Radioisotope Dating Procedure Unfounded Assumptions

[Zosimus]

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.

You're asking the wrong question.

Let's say that the laws of physics are perfectly rigid and unchangeable. The laws of physics were never different in the past. Does that invalidate my argument?

Not at all!

You see, you are assuming that you know what the laws of physics are. You have been observing things for awhile, and things have been going in a certain direction, so you feel confident that things will continue to go in that direction. You also extrapolate the past and feel confident.

How do you know that your situation isn't comparable to that of an extremely intelligent baby who has just begun to discover the world around him? Wouldn't he look at the days and note that they are getting shorter? Might he not reason that if the trend continues that eventually the sun won't rise at all? Perhaps the Sun God is dying! All evidence points to shorter and shorter days.

Yet you know, because of your longer experience, that there is a cycle of short and long days known as seasons. When you reassure him, he rejects your explanation. He accuses you of changing the laws of physics. He demands evidence to support your claim–evidence that you can't easily produce. He says, "You are advancing this idea solely [to] reconcile a belief that clearly contradicts reality!"

Of course in a few months you'll be vindicated. Nevertheless, what about other cycles? Might not that same young man later be panicked to discover that the sun is producing more and more output as the days go by? He deduces that it's caused by an increase in the number of sunspots. Why if trends continue at some point in the future all life will be exterminated from the planet!! When you say that sunspots have been observed to follow an 11-year cycle he insists that you say so solely [to] reconcile a belief that clearly contradicts reality!

What trend will he notice next and extend with near panic to the future? Global warming? He won't be alone, that's for sure! My God man, if these weather trends continue through the year 3,000 we're all goners!!!

How do you know that the half-life of U238 doesn't follow a natural, cyclical, predictable, and completely normal change causing the half-life to vary between 2 billion and 5 billion years, and we are just one point in the cycle? How do you know that there isn't a cycle where, at some point in the future, the trend will actually reverse and Pb206 will convert itself into U238 in a completely normal, logical, and predictable fashion complete with endothermic consequences?

The answer is: You don't. You don't know that. No one knows that. No one can know that. Pretending that you know something that you don't is just arrogant.

 

[Zosimus]

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

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?

This is a familiar argument that I've heard many times before.

Every time you walk across the floor, you are trusting that the floor won't swallow you up! Why if you really believed that the past wasn't a good guide to the future, you would never walk across floors!

What's the assumption? The assumption is that refusing to walk across the floor will be safer than not doing so. Couldn't the same argument be made that standing still is what will kill you whereas walking is the only safe option?

Yes, it's true that by walking out the door a giant hawk of a type never before seen might not pluck me off the ground and devour me whole. On the other hand, staying at home might result in my armchair morphing into a human-eating piece of furniture! What to do? What to do?

Of course, as I mentioned, all of this is covered by decision theory.

However, let's suppose that you're 100 percent right. Let's suppose that I run through life assuming that the same ice cream that tasted good yesterday will taste good today. So what? I have never argued that the food that satisfied me yesterday will definitely, certainly do the same tomorrow or even that it's more likely.

You see, the problem with induction is that it yields contradictory results. Let's take a simple example. Let's imagine that I work with a guy by the name of José, who has come to work at 8:00 every morning for the last 100 days.

The principle of induction argues that I should be very certain that José will do the same tomorrow. Yet I also know, thanks to induction, that all people are mortal. As such, José will eventually die. Accordingly every day that passes moves José closer to the day of his death.

Accordingly the logic of induction requires that I both increase the probability that José will show up and increase the probability that José will not show up. How to resolve the paradox? You tell me!

 

[DerelictJunction]

This is a familiar argument that I've heard many times before.

Every time you walk across the floor, you are trusting that the floor won't swallow you up! Why if you really believed that the past wasn't a good guide to the future, you would never walk across floors!

What's the assumption? The assumption is that refusing to walk across the floor will be safer than not doing so. Couldn't the same argument be made that standing still is what will kill you whereas walking is the only safe option?

Yes, it's true that by walking out the door a giant hawk of a type never before seen might not pluck me off the ground and devour me whole. On the other hand, staying at home might result in my armchair morphing into a human-eating piece of furniture! What to do? What to do?

Of course, as I mentioned, all of this is covered by decision theory.

However, let's suppose that you're 100 percent right. Let's suppose that I run through life assuming that the same ice cream that tasted good yesterday will taste good today. So what? I have never argued that the food that satisfied me yesterday will definitely, certainly do the same tomorrow or even that it's more likely.

You see, the problem with induction is that it yields contradictory results. Let's take a simple example. Let's imagine that I work with a guy by the name of José, who has come to work at 8:00 every morning for the last 100 days.

The principle of induction argues that I should be very certain that José will do the same tomorrow. Yet I also know, thanks to induction, that all people are mortal. As such, José will eventually die. Accordingly every day that passes moves José closer to the day of his death.

Accordingly the logic of induction requires that I both increase the probability that José will show up and increase the probability that José will not show up. How to resolve the paradox? You tell me!

I have gone back to look at a good number of your previous posts and have come to the conclusion that you actually don't plan on addressing the "unfounded assumptions" in the process of radiometric dating. I shall no longer reply to your posts unless I see something regarding those unfounded assumptions that you brought up.

If any others want to take up Zosimus' mantle and actually address the material at hand, I would be happy to respond.

 

[Zosimus]

I have gone back to look at a good number of your previous posts and have come to the conclusion that you actually don't plan on addressing the "unfounded assumptions" in the process of radiometric dating. I shall no longer reply to your posts unless I see something regarding those unfounded assumptions that you brought up.

If any others want to take up Zosimus' mantle and actually address the material at hand, I would be happy to respond.

I don't get it. What exactly do you want me to address?

You've made an argument. The conclusion of the argument doesn't follow from the premises. As such we realize that the argument is based on assumptions that fill in the gaps.

Do we have any reason to believe your assumptions? Not that I'm aware of. So why should I believe them?

 

[DerelictJunction]

I don't get it. What exactly do you want me to address?

You've made an argument. The conclusion of the argument doesn't follow from the premises. As such we realize that the argument is based on assumptions that fill in the gaps.

Do we have any reason to believe your assumptions? Not that I'm aware of. So why should I believe them?

Not following you on this. Perhaps you should start over and grind through it one piece at at time.

You said that it is assumed that the radioactive decay rate was the same in the past as it is now. I requested that you support your statement with evidence, and I gave some evidence that supports the contention that the radioactive decay rate has not changed significantly.

Let's go back:
What is the basis of your statement concerning lack of knowledge regarding the radioactive decay rates from...say....500 years ago?

 

[selfinflikted]

What is the basis of your statement concerning lack of knowledge regarding the radioactive decay rates from...say....500 years ago?

This. And what evidence do you have, if any, that decay rates were ever different?

 

[bhsmte]

This. And what evidence do you have, if any, that decay rates were ever different?

I don't believe he has any interest in getting into the details of his claims, judging by his posting history.

A muddying of the waters will likely ensue though.

 

[florida2]

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.

Not necessarily true. If you are moving at a constant velocity without accelerating or decelerating you cannot tell if you are moving or not.

There is no wind is space so of course we can't feel the Earth moving.

If you were in a spaceship in deep space travelling at a constant velocity you could not tell if you were moving or not.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . .

How do you know that the half-life of U238 doesn't follow a natural, cyclical, predictable, and completely normal change causing the half-life to vary between 2 billion and 5 billion years, and we are just one point in the cycle? How do you know that there isn't a cycle where, at some point in the future, the trend will actually reverse and Pb206 will convert itself into U238 in a completely normal, logical, and predictable fashion complete with endothermic consequences?

The answer is: You don't. You don't know that. No one knows that. No one can know that. Pretending that you know something that you don't is just arrogant.

Radioactive decay in the distant past is observed routinely by astronomers and the exact same decay results occur as they do today. It happens with supernova observations and the observations of the remnants across billions of light years distance, therefore billions of years into the past.

And we have the decay remnants for up to 4 billion years worth right here on earth. There is no reasonable way to explain all those decay remnants happening in the past 6000 years only and have the rocks in which they exist survive as solid rocks . . . such things release heat, you know.

No, any idea that radioactive decay changed significantly enough to change the dating evidence they bring to the table is ruled out. There is adequate evidence to support the constancy of radioactive decay.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

Death (decay) did not begin until Adam separated from God
and choose to go his own way. My conclusion is that time,
as we know it, did not begin until that day.

This clears up all the problems of the 6 day creation week as well
because it did not happen in normal time, as we know it.

 

[Queller]

Death (decay) did not begin until Adam separated from God
and choose to go his own way. My conclusion is that time,
as we know it, did not begin until that day.

How is motion possible without time?

This clears up all the problems of the 6 day creation week as well
because it did not happen in normal time, as we know it.

You can believe that if you want but it is neither scientific nor Biblical.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Death (decay) did not begin until Adam separated from God
and choose to go his own way. My conclusion is that time,
as we know it, did not begin until that day.

This clears up all the problems of the 6 day creation week as well
because it did not happen in normal time, as we know it.

We have evidence of stars exploding billions of years ago, and we watch them do it today over the distance of billions of light years.

You want us to stop believing our lying eyes and start thinking there was no time until Adam?

Sorry, we are unable to deny the things we have seen. (Well, the case of stellar explosions, we took pictures and we look at the pictures.)

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

We have evidence of stars exploding billions of years ago, and we watch them do it today over the distance of billions of light years.

You want us to stop believing our lying eyes and start thinking there was no time until Adam?

Sorry, we are unable to deny the things we have seen. (Well, the case of stellar explosions, we took pictures and we look at the pictures.)

On the other hand, supernova 1978A which took place in the Magellanic Clouds a few hundred thousand years ago, and was observed by astronomers in 1978, was clearly visible to the naked eye of the astronomers.

 

[Zosimus]

Not following you on this. Perhaps you should start over and grind through it one piece at at time.

You said that it is assumed that the radioactive decay rate was the same in the past as it is now. I requested that you support your statement with evidence, and I gave some evidence that supports the contention that the radioactive decay rate has not changed significantly.

Let's go back:
What is the basis of your statement concerning lack of knowledge regarding the radioactive decay rates from...say....500 years ago?

I heartily agree! Let's back up to the very beginning by quoting from the first post, my words, which you posted here.

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.

Now apparently your response to this logical argument is to demand evidence.

Your argument, commonly called Hitchens's Razor goes something like this: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

To date no one has provided evidence for Hitchen's Razor, therefore, Hitchen's Razor can be dismissed without evidence.

I think I need to make it very plain to you and to other posters who insist on seeing my evidence that I do not plan to provide evidence for anything until or unless you provide evidence showing that evidence is necessary.

Requiring me to show evidence for something while you show evidence for nothing is hypocritical.

 

[Zosimus]

Not necessarily true. If you are moving at a constant velocity without accelerating or decelerating you cannot tell if you are moving or not.

There is no wind is space so of course we can't feel the Earth moving.

If you were in a spaceship in deep space travelling at a constant velocity you could not tell if you were moving or not.

You're missing the point. The Greeks argued that the Earth could not be moving since people feel when things move. Obviously the Greeks felt very, very strongly that they knew this was true. However, feeling very strongly about something is not the same as knowledge.

Knowledge is justified true belief in something that is true.

To know something you must:
A) Believe that it is true;
B) Have reasons for believing it; and,
C) The thing you believe must be true.

Even then, that doesn't guarantee that you know something. It's just the minimum foundation.

 

[Zosimus]

Radioactive decay in the distant past is observed routinely by astronomers and the exact same decay results occur as they do today.

You know this, I assume, because you "know" that the speed of light has remained constant for the past 4.5 billion years.

How do you know that the speed of light was constant for the past 4.5 billion years? Did you observe it during that time? No.

So basically your argument is as follows:

Because the speed of light is constant now, the speed of light was constant in the past.

As you can see, the conclusion of this argument does not follow from the premises. There is a missing premise. The missing premise is:

Unobserved events resemble observed events.

How do you know that unobserved events resemble observed events? If you think about it carefully you will find that the only reason you believe that unobserved events resemble observed events is because that's what you've observed in the past and you assume that unobserved events (which you will observe in the future) will resemble the observed events from the past.

 

[NannaNae]

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.

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?

you hit the Krux of the whole problem!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas&list=TL1bOsSJ5Ji9Y&index=5

this was just amazing experiment in it's ability to even show the ideas of knowledge or observation and proved it into a allegorical test...

I mean that board with the two bars is mankinds mind..

no matter , what matter passes through that board with the slits .
man is going to reduce even farther what he thinks he sees to it's very lowest reality. it is because of man's fallen state that we see only a fraction of what is there.
because observation is from the lowest reality of man's knowledge.
observation with history and records at least gets us a start to thinking bigger than our minds can see without understanding or knowledge. other wise they only have a really twisted imagination to verify their imaginations.



to weigh the universe and God by reducing even more that which has been already reduced by our observations , should define narcissistic insanity .
I mean how narcissistic and vain can we get...
well we have done just that.
man sees maybe 1 to 3 % and or less of reality and from that reduces it even more by his own ignorance and pet laws.. then tells us what is and isn't ..

I mean by flipping a coin we would have a better chance of finding any kind of truths. the magic 8 ball would do better then these people who claim to be wise.. but they are just reducing the reduced and claiming it is reality.. but it is only their minds reality.... from their own eyes and lack of truth....!!

we should call that board "the mind of men". lots of stuff could be seen but nothing comes out the other side , because man only see what he wants to see. it is very sad..

 

[florida2]

you hit the Krux of the whole problem!

this was just amazing experiment in it's ability to even show the ideas of knowledge or observation and proved it into a allegorical test...

I mean that board with the two bars is mankinds mind..

no matter , what matter passes through that board with the slits .
man is going to reduce even farther what he thinks he sees to it's very lowest reality. it is because of man's fallen state that we see only a fraction of what is there.
because observation is from the lowest reality of man's knowledge.
observation with history and records at least gets us a start to thinking bigger than our minds can see without understanding or knowledge. other wise they only have a really twisted imagination to verify their imaginations.

Is this to do with the double slit experiment? Can you try and explain this again a bit more clearly?

to weigh the universe and God by reducing even more that which has been already reduced by our observations , should define narcissistic insanity .
I mean how narcissistic and vain can we get...
well we have done just that.
man sees maybe 1 to 3 % and or less of reality and from that reduces it even more by his own ignorance and pet laws.. then tells us what is and isn't ..

I mean by flipping a coin we would have a better chance of finding any kind of truths. the magic 8 ball would do better then these people who claim to be wise.. but they are just reducing the reduced and claiming it is reality.. but it is only their minds reality.... from their own eyes and lack of truth....!!

we should call that board "the mind of men". lots of stuff could be seen but nothing comes out the other side , because man only see what he wants to see. it is very sad..

Nope, no idea what you are trying to say. Take a bit more time to fully explain each point otherwise people can't understand what you're trying to say.

 

[Queller]

You know this, I assume, because you "know" that the speed of light has remained constant for the past 4.5 billion years.

How do you know that the speed of light was constant for the past 4.5 billion years? Did you observe it during that time? No.

So basically your argument is as follows:

Because the speed of light is constant now, the speed of light was constant in the past.

As you can see, the conclusion of this argument does not follow from the premises. There is a missing premise. The missing premise is:

Unobserved events resemble observed events.

How do you know that unobserved events resemble observed events? If you think about it carefully you will find that the only reason you believe that unobserved events resemble observed events is because that's what you've observed in the past and you assume that unobserved events (which you will observe in the future) will resemble the observed events from the past.

If the speed of light were faster in the past, it would have an affect on just about every known constant in the universe. That is one of the reasons we know the speed of light is a constant, because we would be able to detect the effects of it changing.

What would happen if the speed of light were 10 times faster?

The radiation pressure inside every star would be 100 times higher and most stars would explode. The fine-structure constant would be 10 times higher, so electrons would be held near atomic nuclei with 100 times more energy making organic chemistry driven by solar radiation impossible. Black holes would be 10 times smaller, and although the force of gravity would not change, stars themselves would be smaller, denser and hotter and live much shorter lives I would suspect. As for cosmology, because the universe started out dominated by radiation pressure, with 100 times the pressure, the expansion would have been far faster than it actually was, and very little primordial helium would have been synthesized as the universe rushed through the temperature-density regime where this could have been possible.

SOURCE

 

[Heissonear]

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?

Yes, the Bible presents these facts clearly. Things on earth were created by The Creator with apparent age.