Radiometric Dating: An immutable proof of old Earth.

[Subduction Zone]

Is 200 million years very old or not?
I believe it is, to you and to me.
But it is NOT, to those who argued with information in the OP. To them, anything less then 4500 million years is NOT old.

Actually 200 million years is simply wrong and there is no reason to believe such a date. Why do you have a problem with the answer given to you by science. We can tell by rates of deposition and erosion that the Earth is older than 200 million years old. Heck even rotating asteroids tell us that the solar system is billions of years old. Here is part one:

And a link to part two:

ETA: I thought that only one video was allowed per post. I see that I was wrong. Nice.

 

[Papias]

How does radiometric dating work: This experiment is so basic that one of the many variants are done every semester by millions of students in college. The equation is the same, it doesn't matter if the half-life is seconds or millions of years.

Thanks for making radioactive decay so simple and easy to understand. In addition to this, it's important to point out to anyone who denies the reality and reliability of radioactive dating that radioactive dating has been confirmed over and over. This is because of the thousands of times samples can be tested by multiple methods, including non-radioactive methods. When this is done, the results agree with each other, confirming the dates.

When geology deniers deny radioactive dating, the next logical question for them is:

"why do the various dating methods (including C14, K-Ar, varves, dendrochronology, ice cores, obsidian, protein racecimization, speleotherms, superposition, geologic event dating, geomagnetic polarity, Pb/U, association, Rb/St, and others, many of which aren't based on radioactivity), agree with each other when more than one can be used on the same sample, over thousands of tests on on thousands of samples?"

After all, if all these methods were unreliable, they'd give different dates - unless they "just happened" to all give the same "wrong" dates - which is extremely unlikely.

-Papias

 

[juvenissun]

Stars burn using fusion, which depends on the nuclear force constants. If the constants weren't constant, stars would look different when we look at distant ones. They don't. Radioactive decay depends on these nuclear force constants. Since these constants are constant, radiometric dating is valid.

If the constants changed, how would distant stars look different?

 

[The Cadet]

If we do not know why, then it might change.

Okay, buuuuuut there's absolutely no reason to believe that it could, has, or will change. All the evidence available indicates that it cannot and has not changed. If your standard of evidence is "prove everything 100% completely perfectly right with absolutely no caveats", then I'm afraid I'd be hard-pressed to demonstrate that I exist to you, let alone that radioactive decay rates are unchanging. But at that point, you've left not just science, but any form of rational discourse far behind you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If the constants changed, how would distant stars look different?

Changing the constants would cause the stars to burn either hotter or cooler. The spectrum that they emit would change as a result.

 

[juvenissun]

Okay, buuuuuut there's absolutely no reason to believe that it could, has, or will change. All the evidence available indicates that it cannot and has not changed. If your standard of evidence is "prove everything 100% completely perfectly right with absolutely no caveats", then I'm afraid I'd be hard-pressed to demonstrate that I exist to you, let alone that radioactive decay rates are unchanging. But at that point, you've left not just science, but any form of rational discourse far behind you.

I do not need any prove. I just want an explanation.
So far, we only have data for the theory, no principle. Many dots may show a line, but it is NOT a line.

 

[juvenissun]

Changing the constants would cause the stars to burn either hotter or cooler. The spectrum that they emit would change as a result.

We do see many hotter and cooler stars.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We do see many hotter and cooler stars.

Yes, and their spectra does fit into the current understanding. If you changed the constants you would change many aspects of those spectra. One part of the spectra of stars is the light that is not there. Absorption spectra tells us what elements that the light passed through. Those would change with changing constants.

 

[Papias]

How do we know it was constant in the past?

Juvi, haven't we talked about this many times before?

We know they were constant and the same in the past because many different dating methods confirm each other, including non-radiometric dating methods. If the constants changed, they wouldn't match the other methods, such as varves, dendrochronology, coral growth, and many others.

Do you agree that the agreement of methods confirms that the rates are constant, along with the other other evidence that they are constant, etc.?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, and their spectra does fit into the current understanding. If you changed the constants you would change many aspects of those spectra. One part of the spectra of stars is the light that is not there. Absorption spectra tells us what elements that the light passed through. Those would change with changing constants.

How to make the comparison?
Compare this star to that star? They are different. So what?

 

[juvenissun]

Juvi, haven't we talked about this many times before?

We know they were constant and the same in the past because many different dating methods confirm each other, including non-radiometric dating methods. If the constants changed, they wouldn't match the other methods, such as varves, dendrochronology, coral growth, and many others.

Do you agree that the agreement of methods confirms that the rates are constant, along with the other other evidence that they are constant, etc.?

In Christ-

Papias

So, for one sample, the Rb/Sr age matches the K/Ar age. How would that suggest the constants were not changed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How to make the comparison?
Compare this star to that star? They are different. So what?

The differences tell us a lot about the stars. Again, you need to learn for yourself sooner or later. People will not spoon feed you everything. And if they did your understanding would be lacking. Finding out yourself is a better way to learn than asking pointless question after pointless question.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If the constants changed, how would distant stars look different?

If nuclear binding were stronger, all hydrogen in stars would have already been fused into other elements. Distant stars and galaxies would not have hydrogen lines in their spectra. But they do.
If nuclear binding were weaker, stars couldn't fuse hydrogen at all. We would see no distant stars.

While Martin Rees somewhat overstates the case for 'fine tuning', it still illustrates the general point: "The measure of nuclear efficiency, ε for epsilon, has a value of 0.007. If it had a value of 0.006 there would be no other elements: hydrogen could not fuse into helium and the stars could not have cooked up carbon, iron, complex chemistry and, ultimately, us. Had it been a smidgen higher, at 0.008, protons would have fused in the big bang, leaving no hydrogen to fuel future stars or deliver the Evian water."

 

[SkyWriting]

I remember reading a book that said the earth is less than 10,000 years old. At that time I didn't question what I read.

You should always question anybody who speaks of
things without first hand knowledge.

 

[juvenissun]

If nuclear binding were stronger, all hydrogen in stars would have already been fused into other elements. Distant stars and galaxies would not have hydrogen lines in their spectra. But they do.
If nuclear binding were weaker, stars couldn't fuse hydrogen at all. We would see no distant stars.

While Martin Rees somewhat overstates the case for 'fine tuning', it still illustrates the general point: "The measure of nuclear efficiency, ε for epsilon, has a value of 0.007. If it had a value of 0.006 there would be no other elements: hydrogen could not fuse into helium and the stars could not have cooked up carbon, iron, complex chemistry and, ultimately, us. Had it been a smidgen higher, at 0.008, protons would have fused in the big bang, leaving no hydrogen to fuel future stars or deliver the Evian water."

Nice knowledge. But I fail to see how would that related to the decay constant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nice knowledge. But I fail to see how would that related to the decay constant.

You asked a separate question on why the stars would look different. He answered that one there.

 

[Papias]

So, for one sample, the Rb/Sr age matches the K/Ar age. How would that suggest the constants were not changed?

No Juvi - I said that the radiometric methods are confirmed by non-radiometric methods, such as dendrochronology, varves, etc. That shows that the constants haven't changed. Can you confirm that you understood I said "non-radiometric", and gave examples?

Plus, if you are going to claim that the constants have changed, you not only have to explain the confirmations we are discussing, but also offer evidence that they have changed. You can't logically say "oh, they might have changed so they did change.".

Thanks-

Papias
P. S. Though the example you gave also supports the constants not changing (though not as strongly), since your example shows that the Rb decay is confirmed by the K decay.

 

[juvenissun]

No Juvi - I said that the radiometric methods are confirmed by non-radiometric methods, such as dendrochronology, varves, etc. That shows that the constants haven't changed. Can you confirm that you understood I said "non-radiometric", and gave examples? Thanks-

Papias

Time period dated by those methods may not be long enough to see the change.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Time period dated by those methods may not be long enough to see the change.

Clutching at straws again. Plus it does not really matter. We knew that the Earth was at least hundreds upon hundreds of millions of years old before radiometric dating. All that radiometric dating does is to give a solid number to what earlier was a rather crude estimate.

So one more time, we knew that the Earth was old before radiometric dating. Did you see the videos that I linked about asteroids tumbling? It is some pretty cool stuff that show us that the solar system is billions of years old. There are no properly done tests that show that the Earth is young. Taking away radiometric dating will not make YECism possible. It is simply another tool that only shows that the Earth is very old, and it is a useful one too. If it did not work in reality it would not be very useful.

 

[Papias]

Time period dated by those methods may not be long enough to see the change.

Non-radiometric methods can confirm the entire range, such as helioseismic dating, which confirms the sun's age at 4.6 billion years. Another method that reaches ages of a billion or more years is magnetostratigraphy.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...390.1115B

So Juvi, do you agree with the accepted geologic timeline for the history of the earth?

Papias