Sea lilies- 280 million years ago.

[River Jordan]

Any other interpretations of the evidence will not convince me if they are counter to my presuppositions — and I’m no different than anyone else, in that regard.

No, not everyone works that way. A lot of people don't think themselves infallible like that.

 

[sjastro]

Walt Brown has pulled a lot of diverse facts together, organized them and explains what they are and what they might mean. His work is credible to me solely because he starts with the same presuppositions as I do. Namely, the Bible is the Word of God and can be trusted to be true. Any other interpretations of the evidence will not convince me if they are counter to my presuppositions — and I’m no different than anyone else, in that regard. Arguments would only move me if I wasn’t satisfied with what I already know to be true.

This is how how confirmation bias works, you are not interested in the details that Brown's theory is hopelessly wrong, you support it because it agrees with your POV.

Right… Where precisely on the rock was the date of origin written down? Was that in the picture?

I thought I made it perfectly clear in my previous post scientists do not rely on a single dating method.
In the table in post #153, the chondrules are directly dated using Pb-Pb isochrons and indirectly dated using Al-Mg chronometry.
In the latter case along with chondrules other features such as calcium-aluminium rich inclusions (CAIs) are also found in meteorites.

CAIs are dated using Al-Mg and cross checked with U-Pb and being older than chondrules effectively set the time t=0 for chondrule formation.

Meteorites are dated with a variety of methods.

As stated previously it is a remarkable coincidence that different dating methods should produce the same errors if they are all wrong and even if this was the case it is a fallacious argument as it doesn't prove the earth is 6000 years old.

 

[awstar]

sjastro​

you support it because it agrees with your POV.

My assumptions are based on a more sure Rock. I am very satisfied with that.

CAIs are dated using Al-Mg and cross checked with U-Pb and being older than chondrules effectively set the time t=0 for chondrule formation.

Isn't this an assumption? In fact, isn't it an unprovable assumption -- as the YEC scientists said in the video? If your assumptions turn out to be wrong, your date turns out to be wrong. I am very sure my assumption will prove to be more accurate than yours.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My assumptions are based on a more sure Rock. I am very satisfied with that.




Isn't this an assumption? In fact, isn't it an unprovable assumption -- as the YEC scientists said in the video? If your assumptions turn out to be wrong, your date turns out to be wrong. I am very sure my assumption will prove to be more accurate than yours.

You've not shown how it's an assumption though. Just saying it is an assumption doesn't make it so.

 

[AV1611VET]

My assumptions are based on a more sure Rock. I am very satisfied with that.

I'm more interested in the Rock of Ages, than I am the age of rocks.

 

[sjastro]

My assumptions are based on a more sure Rock. I am very satisfied with that.

You are in the wrong forum, science is based on evidence and you do not have a shred of evidence the earth is 6000 years old as any of the other multiple interpretations of the Bible given over the centuries.

At least OECists have the sense of accepting the science in their belief system.

Isn't this an assumption? In fact, isn't it an unprovable assumption -- as the YEC scientists said in the video? If your assumptions turn out to be wrong, your date turns out to be wrong. I am very sure my assumption will prove to be more accurate than yours.

Your response is another example of being blinded by confirmation bias, you should try reading my posts again.

To reiterate scientists do not make assumptions because they are not relying on the strength of a single test procedure.
By developing multiple procedures for the age of the earth allows independent confirmation of the results.

Your so called YEC scientists are either grossly ignorant or know this in which case they are engaging in straight out lying which is not suprising as creationist sites are renowned for doing this.

 

[SelfSim]

...
To reiterate scientists do not make assumptions because they are not relying on the strength of a single test procedure.
By developing multiple procedures for the age of the earth allows independent confirmation of the results.

I think the case might be even stronger because its not just dependent on those multiple procedures, also(?)

Radioisotoptic decay rates have substantial evidence demonstrating their constancy throughout 'deep' (looking backwards) periods of time.
Ie: a test of decay rates carried out in the present, would yield the same results as if they were conducted 100s of millions (or billions) of years ago, regardless of the specific type of radioisotope used in any given test.

I agree .. I don't think there's any (known) untested assumptions in anything I've said there, what's more(?)

 

[sjastro]

I think the case might be even stronger because its not just dependent on those multiple procedures, also(?)

Radioisotoptic decay rates have substantial evidence demonstrating their constancy throughout 'deep' (looking backwards) periods of time.
Ie: a test of decay rates carried out in the present, would yield the same results as if they were conducted 100s of millions (or billions) of years ago, regardless of the specific type of radioisotope used in any given test.

I agree .. I don't think there's any (known) untested assumptions in anything I've said there, what's more(?)

I chose the option of having different test processes involving the decay of different elements which can be crosschecked and confirmed as the simplest refutation that starting isotopic ratios and constant decay rates are assumed.

One can go deeper by incorporating nuclear physics which further exposes the amateurish efforts of these so called YEC scientists in defending creationism.
For example, they refer to the starting ratio of the daughter to parent atoms in the decay of elements but ignore either through incompetence or dishonesty another even more important ratio, unstable to stable isotopes for the elements.
The advantage of this ratio it occurs in the present which can be measured unlike a zero daughter to parent ratio which occurred in the past.

This leads me back to my post #162 where meteorites contain both chondrules and CAIs (calcium aluminium inclusions).
Now for some nuclear physics, AI has 22 isotopes 20 of which are highly unstable and have half-life’s of a few minutes.
The two important isotopes are ²⁷AI (stable) and ²⁶Al which has a half-life of approximately 720,000 years according to theory involving the weak nuclear interaction.
²⁶Al undergoes β⁺ decay where a proton is converted to neutron according to the equation ²⁶Al → ²⁶Mg + β⁺ + νₑ.

In the CAI’s there is a total absence of ²⁶Al but only ²⁶Mg, from this we can conclude at the time when the CAI formed the amount of ²⁶Al was equal to the ²⁶Mg measured today.
Knowing that ²⁷AI is stable and the half-life of ²⁶Al is around 720,000 years the ²⁶Al/²⁷AI ratio when the CAIs formed in the solar system is
≈ 5 x 10⁻⁵ which occurred around 4.6 billion years ago.
The ²⁶Al/²⁷AI ratio for chondrules was lower at the time of their formation some 1-2 million years later and being encapsulated by the surrounding matrix protected them from external effects which could have affected the ratio.

 

[awstar]

You are in the wrong forum, science is based on evidence and you do not have a shred of evidence the earth is 6000 years old as any of the other multiple interpretations of the Bible given over the centuries.

At least OECists have the sense of accepting the science in their belief system.


Your response is another example of being blinded by confirmation bias, you should try reading my posts again.

To reiterate scientists do not make assumptions because they are not relying on the strength of a single test procedure.
By developing multiple procedures for the age of the earth allows independent confirmation of the results.

Your so called YEC scientists are either grossly ignorant or know this in which case they are engaging in straight out lying which is not suprising as creationist sites are renowned for doing this.

One of the two men, who you refer to as “my YEC scientists”, has been in charge of an engineering group at a university in the UK since 1995. The group is called “Mass Spectrometry & Instrumentation Group” and according to their web site say: “Our expertise covers theory, modelling, design, simulation, fabrication, control electronics, data processing, method development, validation and verification.”

I have no expertise in this field of science, but I think it is safe to rule out your assumption that the one of the individuals you called out may be “grossly ignorant”. So that leaves you with your remaining assumption that he must be straight out lying. But then he has patents on some of the instruments designed and built to do the measurements that produce data points -- like those you base your interpretation on. So does that mean the instrumentation that you use to come up with your numbers may be in error because they have been designed by a team that is managed by a straight out liar?

I think I can rule out that assumption also. Of course, I’m only basing this on the information I have from the internet.

Do you still claim the assertion of these two YEC scientists ( that three of the assumptions that are required to be made in order to come up with a valid age of rocks cannot be proven ) is in error?

The interpretation of age that you come up with, which is based on both the comparison you make between two processes and the comparison you make to other standards will still be in error if one or more of the three assumptions (which "my scientists" say cannot be proven) is in error. Just by the fact that your interpretation of the data, and output from the other processes and the standards are all based on the same unprovable assumptions.

That seems like simple “logic”, not science. Is using “logic” also out of place in this forum?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

One of the two men, who you refer to as “my YEC scientists”, has been in charge of an engineering group at a university in the UK since 1995. The group is called “Mass Spectrometry & Instrumentation Group” and according to their web site say: “Our expertise covers theory, modelling, design, simulation, fabrication, control electronics, data processing, method development, validation and verification.”

I have no expertise in this field of science, but I think it is safe to rule out your assumption that the one of the individuals you called out may be “grossly ignorant”. So that leaves you with your remaining assumption that he must be straight out lying. But then he has patents on some of the instruments designed and built to do the measurements that produce data points -- like those you base your interpretation on. So does that mean the instrumentation that you use to come up with your numbers may be in error because they have been designed by a team that is managed by a straight out liar?

I think I can rule out that assumption also. Of course, I’m only basing this on the information I have from the internet.

Do you still claim the assertion of these two YEC scientists ( that three of the assumptions that are required to be made in order to come up with a valid age of rocks cannot be proven ) is in error?

The interpretation of age that you come up with, which is based on both the comparison you make between two processes and the comparison you make to other standards will still be in error if one or more of the three assumptions (which "my scientists" say cannot be proven) is in error. Just by the fact that your interpretation of the data, and output from the other processes and the standards are all based on the same unprovable assumptions.

That seems like simple “logic”, not science. Is using “logic” also out of place in this forum?

Why do YEC's trust the word of engineers over other scientists? It really is the Salem Hypothesis come to roost.

 

[sjastro]

One of the two men, who you refer to as “my YEC scientists”, has been in charge of an engineering group at a university in the UK since 1995. The group is called “Mass Spectrometry & Instrumentation Group” and according to their web site say: “Our expertise covers theory, modelling, design, simulation, fabrication, control electronics, data processing, method development, validation and verification.”

I have no expertise in this field of science, but I think it is safe to rule out your assumption that the one of the individuals you called out may be “grossly ignorant”. So that leaves you with your remaining assumption that he must be straight out lying. But then he has patents on some of the instruments designed and built to do the measurements that produce data points -- like those you base your interpretation on. So does that mean the instrumentation that you use to come up with your numbers may be in error because they have been designed by a team that is managed by a straight out liar?

I think I can rule out that assumption also. Of course, I’m only basing this on the information I have from the internet.

You are blissfully unaware of making the case the individual is incompetent or a liar because his field of expertise as you have pointed out is in design and construction of instruments.

I would be an end user of his products in the field of forensic engineering or a mass spectrometer used by geologists and planetary scientists for dating rocks and meteorites but it does not make him an expert in any of these fields as evidenced by the video for the unfounded statements scientists are using assumptions.

Do you still claim the assertion of these two YEC scientists ( that three of the assumptions that are required to be made in order to come up with a valid age of rocks cannot be proven ) is in error?

The interpretation of age that you come up with, which is based on both the comparison you make between two processes and the comparison you make to other standards will still be in error if one or more of the three assumptions (which "my scientists" say cannot be proven) is in error. Just by the fact that your interpretation of the data, and output from the other processes and the standards are all based on the same unprovable assumptions.

That seems like simple “logic”, not science. Is using “logic” also out of place in this forum?

Since you use the term logic perhaps you should practice what you preach.

Firstly there is argument of repetition fallacy which you use either as a substitute for failing to comprehend or accept why scientists are not making assumptions for the reasons given in this thread.
Secondly is the false dichotomy fallacy, the video is not evidence for a 6000 year old earth by making dishonest or ignorant claims about the science.

Scientists are led by the evidence not assumptions and when all the different dating methods for the oldest earth rocks and meteorites are included which show the error bars overlap indicating consistency it makes the assumption argument even more ludicrous

Then there is the chronometry test described in detail in post #168.

Instead of engaging in logical fallacies since this is a science forum it is up to you provide real evidence which counters the evidence provided in this thread instead of an amateurish video.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why do YEC's trust the word of engineers over other scientists? It really is the Salem Hypothesis come to roost.

Engineers aren't scientists.

 

[SelfSim]

So, I've now watched most of this video. It gets kinda interesting around the 20 Min mark. They come up with 3 or 4 'assumptions' the PhD Power Engineer believes are: 'unprovable'. They all appear to be about the uncertainties about the starting conditions of the sample under test. He claims they are not 'provable' and that's what he relies upon, in order for him to hold onto his preconceived beliefs. Its a misconception about science he's got running.

Science doesn't deal in 'provable' truths. All of science's claims in this dating method sub topic, are inference based conclusions and not 'truths'. 'Tis the power engineer who seems to think that science's claims are 'truths'.

My summary is: he is yet another 'truth seeker', who is completely mistaken about how science works .. (which, FWIW, personally speaking, comes as no great surprise .. there's another frequent poster on this forum who has the same mental blockage, who seems to co-incidentally work in a similar field as the Power Engineer in the video).
PS: Apologies if I'm restating things already understood here. FWIW: I'm still coming up to speed on the core issues in this debate, which may help other readers come up to speed also).

 

[Hans Blaster]

So, I've now watched most of this video. It gets kinda interesting around the 20 Min mark. They come up with 3 or 4 'assumptions' the PhD Power Engineer believes are: 'unprovable'. They all appear to be about the uncertainties about the starting conditions of the sample under test. He claims they are not 'provable' and that's what he relies upon, in order for him to hold onto his preconceived beliefs. Its a misconception about science he's got running.

And that bit is followed by the professional creationist talking about tissue decay and then the power engineer talks about tissue and molecular decay followed by the motivations behind his motivated reasoning. (Saving the bible, apparently)

Science doesn't deal in 'provable' truths. All of science's claims in this dating method sub topic, are inference based conclusions and not 'truths'. 'Tis the power engineer who seems to think that science's claims are 'truths'.

My summary is: he is yet another 'truth seeker', who is completely mistaken about how science works .. (which, FWIW, personally speaking, comes as no great surprise .. there's another frequent poster on this forum who has the same mental blockage, who seems to co-incidentally work in a similar field as the Power Engineer in the video).
PS: Apologies if I'm restating things already understood here. FWIW: I'm still coming up to speed on the core issues in this debate, which may help other readers come up to speed also).

 

[SelfSim]

And that bit is followed by the professional creationist talking about tissue decay and then the power engineer talks about tissue and molecular decay followed by the motivations behind his motivated reasoning. (Saving the bible, apparently)

Y'know one of the biggest issues I see in these forums is not recognising the bottoms-up approach of the scientific method.
Many, many threads here derail because of the 'If .. {so and so} is true .. then ..' top-down approach .. so there is an assumption being tested there and evidence is being sought to verify or compare it with, the preconceived notion that some sort of 'truth' exists in the first place .. (which is an undisclosed, undistiguished assumption about the existence of that truth, which science is completely disinterested in!)

Science doesn't, and more importantly couldn't work that way when that assumption hasn't already been tested, or even worse, can't even be tested in principle!
If it did, it would cease being science and would become something completely different.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Engineers aren't scientists.

Which is funny when YECs try to use engineers to debunk or show that science is wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is funny when YECs try to use engineers to debunk or show that science is wrong.

This is why I prefer the word "academians" to "scientists" now.

I get the feeling even they don't know what they are.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is why I prefer the word "academians" to "scientists" now.

I get the feeling even they don't know what they are.

I get the feeling that you don't either and you just want to lash out at anyone you feel threatens your own interpretation of the Bible. Like a toddler.

 

[SelfSim]

This is why I prefer the word "academians" to "scientists" now.

I get the feeling even they don't know what they are.

.. a classic display of anti-intellectualism and self-projectionism .. in just 2 sentences, one post!

 

[sjastro]

So, I've now watched most of this video. It gets kinda interesting around the 20 Min mark. They come up with 3 or 4 'assumptions' the PhD Power Engineer believes are: 'unprovable'. They all appear to be about the uncertainties about the starting conditions of the sample under test. He claims they are not 'provable' and that's what he relies upon, in order for him to hold onto his preconceived beliefs. Its a misconception about science he's got running.

Science doesn't deal in 'provable' truths. All of science's claims in this dating method sub topic, are inference based conclusions and not 'truths'. 'Tis the power engineer who seems to think that science's claims are 'truths'.

My summary is: he is yet another 'truth seeker', who is completely mistaken about how science works .. (which, FWIW, personally speaking, comes as no great surprise .. there's another frequent poster on this forum who has the same mental blockage, who seems to co-incidentally work in a similar field as the Power Engineer in the video).
PS: Apologies if I'm restating things already understood here. FWIW: I'm still coming up to speed on the core issues in this debate, which may help other readers come up to speed also).

While @awstar might think of himself as the bastion of logic in this thread which instead has been shown to be seriously lacking, he also fails to understand the video is a classic example of a circular argument.

If 6000 year old creationism happens to be “true” for lack of a better term, this should form the conclusion which comes at the end of a series of arguments such as presenting the evidence. Instead they have put the conclusion before the arguments making it circular, furthermore since no evidence is presented, the arguments are based on mainstream science making assumptions.
Not only is this a false dichotomy but hypocritical as their “conclusion” is also based on an assumption.

Of the three assumptions that mainstream science is supposedly making is based on the creationist premise of rocks being born by popping into existence complete with mineralogical composition.
Meteorites refute the two of the three assumptions.
Rocks did not pop into existence, the precursors for meteorite formation are the CAI inclusions and chondrules.

The initial ²⁶AI/²⁷AI ratio is accurately known for CAI inclusions and chondrules as shown in post #168 which refutes the claim of mainstream science making assumptions of a zero ratio.
The assumption about a closed system is also refuted as CAIs and chondrules are encapsulated in meteorites providing a pristine environment, it is for this reason why the age of the solar system is based on meteorite testing rather than earth rocks.
Then we come to the third assumption of the reaction rates of being constant, here we can use simple logic advocated by @awstar but doesn’t apply.
If the reaction rates were different in the past where a 4.55 billion year old earth was actually only 6000 years old would require the decay constants to be increased by many orders of magnitude.
This would mean many of the isotopes we see in nature today would not be around further compounded by the fact astronomers using large telescopes and sensitive spectrometers are able to probe deep into the past and detect isotopes which should have long since disappeared.

Creationists should stick to the religion only parts of this site as their arguments are faith based instead of relying on sites such as ICR which are renowned for the misinformation they spread about science.