Tackling the "assumptions" of radiometric dating...part 1.

[EternalDragon]

It's worse than this: if ED's contention is correct, that the ages of the rocks are simply maturity, then he has to admit that the FOSSILS were planted there as "maturity" as well. Because there are rocks that date to millions of years old which COVER the fossils.

And there is a crater in mexico that demonstrates HISTORY, not maturity, which dates to 65 million years ago. It's an EVENT which happened 65 million years ago. It would be like Adam having a healed broken bone which he never experienced. Or a scar from an injury which never actually happened.

Evidence please?

 

[lasthero]

Evidence please?

Evidence for what? The meteor impact?

Well, there's the massive crater, for starters...

 

[46AND2]

Evidence please?

What would you like evidence for, specifically? The old rock covering the fossils? How about a fossil INSIDE old rock? Here you go:

PLOS ONE: A Rhinocerotid Skull Cooked-to-Death in a 9.2 Ma-Old Ignimbrite Flow of Turkey

Evidence for the crater occurring 65 million years ago? Tons of stuff on that, you can start here:

Chicxulub crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and google from there.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Evidence please?

You could go look at the huge crater with your own eyes.

 

[lasthero]

You could go look at the huge crater with your own eyes.

In ED's world, craters aren't evidence of meteors.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7773000-6/#post64123426

Yes, that is all you have. Craters. How they got there is up to assumption.

That's right. We just assume that meteors make craters. You don't know, you were there!

 

[46AND2]

Yes, that is all you have. Craters. How they got there is up to assumption.

That's right. We just assume that meteors make craters. You don't know, you were there!

Lol. Never mind the layer of iridium found at that same strat layer, an element that is both rare on earth's crust and common in meteors.

 

[lasthero]

One more kick at the Apparent Age thing, and I'll call it a night.

http://static.bbc.co.uk/universe/img/ic/640/sights/supernovae/supernovae_large.jpg

This is a supernova remnant, ED. When stars die, they send out interstellar mass all over the place, and they look quite pretty.

I'm not good at cosmology, I'll admit, but the first problem that occurs to me is that God apparently made the universe with stars that were already in the process of dying, which seems a bit odd. But I think it's even worse than that really.

The supernova remnants span millions and millions of lightyears. There's no way they got that far out in 6,000 years - they expand, at best, at a tenth the speed of light. So, I see two explanations.

Either that interstellar mass really has been expanding for millions of years

or

God made the universe with supernova remnants...from supernovae that never actually happened...from stars that never actually existed.

Again, not a cosmologist, so someone with more expertise can correct me, but I think Occam's Razor favors the former.

 

[Loudmouth]

1. Young sample does not always have that problem.

And what happenes? They are shown to have young ages.


For example, Dalrymple and Krummenacher tested 45 lava flows from recorded history using Ar/Ar dating. The worst deviation was a flow from Mt. Etna that dated to 250,000 years old. Others were dead on, such as the Mt. Vesuvius flow.
Radiometric Dating Does Work! | NCSE

None of them dated to hundreds of millions. All of them dated to the extreme bottom of the range for that technique.

 

[46AND2]

Part two will be up in a couple days, and I will be adding a part 4 dealing with atmospheric carbon.

 

[46AND2]

I had mentioned that there was a potential nitpick that someone might point out, but I think I've given it enough time.

If you compare the graphs that I made with the one done with real data, you will notice that the actual isochron does not have a data point on the Y-intercept.

This is because, in my teaching model, the y-intercept had a data point representing a mineral which excluded Rubidium entirely. This was a hypothetical data point to illustrate that the y-intercept represents the concentrations of Sr87:Sr86 before any radioactivity had occurred, and hence represents the location of the flat line of a newly formed rock.

In reality, in the unlikely event that there was a rock which measured some level of Sr87, but no Rb87, it would not be used as a sample, because the Rubidium could have decayed away at some random time in the rock's history, and it would not fall on the y-intercept, or the isochron line at all, for that reason.

So, when we create an isochron, the line created by the real data points is extended to the y-intercept, where a rock with no initial Rubidium would be, if it formed at the same time as the other samples.

And this tells us what the initial concentration of Sr87:Sr86 was.

 

[Loudmouth]

One more kick at the Apparent Age thing, and I'll call it a night.

http://static.bbc.co.uk/universe/img/ic/640/sights/supernovae/supernovae_large.jpg

This is a supernova remnant, ED. When stars die, they send out interstellar mass all over the place, and they look quite pretty.

I'm not good at cosmology, I'll admit, but the first problem that occurs to me is that God apparently made the universe with stars that were already in the process of dying, which seems a bit odd. But I think it's even worse than that really.

The supernova remnants span millions and millions of lightyears. There's no way they got that far out in 6,000 years - they expand, at best, at a tenth the speed of light. So, I see two explanations.

Either that interstellar mass really has been expanding for millions of years

or

God made the universe with supernova remnants...from supernovae that never actually happened...from stars that never actually existed.

Again, not a cosmologist, so someone with more expertise can correct me, but I think Occam's Razor favors the former.

If God is willing to deceive us in the creation, why wouldn't he do the same in the Bible? That is the real problem that the Omphalos hypothesis poses. If we can't trust the creation to tell us the truth, why should we trust the Bible?

 

[EternalDragon]

It's worse than this: if ED's contention is correct, that the ages of the rocks are simply maturity, then he has to admit that the FOSSILS were planted there as "maturity" as well. Because there are rocks that date to millions of years old which COVER the fossils.

And there is a crater in mexico that demonstrates HISTORY, not maturity, which dates to 65 million years ago. It's an EVENT which happened 65 million years ago. It would be like Adam having a healed broken bone which he never experienced. Or a scar from an injury which never actually happened.

If you go by the stated dates, yes. However the dates are incorrect. They are assumed.

 

[EternalDragon]

You could go look at the huge crater with your own eyes.

And I would see a crater hole. That is evidence that the earth took a hit at some point. I would guess at the start of Noah's flood since it is dated to those sediment layers that formed during the flood.

 

[lasthero]

I would guess at the start of Noah's flood since it is dated to those sediment layers that formed during the flood.

No, it isn't dated to those layers.

And it's not the only crater, either. There are others. Many others. That one isn't even the biggest, by a large margin.

 

[lasthero]

If you go by the stated dates, yes. However the dates are incorrect. They are assumed.

They are not assumed. The first post in this topic shows they are not assumed. Please, address the first post and show where the assumptions are.

 

[lasthero]

I would guess at the start of Noah's flood since it is dated to those sediment layers that formed during the flood.

One more thing, now that I really think about it - that is one crazy coincidence you're proposing. Ignoring, for a moment, all the other massive impact craters we know about, it's a little weird that, of all the times this meteor could have hit, it would land RIGHT BEFORE THE FLOOD. Meteors of that size are quite rare, and they've never hit the Earth in all of recorded history.

I'm guessing you would say that God was behind it, but that seems a bit weird - the Bible makes no mention of any such thing, and it would be pointless, anyway, since the Flood by itself would have done a fine job killing everything on land. Why smack the Earth with a meteor?

 

[lesliedellow]

Creationists have got a long history of untruths and half truths, so what's new?

 

[Loudmouth]

If you go by the stated dates, yes. However the dates are incorrect. They are assumed.

They aren't assumed. They are measured.

 

[Loudmouth]

And I would see a crater hole. That is evidence that the earth took a hit at some point. I would guess at the start of Noah's flood since it is dated to those sediment layers that formed during the flood.

You would guess? And you accuse us of making assumptions?

When the meteor struck, it melted the crust of the Earth and threw it up in the air. While in the air, the melted crust cooled and solidified, creating globs of rock called tektites.

Tektite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When the tektites were molten, argon boils out of the molten rock. However, there is potassium in those tektites, including the radioactive isotope potassium-40 which decays into argon. In the solidified rock, any argon that is formed from the decay of potassium stays in the solidified rock. Therefore, the argon we find in tektites is from the decay of potassium-40.

When we look at the tektites associated with the Chicxulub impact from all around the US, South America, Mexico, and the Carribiean, they all have the same K/Ar date of ~65 million years. That is how we know that the impact happened 65 million years ago, because the evidence produced by the impact, the tektites, allow us to date the impact. Here is a chart showing the results:

Radiometric Dating Does Work! | NCSE

How do you explain this data?

 

[AECellini]

And I would see a crater hole. That is evidence that the earth took a hit at some point. I would guess at the start of Noah's flood since it is dated to those sediment layers that formed during the flood.

so you would prefer imprecise and mythological guesswork to supposed scientific "guesswork."

it's funny because one involves actual work to figure out what is really happening and what has happened.