Radioisotope Dating Procedure Unfounded Assumptions

[Split Rock]

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

The authors weren't trying to write a literal history. GEN is a mix of the writings of many authors over a long period of time. Of course there are inconsistencies between the different stories. That didn't matter. Their goal was to teach theology, not history.

 

[bhsmte]

The authors weren't trying to write a literal history. GEN is a mix of the writings of many authors over a long period of time. Of course there are inconsistencies between the different stories. That didn't matter. Their goal was to teach theology, not history.

And precisely why most critical scholars and historians will state; the bible is a book of theology, not a book of history.

 

[essentialsaltes]

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?

At least this stab at the question (unlike the quote from the OP) actually mentions an actual assumption made by people performing radioisotope dating.

A methodological assumption of science is the uniformity of law across time and space.

Fortunately, this assumption can be tested in various ways. The fact that we can perform spectroscopy on light from distant galaxies is a successful test of the consistency of the assumption. More particularly, the existence of stars billions of years ago is evidence that nuclear forces conform to the assumption. Similarly, closer to home, the Oklo natural nuclear reactor does the same. Interestingly, the conditions for a natural nuclear reactor were calculated -- based of course on our knowledge of nuclear physics and the uniformitarian assumption -- before the evidence of the actual event came to light.

This ability to test assumptions is very different from the circular argument of...

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

 

[EternalDragon]

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.

Because what you are saying goes completely against what Jesus
taught and regarded as true. I believe Jesus is also the true author
of Genesis, written through a godly man.

The entire book of Genesis was written in a historical Hebrew writing
style. Did it ever occur to you that you are the one misinterpreting it?

 

[DerelictJunction]

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.

Then you believe that radioactive decay was faster in the past?
1. How much faster would it have to be in order to result in the apparent radioactive decay damage to the zircons.
2. How much energy would be released from that faster radioactive decay in that shorter period of time?
3. Since that energy would manifest itself as heat due to collisions between the decay products and the zircon atoms, how much temperature rise would be expected inside that part of the zircon during this increased radioactive decay?
4. How would that temperature rise affect the zircon?
5. Do we see indications within the zircon that the temperature rose to the level that it must have during the accelerated decay period?

You may feel that these questions are a bit out of hand. However, you proposed a scenario whereby the extremely large amount of radioactive decay that must have happened since the creation of the Earth is compressed into a 6000 year timeline. You cannot simply throw out an apparently far fetched possibility like that and not be able to consider the possible consequences.

Of course the accelerated radioisotope decay didn't just occur in the zircons. The RATE project, a research group that explored the evidence supporting a young Earth, concluded that accelerated radioisotope decay must have occurred. In fact they agreed that a minimum of half a billion years of decay must have happened early in the Earth's 6000 year history (they were only off by a factor of 8). Their problem , as they fully admit, is that the heat and radiation generated by that accelerated decay would sterilize the Earth and melt the crust many times over.
(see http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/RATE2-Summary.pdf)
So they propose that there was an unknown method of cooling used by God and a radiation protection invoked by Him. They also suggested that the decay happened during the first day or so of creation week but cannot reconcile that theologically because creation was declared "very good" by God Himself. Also the zircons would have been melted.

So, your flippant suggestion that radioactive decay was faster in the past is not so cut and dried. There are consequences when radioactive decay is accelerated and those consequences would leave evidence behind. Where is your evidence?

 

[Zosimus]

At least this stab at the question (unlike the quote from the OP) actually mentions an actual assumption made by people performing radioisotope dating.

A methodological assumption of science is the uniformity of law across time and space.

Fortunately, this assumption can be tested in various ways. The fact that we can perform spectroscopy on light from distant galaxies is a successful test of the consistency of the assumption. More particularly, the existence of stars billions of years ago is evidence that nuclear forces conform to the assumption. Similarly, closer to home, the Oklo natural nuclear reactor does the same. Interestingly, the conditions for a natural nuclear reactor were calculated -- based of course on our knowledge of nuclear physics and the uniformitarian assumption -- before the evidence of the actual event came to light.

This ability to test assumptions is very different from the circular argument of...

Wait let me get this straight. You test that the past is a good guide to the future by observing the past and applying those results to the future?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Wait let me get this straight. You test that the past is a good guide to the future by observing the past and applying those results to the future?

Despite your own bolding of your question, I was not referring to the future at all. I answered your question: "How do you know that U238 behaved in the distant past the same way it has behaved in the recent past?"

When the future gets here, we can test it, too, and see if everything remains consistent.

 

[Zosimus]

Then you believe that radioactive decay was faster in the past?
1. How much faster would it have to be in order to result in the apparent radioactive decay damage to the zircons.
2. How much energy would be released from that faster radioactive decay in that shorter period of time?
3. Since that energy would manifest itself as heat due to collisions between the decay products and the zircon atoms, how much temperature rise would be expected inside that part of the zircon during this increased radioactive decay?
4. How would that temperature rise affect the zircon?
5. Do we see indications within the zircon that the temperature rose to the level that it must have during the accelerated decay period?

You may feel that these questions are a bit out of hand. However, you proposed a scenario whereby the extremely large amount of radioactive decay that must have happened since the creation of the Earth is compressed into a 6000 year timeline. You cannot simply throw out an apparently far fetched possibility like that and not be able to consider the possible consequences.

Of course the accelerated radioisotope decay didn't just occur in the zircons. The RATE project, a research group that explored the evidence supporting a young Earth, concluded that accelerated radioisotope decay must have occurred. In fact they agreed that a minimum of half a billion years of decay must have happened early in the Earth's 6000 year history (they were only off by a factor of 8). Their problem , as they fully admit, is that the heat and radiation generated by that accelerated decay would sterilize the Earth and melt the crust many times over.
(see http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/RATE2-Summary.pdf)
So they propose that there was an unknown method of cooling used by God and a radiation protection invoked by Him. They also suggested that the decay happened during the first day or so of creation week but cannot reconcile that theologically because creation was declared "very good" by God Himself. Also the zircons would have been melted.

So, your flippant suggestion that radioactive decay was faster in the past is not so cut and dried. There are consequences when radioactive decay is accelerated and those consequences would leave evidence behind. Where is your evidence?

No, I never said that radioactive decay was faster in the past. I said that you assume that it is not so. Perhaps that's a correct assumption. Perhaps not. We don't know. No one knows. No one can know. That's what agnosticism is all about–admitting that you don't and can't know.

Second, I'm not interested in calculating or even able to calculate how much energy might have been released. I don't know. You don't know. No one knows. No one can know. That's what agnosticism is all about–admitting that you don't and can't know.

Third, you are talking about heat produced. You assume that heat was produced because you assume that the laws of nature at that point worked the same as they do now. However, I'd like to point out that Christian theology states that the Earth was in such a state that even when a supernatural being such as God, who is believed to radiate so much energy that you would be instantly vaporized if you came into his presence, the Earth shrugged that amount of energy off like nothing.

Fourth, no one knows how that temperature rise might have affected the zircon. No one knows. No one can know. Even to make a guess requires you to make assumptions.

Finally, no, I didn't propose a scenario in which the amount of energy released occurred in 6000 years. If you look at the original post, I threw out a random number of 800,000 years. Additionally, this thread, which I did not start, states unfounded assumptions. However, I never said the assumptions were unfounded. Maybe they are unfounded. Maybe they're extremely well founded. I don't know. You don't know. No one knows. No one can know. That's what agnosticism is all about–admitting that you don't and can't know.

 

[Zosimus]

Despite your own bolding of your question, I was not referring to the future at all. I answered your question: "How do you know that U238 behaved in the distant past the same way it has behaved in the recent past?"

When the future gets here, we can test it, too, and see if everything remains consistent.

Oh I get it now. You know what was happening billions of years ago because you observe stars that are very far away. The light from those stars took billions of years to reach you because light travels at a certain constant rate and thus has taken billions of years to arrive.

You know that light travels at a certain constant rate because light has done so in the observed past and will, therefore, do so in the unobserved past when that past becomes observable. This is because the past is a good guide to the future, something we know because we have tested it in the past, and we assume that it will continue to do so in the future.

Additionally when the future arrives we can test those assumptions by comparing them against what was the future (but is now the past), and applying the principle that the past is a good guide to the future.

This isn't circular? Why isn't this working better?

You see, the problem is that you have a theory that the past is a good guide to the future. If that theory is true, then you will observe certain things in the future. When you observe those things, you believe that your theory has been verified true. However, you are engaging in a logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent." That's why no finite number of observations of the past will ever result in confirming the theory. You may be convinced that it is true. It may even be true. However, there is no compelling reason for believing so.

 

[essentialsaltes]

That's why no finite number of observations of the past will ever result in confirming the theory.

That's why no finite number of observations will ever prove the theory.

But science is not about proof.

It is about verification and confirmation to such an extent that the theory warrants tentative acceptance.

If that's not good enough for you, stick to logic and math. But your variety of radical skepticism is not very persuasive.

 

[Split Rock]

Because what you are saying goes completely against what Jesus taught and regarded as true.

First of all, we don't know exactly what Jesus taught, since we have none of his writings (if there were ever any). Secondly, even if we accept that the four gospels that are part of the canon of the church are accurate, Jesus never taught that GEN 1-2 was a literal history. He often taught in parables, and all because he referenced Adam doesn't mean he believed Adam was a real person, or even if it was important to him whether or not Adam was a real person.

I believe Jesus is also the true author of Genesis, written through a godly man.

The idea that God or Jesus spoke directly through the writers of scripture is not even supported by the bible itself. Inspired writing is not the same as dictated writing, no matter how often you guys try to claim otherwise.

The entire book of Genesis was written in a historical Hebrew writing style.

Really? "The tree of the knowledge of good and evil" is an example of an historical Hebrew writing style?? On what evidence do you base such an assertion???

Did it ever occur to you that you are the one misinterpreting it?

Sure. I am very open to the idea I could be wrong. I am also open to understanding what the intent of the authors of GEN actually was... Are You??

 

[DerelictJunction]

No, I never said that radioactive decay was faster in the past. I said that you assume that it is not so. Perhaps that's a correct assumption. Perhaps not. We don't know. No one knows. No one can know. That's what agnosticism is all about–admitting that you don't and can't know.

Second, I'm not interested in calculating or even able to calculate how much energy might have been released. I don't know. You don't know. No one knows. No one can know. That's what agnosticism is all about–admitting that you don't and can't know.

Third, you are talking about heat produced. You assume that heat was produced because you assume that the laws of nature at that point worked the same as they do now. However, I'd like to point out that Christian theology states that the Earth was in such a state that even when a supernatural being such as God, who is believed to radiate so much energy that you would be instantly vaporized if you came into his presence, the Earth shrugged that amount of energy off like nothing.

Fourth, no one knows how that temperature rise might have affected the zircon. No one knows. No one can know. Even to make a guess requires you to make assumptions.

Finally, no, I didn't propose a scenario in which the amount of energy released occurred in 6000 years. If you look at the original post, I threw out a random number of 800,000 years. Additionally, this thread, which I did not start, states unfounded assumptions. However, I never said the assumptions were unfounded. Maybe they are unfounded. Maybe they're extremely well founded. I don't know. You don't know. No one knows. No one can know. That's what agnosticism is all about–admitting that you don't and can't know.

While I left your entire post in as the quote, I believe I can sum it up rather succinctly. You believe that we should be agnostic about everything that happened in the past. Ok, but could we define that a little?
1. How about yesterday or last week or last month? Should we be agnostic about the rates of natural occurrences from last week? If the police find a body, should the forensic scientist assume that the amount of decomposition indicates that the person has been dead for a month based on today's decomposition rates (considering temperature and moisture), or should he not make a "guess" because the decomposition rates might have been significantly higher yesterday?
2. What about location? Should we be agnostic about the rate of combustion for a fire in the next county because we aren't there to observe it? Can we assume that a temperature of -10 degrees F will keep our pork chops from spoiling in our freezer just because that temperature keeps pork chops from spoiling in our neighbor's freezer? For that matter, should we be concerned about where we should put the pork chops in our freezer because one shelf might have an accelerated decomposition rate for pork?

Seriously, you claim that we cannot know if the radioisotope decay rates were faster in the past. My questions were addressing the fact that there are ways of telling that very thing. There are physical indicators that radioactive decay has occurred, and those indicators would be different if the decay was at a different rate than it is now.
So, you claim is bunk unless you can show evidence that decay occurred faster in the past.

 

[bhsmte]

That's why no finite number of observations will ever prove the theory.

But science is not about proof.

It is about verification and confirmation to such an extent that the theory warrants tentative acceptance.

If that's not good enough for you, stick to logic and math. But your variety of radical skepticism is not very persuasive.

No, it's not very persuasive, but everybody has a way of getting their jollies.

 

[Zosimus]

That's why no finite number of observations will ever prove the theory.

But science is not about proof.

It is about verification and confirmation to such an extent that the theory warrants tentative acceptance.

If that's not good enough for you, stick to logic and math. But your variety of radical skepticism is not very persuasive.

So given a large number of logical fallacies a theory warrants tentative acceptance? How many logical fallacies suffice?

 

[Zosimus]

While I left your entire post in as the quote, I believe I can sum it up rather succinctly. You believe that we should be agnostic about everything that happened in the past. Ok, but could we define that a little?
1. How about yesterday or last week or last month? Should we be agnostic about the rates of natural occurrences from last week? If the police find a body, should the forensic scientist assume that the amount of decomposition indicates that the person has been dead for a month based on today's decomposition rates (considering temperature and moisture), or should he not make a "guess" because the decomposition rates might have been significantly higher yesterday?
2. What about location? Should we be agnostic about the rate of combustion for a fire in the next county because we aren't there to observe it? Can we assume that a temperature of -10 degrees F will keep our pork chops from spoiling in our freezer just because that temperature keeps pork chops from spoiling in our neighbor's freezer? For that matter, should we be concerned about where we should put the pork chops in our freezer because one shelf might have an accelerated decomposition rate for pork?

Seriously, you claim that we cannot know if the radioisotope decay rates were faster in the past. My questions were addressing the fact that there are ways of telling that very thing. There are physical indicators that radioactive decay has occurred, and those indicators would be different if the decay was at a different rate than it is now.
So, you claim is bunk unless you can show evidence that decay occurred faster in the past.

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?

 

[essentialsaltes]

So given a large number of logical fallacies a theory warrants tentative acceptance? How many logical fallacies suffice?

Science is not a deductive argument.

If that's not good enough for you, stick to logic and math.

 

[essentialsaltes]

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?

The point is that no one but you is trying to prove a theory true. That's not how science works. If that's not good enough for you, stick to logic and math.

 

[bhsmte]

Science is not a deductive argument.

If that's not good enough for you, stick to logic and math.

Well, he is Mr. Logic.

 

[Zosimus]

Science is not a deductive argument.

If that's not good enough for you, stick to logic and math.

We certainly agree that science, as it is practiced nowadays, has no logical foundation.

Perhaps that's Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.

It might also help explain why In cancer science, many discoveries don't hold up. Are you aware that some 88.7 percent of scientific discoveries cannot be replicated even after years of trying and millions spent?

Since you believe that the past is a good guide to the future, surely you must believe that new scientific studies will also be wrong some 88.7 percent of the time.

 

[EternalDragon]

First of all, we don't know exactly what Jesus taught, since we have none of his writings (if there were ever any). Secondly, even if we accept that the four gospels that are part of the canon of the church are accurate, Jesus never taught that GEN 1-2 was a literal history. He often taught in parables, and all because he referenced Adam doesn't mean he believed Adam was a real person, or even if it was important to him whether or not Adam was a real person.

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?

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.

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