Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif]There is no indication in that report or in the dating article by Wolde Gabriel et al. [14] that the discoverers were able to determine the exact places from which these fossils had eroded. There is the assumption that they eroded in the places where they were found, but there is nothing in the reports to exclude their having been washed in from elsewhere during the heavy seasonal rains. This fact, in itself, would seem to place a degree of contingency on the dating of these fossils.[/font]
John Woodmorappe has produced an incisive critique of these dating methods.13 He exposes hundreds of myths that have grown up around the techniques. He shows that the few good dates left after the bad dates are filtered out could easily be explained as fortunate coincidences.
There are many examples where the dating methods give dates that are wrong for rocks of known age. One example is K-Ar dating of five historical andesite lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. Although one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, the dates range from less than 0.27 to 3.5 Ma.14
(from footnote) This is just a massive oversimplification. Real facts here! http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.htmlThe isochron technique involves collecting a number of rock samples from different parts of the rock unit being dated. The concentration of a parent radioactive isotope, such as rubidium-87, is graphed against the concentration of a daughter isotope, such as strontium-87, for all the samples. A straight line is drawn through these points, representing the ratio of the parent:daughter, from which a date is calculated. If the line is of good fit and the age is acceptable, it is a good date. The method involves dividing both the parent and daughter concentrations by the concentration of a similar stable isotopein this case, strontium-86.
Geologist Dr Steve Austin sampled basalt from the base of the Grand Canyon strata and from the lava that spilled over the edge of the canyon. By evolutionary reckoning, the latter should be a billion years younger than the basalt from the bottom. Standard laboratories analyzed the isotopes. The rubidium-strontium isochron technique suggested that the recent lava flow was 270 Ma older than the basalts beneath the Grand Canyonan impossibility.
In Australia, some wood found in Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was dated by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was dated by potassium-argon method at 45 million years old!19
Laboratories that measure 14C would like a source of organic material with zero 14C to use as a blank to check that their lab procedures do not add 14C. Coal is an obvious candidate because the youngest coal is supposed to be millions of years old, and most of it is supposed to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old. Such old coal should be devoid of 14C. It isn't. No source of coal has been found that completely lacks 14C.
Evidence for a rapid formation of geological strata, as in the biblical flood. Some of the evidence are: lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by many millions of years; lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (worms, roots, etc.); lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (which traverse several rock layers verticallythese could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they slowly got buried); thick layers of rock bent without fracturing, indicating that the rock was all soft when bent; and more. For more, see books by geologists Morris26 and Austin.27
Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand yearscertainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists.28
The earths magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster.29
Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. The total amount in the atmosphere is 1/2000th of that expected if the universe is really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it has not had time to escapecertainly not billions of years.30
A supernova is an explosion of a massive starthe explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 1) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic Clouds. This is just what we would expect for young galaxies that have not existed long enough for wide expansion.31
The moon is slowly receding from the earth at about 4 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year, and this rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance from the earth. This gives a maximum age of the moon, not the actual age. This is far too young for evolutionists who claim the moon is 4.6 billion years old. It is also much younger than the radiometric dates assigned to moon rocks.32
Salt is entering the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could not be more than 62 Ma years oldfar younger than the billions of years believed by the evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.
The isochron dating technique was thought to be infallible because it supposedly covered the assumptions about starting conditions and closed systems.
Geologist Dr Andrew Snelling worked on dating the Koongarra uranium deposits in the Northern Territory of Australia, primarily using the uranium-thorium-lead (U-Th-Pb) method. He found that even highly weathered soil samples from the area, which are definitely not closed systems, gave apparently valid isochron lines with ages of up to 1,445 Ma.
Clearly, there are factors other than age responsible for the straight lines obtained from graphing isotope ratios. Again, the only way to know if an isochron is good is by comparing the result with what is already believed.
Another currently popular dating method is the uranium-lead concordia technique. This effectively combines the two uranium-lead decay series into one diagram. Results that lie on the concordia curve have the same age according to the two lead series and are called concordant. However, the results from zircons (a type of gemstone), for example, generally lie off the concordia curvethey are discordant. Numerous models, or stories, have been developed to explain such data.
As long ago as 1966, Nobel Prize nominee Melvin Cook, professor of metallurgy at the University of Utah, pointed out evidence that lead isotope ratios, for example, may involve alteration by important factors other than radioactive decay.39
- snip -
When the isotope concentrations are adjusted for such conversions, the ages calculated are reduced from some 600 Ma to recent. Other ore bodies seemed to show similar evidence. Cook recognized that the current understanding of nuclear physics did not seem to allow for such a conversion under normal conditions, but he presents evidence that such did happen, and even suggests how it could happen.
Decaying radioactive particles in solid rock cause spherical zones of damage to the surrounding crystal structure. A speck of radioactive element such as Uranium-238, for example, will leave a sphere of discoloration of characteristically different radius for each element it produces in its decay chain to lead-206.41 Viewed in cross-section with a microscope, these spheres appear as rings called radiohalos. Dr Gentry has researched radiohalos for many years, and published his results in leading scientific journals.42
Not quite.shernren said:I find that the sites are excellent laymen's introductions ... of course, they didn't mention isochron dating *goes off and plays his broken record* but what they mentioned is pretty good. But that's an OEC view so, Sojourner, you satisfied?
Sojourner<>< said:Not quite.
Personally I find it hard to accept the old ages suggested by radiometric methods since there doesn't seem to be a concrete way to test the results. Perhaps we could test the age up to a few thousand years with some accuracy but when assumptions are made concerning vast amounts of time from the results of these tests, I'd have to recognize it for what it is: an assumption.
Now, I'm no scientist but how can we be sure that a substance's half-life always remains constant? Is it possible that the half-life could increase over time to yield a result of millions or billions of years if it were assumed to be a constant value when it was really not?
the age of the earth is a CONCLUSION not an assumption.I'd have to recognize it for what it is: an assumption.
rmwilliamsll said:the age of the earth is a CONCLUSION not an assumption.
certainly the rate of decay being a constant appears to be an assumption but it is much more than an unsupported assumption which is what you are trying to say. it is very well supported.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary said:2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject ****eory of equations>
Sojourner<>< said:Thank you sir for that well pointed correction.
However, Old Earth theory is exactly that... a theory. Let me remind you that it is not proven.
For your convenience, I've provided the definition of the word theory.
It's not very difficult to understand what the word "theory" means.rmwilliamsll said:the philosophy of science supplies a more precise meaning for the word theory then the one you quote. which is the common everyday meaning. note the use of the word conjecture in your definition, like the word-theory, conjecture has a specific scientific meaning.
if we are discussing science you need to use the specific scientific meaning for theory.
http://www.explore-dictionary.com/science/T/Theory.html
additional.
proof and to prove has a very specific scientific meaning which is NOT common sense or normal conversational meaning, it also differs greatly from the mathematical definition of proof.
which leads to the quip here that proof describes math and alcohol not biology.
Sojourner<>< said:It's not very difficult to understand what the word "theory" means.
And it doesn't take a genius to figure out that nobody on this earth was actually on this earth when it was created. Because of this, the radiometric dating results of millions or billions of years cannot be proven, although educated guesses can be formulated. I understand that the math involved makes the result look like the Earth is really old, but we can't know that for sure. So, personally, I'd rather stick to the eye witness account, which is what you would need to prove all of this conjecture in the first place.
If I am incorrect could you please point me to where it says in the Bible that the Earth, in its formed state, has existed for billions of years?rmwilliamsll said:This is the 'you were not there, but God was' argument.
it has several interesting angles. The first is how it is related to one of the common topics here, the idea that only an eyewitness, police report, newspaperman's account, ie historical, literal, factual etc. is a valid way to transmit information. This is Vance's specific interest, it ought to be anyone's who is genuinely interested in hermeneutics. There are lots of threads here with this as their focus. Sufficient to say that genre analysis shows that different passages have as their focus and their purpose things very different from our modern 21st C notions of history, science, facts etc. Gen 1 is best described as does M.Kline as a poetical prelude to the treaty of the Great King.
the second interesting item about the 'you weren't there but God was' argument is that it depreciates the book of nature as a revelation of how God did create and how He does operate in the physical universe. Not only does it presume that God is intending to give up historical and scientific accuracy in Gen1 but it assumes that the universe is lying, is deceiptive, is a trickster. This too is a common theme here, the proper reading of the book of nature ought to be in conformance with a proper reading of the book of Words.
there is a third interesting idea embedded in your 'you weren't there but God was' and that is the implicit 'i am on God's side and you are not' perspective. Essentially you are saying that your interpretation of Gen1 is God's and everyone who differs with you, differs not with you but with God. Mildly arrogant, but surprising for anyone aware of the divisive nature of much of modern theology. Put 3 Bible scholars together and you get 5 interpretations of any particular verse. This is the problem of denominationalism, and is a significant problem, with i believe no real answer except a humility.
'1/3 of everything i say is wrong, the problem is i don't know which 1/3'
......
Sojourner<>< said:If I am incorrect could you please point me to where it says in the Bible that the Earth, in its formed state, has existed for billions of years?
rmwilliamsll said:to answer your question:
The Scriptures are written from a human perspective and assume a timeline roughly equivalent to written history. And this perspective is sufficient to transmit to us all the principles God has in Scriptures for both us and all the ages to come, no matter how sophisticate our science becomes. That is Moses understood the creation of the world to be several dozens of generations removed from his time. This is an accommodation to our fraility (to quote Calvin) and is not an authoritative teaching that the universe is 6K or so years old. It is the historical timeline that is being used to write the history of the Jews, which we know as the OT.
rmwilliamsll said:It is the packaging of the themes of Scripture (to quote H.Van Till) not the message itself. just like we don't use 1Kings 7:23 to set the value of pi in a math class. it is the usage of human wisdom at that time to communicate God's wisdom in human words without making the human wisdom prescriptive or normative for all Christians for all time.
Delta One said:Hi shernren,
If you bring up logical arguments then you shouldn't get to badly 'hurt'. So we just 'bash' each other here? I really enjoy GA because I like giving answers to people in a manner such that most find easy to understand. I mean, you guys are already saved, there are fellow humans out there that are on a one-way trip to hell and I will try and do what I can to convince them or at least give the Holy Spirit something to work with in convicting them and bringing them to Christ.
Delta One said:Firstly, it's not evolutionary reckoning: it's plain common sense. If you see a cookie with milk spilled over it, you'd expect that the cookie was there before the milk. If you see lava spill over the edge of the canyon, the canyon was there before the lava. Duh.
[color=black][font=Verdana]TalkOrigins said:[/font]
[color=black][font=Verdana]TalkOrigins said:Austin's selection of samples violated this assumption. His five samples came from four different lava flows plus one phenocryst (which likely solidified in the magma chamber before the flow).
Delta One said:Where is the reference to substantiate this claim?
TalkOrigins said:[/color]Austin, Steven A., ed., 1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe. Plus Communications, ISBN 0-932766-33-1.
Delta One said:Further more, Dr Austin never said or implied that the method itself was invalid, which is what the Talk Origins article clearly said in the first point of their response. No, the ICR paper said: The observation that obviously recent lava flows from the north rim of Grand Canyon give ages even older than the deeply buried lava flows, challenges the basic assumptions upon which the isochron dating method is based. Talk Origins has a history of distorting the facts (e.g. 3rd stage SNRs) and they are readily doing the same here now by shoving words in ICR's article <http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-224.htm> that were just simply not written.
ICR's article 1992 said:Do radioactive isotope dating methods provide convincing evidence for billion-year-old rocks? (paragraph 2)
ICR's article 1992 said:The observation that obviously recent lava flows from the north rim of Grand Canyon give ages even older than the deeply buried lava flows, challenges the basic assumptions upon which the isochron dating method is based. (2nd last paragraph)
Delta One said:The Talk Origins article also didn't try and tackle or explain why Dr Austin's points seemed to describe a line when plotted, which means that the date should be reliable and hence, Dr Austin picked good samples, again contrary to what Talk Origins claims...
ICR's article 1992 said:The ICR article says the following:
ICR's article 1992 said:Figures 2 and 3 show isotope ratios of rubidium and strontium in the two basaltic lava flow units of Grand Canyon. Figure 2 shows the isotope ratios of six rock samples from the Cardenas Basalt. These analyses were determined by E. H. McKee and D. C. Noble, two geologists working with support from the U.S. Geological Survey, National Science Foundation, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The fact that the data seem to describe a line on the plot of 87Sr/86Sr versus 87Rb/86Sr, is thought to testify to the validity of the method and the suitability of the specimens, and thus the basalt was given an "age" interpretation by the two geologists. They reasoned that the Cardenas Basalt issued from a volcano or volcanoes which originally had lavas with a common ratio of strontium isotopes.
Delta One said:Here we read that the lavas were thought to have a common ratio of strontium isotopes (the only way that it could happen is if they were cogenetic), but what does Talk Origin say? They say and I quote:
Delta One said:But thats not what Dr Austin and his team reported, they reasoned that the Cardenas Basalt issued from a volcano or volcanoes that originally had lavas with a common ratio of strontium isotopes (because of the line gained after plotting). Talk Origins, however, accuses Dr Austin of not getting samples that were cogenetic if they werent, then the lavas would not have had a common ratio of strontium isotopes and we would not expect to see a line on the plot of 87Sr/86SR versus 87RB/86SR to describe a common ratio of strontium isotopes!TalkOrigins said:One of the requirements for isochron dating is that the samples be cogenetic, that is, that they come from materials that were isotopically homogeneous (with respect to each other) when they formed. Austin's selection of samples violated this assumption. His five samples came from four different lava flows plus one phenocryst (which likely solidified in the magma chamber before the flow). Thus, Austin's conclusion, not the isochron method, is invalid.
Delta One said:If I got lines similar to what Dr Austin (as shown in the diagrams on the ICR article) got in my physics practicals Id be laughing! My practicals always result in at least two points being so far off that not even the line of best fit goes through the points with error bars!
Delta One said:Also, the other members of the team and the various scientific organisations would have surely known where Dr Austin got the rocks from and how he did it. If he purposefully did something wrong, then that would be the end of his professional scientific career...
Delta One said:Although Im not knowledgeable about such areas, Talk Origins has clearly misrepresented Dr Austin and his method and as such, it is easy to point it out when they do. They sound convincing at first, but when you do some research and look into the topic further, you see that they are just blowing smoke. Talk Origins is well renowned for distorting the facts and lying, it is no surprise to me that they do the same thing here in this article. Many have fallen into the trap of believing their lies, I pray that the Spirit of Truth reveals that to them. Similarly, I believe that the other links have the similar flaw of misrepresentation and concealment of the facts; time however restrains me from checking it out.
Creation Moments said:There are many examples of how those who believe in evolutionary long ages exaggerate the abilities of their dating methods. Scientists at the Institute for Creation Research recently published another example of how evolutionary dating methods give wildly exaggerated ages. (goes on to briefly describe Canyon Lava dating)
Creation Moments said:This is still more scientific evidence that those huge evolutionary ages are not well supported by science. There are no good scientific challenges to the truth of the Bible.
Delta One said:I hope now you just see a little bit of why I am wary about using sources from Talk Origin and why I don't think that they are a very good 'authority' to fall back on.
Sojourner<>< said:This is a question for YEC'ists out there...
Is there any possible explanation for the results of carbon dating? I don't know enough about it to make an effective argument.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?