than it did yesterday. Using this information I know that in 164 days Peru will have light 24 hours a day while the Northern Hemisphere will have continual darkness.

Here's a clue, buddy. At least half of what you "know" are things you merely believe.

We do know certain things about reality. Certainly not everything. And certainly the things we know are subject to change with new evidence.

Can you give me some other reason why anyone should assume the laws of physics behaved differently in the past if not to solely reconcile a belief that clearly contradicts reality?

Also, I'm not you buddy, pal.

 

[DerelictJunction]

WTH? Common sense suggests throwing logic out the window? When did that happen?

It didn't happen. Common sense only suggests throwing out faulty logic, like the kind you try to use.

I'll make you a simple deal. I will accept the idea that the past is a good guide to the future the day you accept the Bible as unconditionally true.

And not one day before.

You already accept the idea that the past is a good guide to the future every time you walk across the floor in your house without fearing that it will turn to liquid and swallow you up.

You accept nothing as unconditionally true. Why am I being held to a higher standard than you hold yourself?

In fact, your rhetoric suggests that you accept nothing as even provisionally true. Strangely, though you still walk across that floor in your house without fear of sinking.

What does this have to do with the known evidence that radioactivity wasn't 5000 times greater in the past? Is it somewhere in your plan to address the topic that you initiated?

 

[bhsmte]

The argument that things were "different" in the past (e.g. decay rates) is an interesting argument to me for one main reason: It seems the entire argument is based solely in trying to reconcile a personal belief with what we know about reality. The question for me, then, becomes, "Why should I consider that things were, in fact, different in the past? What evidence is there to support such an assertion?" I don't think there is any evidence at all that supports such a supposition. It seems the only reason to suggest that is to avoid cognitive dissonance between firmly held beliefs and what we know about reality.

People who claim the past was different, are the one's who aren't comfortable with present reality.

 

[selfinflikted]

People who claim the past was different, are the one's who aren't comfortable with present reality.

No, but I mean really. What other *reason* is there to even begin to think radioactive decay was different in the past. What evidence has lead anyone to conclude that? I'd like to see it or hear it.

 

[bhsmte]

No, but I mean really. What other *reason* is there to even begin to think radioactive decay was different in the past. What evidence has lead anyone to conclude that? I'd like to see it or hear it.

Those that have motivation to not accept well evidenced realities.

 

[selfinflikted]

Those that have motivation to not accept well evidenced realities.

Exactly my point. It's not like any actual evidence led to this question. At least, none of which I am aware.

 

[keith99]

No, but I mean really. What other *reason* is there to even begin to think radioactive decay was different in the past. What evidence has lead anyone to conclude that? I'd like to see it or hear it.

I'm going to raise a sticky issue.

What is the measure of time?

Trying to postulate that decay rates were different requites giving a new measure as the current base for exact measurements depend on phenomena closely linked to decay rates.

 

[selfinflikted]

Indeed, Keith.