The Danger of Creationism

[essentialsaltes]

By dating rocks of known ages which give highly inflated ages, geologists have shown this method can’t give reliable absolute ages.

No, by improperly using radiometric dating techniques on inappropriate samples, professional creationists have claimed this method can't give reliable absolute ages.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm knew here but she must be following me if you can do that she pops up wherever I go. I don't really understand why these people feel the need to come here and ridicule believers about our beliefs but it is amusing to talk to them. She doesn't talk though she just attacks and most of the time makes no sense.

I agree completely.

Chuck Swindoll once used the verse ...

1 Corinthians 9:24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.

... and pointed out that there are two types of people that critique you when you're training for a race:

1. Those who are coaching you and want to see you improve.
2. Those who just sit on the sidelines and take potshots at you.

Guess which one she is?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Radiometric dating measures the decay of radioactive atoms to determine the age of a rock sample. It is founded on unprovable assumptions such as 1) there has been no contamination and 2) the decay rate has remained constant. By dating rocks of known ages which give highly inflated ages, geologists have shown this method can’t give reliable absolute ages.

Yep, is definitely done with radioactive decays. Ya got that right.

1. There has been a lot of effort in geochemistry to test contamination possibilities and to use that knowledge in assessing the usefulness of specific techniques on specific kinds of rocks and minerals. You should check with a geochemist or geologist for more details.

2. Constancy of decay rates: all of the measurements we have are consistent with constant decay rates. There are also measurements of distant galaxies that show the physical constants are just that (within narrow measurement error bars). Radiocarbon can be calibrated against historical dates. (Not specifically about how the Earth is dated, but the decay rate for C14 is based on the exact same nuclear constants that the Earth-dating decays are.) The constancy of the rates is well established.

[3, but unnumbered] You seem to be complaining about certain dating anomalies. Many of these have been trotted out on this board before and they are a collection of misused techniques (see item 1) and outright deception.

Finally, the age of the Earth is consistent with cosmological and astronomical measurements of the age of the Galaxy and Universe and with helioseismology the actual age of the Sun can be measured at 4-6 billion years.

 

[BPPLEE]

No, by improperly using radiometric dating techniques on inappropriate samples, professional creationists have claimed this method can't give reliable absolute ages.

How do you prove the accuracy of radiometric dating? Do you have samples you already know the age of that you can test for accuracy?

 

[BPPLEE]

Yep, is definitely done with radioactive days. Ya got that right.

1. There has been a lot of effort in geochemistry to test contamination possibilities and to use that knowledge in assessing the usefulness of specific techniques on specific kinds of rocks and minerals. You should check with a geochemist or geologist for more details.

2. Constancy of decay rates: all of the measurements we have are consistent with constant decay rates. There are also measurements of distant galaxies that show the physical constants are just that (within narrow measurement error bars). Radiocarbon can be calibrated against historical dates. (Not specifically about how the Earth is dated, but the decay rate for C14 is based on the exact same nuclear constants that the Earth-dating decays are.) The constancy of the rates is well established.

[3, but unnumbered] You seem to be complaining about certain dating anomalies. Many of these have been trotted out on this board before and they are a collection of misused techniques (see item 1) and outright deception.

Finally, the age of the Earth is consistent with cosmological and astronomical measurements of the age of the Galaxy and Universe and with helioseismology the actual age of the Sun can be measured at 4-6 billion years.

Again that may be correct but is not absolute. It may not be.

 

[BPPLEE]

Yep, is definitely done with radioactive decays. Ya got that right.

1. There has been a lot of effort in geochemistry to test contamination possibilities and to use that knowledge in assessing the usefulness of specific techniques on specific kinds of rocks and minerals. You should check with a geochemist or geologist for more details.

2. Constancy of decay rates: all of the measurements we have are consistent with constant decay rates. There are also measurements of distant galaxies that show the physical constants are just that (within narrow measurement error bars). Radiocarbon can be calibrated against historical dates. (Not specifically about how the Earth is dated, but the decay rate for C14 is based on the exact same nuclear constants that the Earth-dating decays are.) The constancy of the rates is well established.

[3, but unnumbered] You seem to be complaining about certain dating anomalies. Many of these have been trotted out on this board before and they are a collection of misused techniques (see item 1) and outright deception.

Finally, the age of the Earth is consistent with cosmological and astronomical measurements of the age of the Galaxy and Universe and with helioseismology the actual age of the Sun can be measured at 4-6 billion years.

What about Steller evolution? How can a star be older than the universe?

 

[essentialsaltes]

How do you prove the accuracy of radiometric dating? Do you have samples you already know the age of that you can test for accuracy?

In the case of radiocarbon dating, absolutely, yes.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What about Steller evolution? How can a star be older than the universe?

Stellar evolution is part of the evidence for the age of the Earth.

What star are you speaking of? (To go slightly off topic.)

 

[BPPLEE]

In the case of radiocarbon dating, absolutely, yes.

You have a sample that you know is 4.5 billion years old before you test it? How?

 

[BPPLEE]

Stellar evolution is part of the evidence for the age of the Earth.

What star are you speaking of? (To go slightly off topic.)

Stellar evolution is the process by which a star changes over the course of time. Depending on the mass of the star, its lifetime can range from a few million years for the most massive to trillions of years for the least massive, which is considerably longer than the age of the universe. Google Steller evolution

 

[Hans Blaster]

Stellar evolution is the process by which a star changes over the course of time. Depending on the mass of the star, its lifetime can range from a few million years for the most massive to trillions of years for the least massive, which is considerably longer than the age of the universe. Google Steller evolution

I *know* what stellar evolution is. I don't need some search engine.

What star is older than the universe? Hmmm?

 

[essentialsaltes]

What about Steller evolution? How can a star be older than the universe?

I'm sure you can gallop from topic to topic, but it's not helpful for achieving much understanding.

To dispense with this briefly, measurements of star ages are subject to great uncertainties. The error bars on the measurement are on the order of a billion years. This method is not used as a dating method for the earth.

(How Can a Star Be Older Than the Universe?)

 

[essentialsaltes]

You have a sample that you know is 4.5 billion years old before you test it? How?

Radiocarbon dating is not used for those spans.

 

[BPPLEE]

I *know* what stellar evolution is. I don't need some search engine.

What star is older than the universe? Hmmm?

The Methuselah star

 

[BPPLEE]

I'm sure you can gallop from topic to topic, but it's not helpful for achieving much understanding.

To dispense with this briefly, measurements of star ages are subject to great uncertainties. The error bars on the measurement are on the order of a billion years. This method is not used as a dating method for the earth.

(How Can a Star Be Older Than the Universe?)

Convenient

 

[BPPLEE]

Radiocarbon dating is not used for those spans.

We were talking about radiometric dating

 

[essentialsaltes]

Convenient

The truth is convenient, yes.

 

[essentialsaltes]

We were talking about radiometric dating

Radiocarbon dating is a form of radiometric dating.

 

[BPPLEE]

Radiocarbon dating is a form of radiometric dating.

You just said it doesn't test samples that old. How do you know if a test that determines a meteorite is 4.5 billion years old is accurate? What is your control group?

 

[Hans Blaster]

The Methuselah star

Too lazy to leave a link, eh?

So you think that the age of the Sun is in compatible with the geological age of the Earth because *1* star might be older than the Universe? (Or rather that its age is larger than the Universe, just outside the quoted error bars of both.)

First of all, there are other estimates of the age of HD 140283 (the star's proper name) that place it below the concordance model age of the Universe.

Second, stellar ages are dependent on 1D stellar evolution models and the approximations of the convective processes used to make 1D stellar models. These are known to have potential systematic shifts in them and stars aren't quite as good a dating technique as other methods.

That said even the "bad" age for HD 140283 wasn't that bad and the ages given by stellar evolution for the Sun are 4-6 billion years which is completely compatible with the geological age.

Now if you had a star with an evolutionary age of 26+/-1 billion years or the evolutionary age of the Sun was 1.5+/-0.2 billion years then either stellar evolution was making a bad age or (cosmology,geology) was making a bad age. But THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

Astronomy demostrates the Sun is roughly 5 billion years old, geology says the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. Given the error budget and limitations of each method these are both consistent with a solar system that formed about 4.5 billion years ago.