Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for an Old Earth
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 61 (49798)
08-10-2003 8:13 PM


I want evidence for an old Earth. Open to Creationists and Evolutionists alike. Evidence, no information that has been proved wrong, or refuted. I just want to see if any of it is logical. Get technical if you want.
------------------
The Greatest single cause of Atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips but walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable. -DC Talk

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Coragyps, posted 08-10-2003 8:45 PM joshua221 has not replied
 Message 20 by roxrkool, posted 08-11-2003 1:04 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 2 of 61 (49807)
08-10-2003 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by joshua221
08-10-2003 8:13 PM


Read The Age of the Earth by G Brent Dalrymple for a load of such. Here's just one bit:
A variety of radioactive isotopes are found in rocks on Earth. Some, like potassium 40, rubidium 87, and uranium 235 and 238, have half-lives of hundreds of millions of years or more, and are used for radiometric dating. A wide variety of these are found in various rocks, though only a few are useful for dating due to rarity or technical reasons. Some, like radium or polonium, have much shorter half lives but are continuously formed by decay of uranium or thorium.
But a variety of other isotopes - aluminum 26, technetium 99, promethium, manganese 53, and others - have half lives of between several thousand and about 80 million years. NONE of this last class are found on earth, with a few interesting exceptions. ALL of the isotopes with half-lives in this range have decayed to other elements since the Earth was formed. Enough half-lives have elapsed for these "short-lived" isotopes, present in the nebula that condensed to make the Solar System and us, to be below detectable limits. But the longer-lived ones - those over a hundred million years or so half-life - are still around, and they were formed in the same stellar furnaces as the short-lived ones.
There's one plausible explanation for this, and it's a 4.5 billion year old Earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by joshua221, posted 08-10-2003 8:13 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 61 (49813)
08-10-2003 9:40 PM


......
How would you date these half lives? Most Dating methods of today are unreliable, this "evidence" isn't really reliable at all... I want proof.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 08-10-2003 10:07 PM joshua221 has not replied
 Message 5 by greyline, posted 08-10-2003 10:31 PM joshua221 has not replied
 Message 6 by Coragyps, posted 08-10-2003 10:43 PM joshua221 has not replied
 Message 7 by DC85, posted 08-10-2003 10:50 PM joshua221 has not replied
 Message 8 by Rrhain, posted 08-10-2003 11:05 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 4 of 61 (49817)
08-10-2003 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by joshua221
08-10-2003 9:40 PM


Radiometric Dating
prophecyexclaimed writes:
I want proof.
In that case, you've come to the wrong place. All we can do is gather evidence around which we build theories. Science is tentative, always open to change in light of new information or improved understanding. There is no such thing as proof in science. However, there is such a thing as theory strongly supported by evidence, and such is the case with radiometric dating.
How would you date these half lives? Most Dating methods of today are unreliable, this "evidence" isn't really reliable at all.
So even though you don't even know how the half-lives of radiometric elements are measured, you nonetheless know that dating methods based upon these half-lives are unreliable? Hmmm.
Someone so certain that today's dating methods are unreliable must have fairly detailed knowledge about those methods and their weaknesses. Why don't you tell us about them?
While you're thinking about that, why don't you address Coragyps's question about the absence of naturally occurring isotopes with half-lives longer than 80 million years? If the earth were truly only 6,000 years old then these isotopes would still be with us, but they're not.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by joshua221, posted 08-10-2003 9:40 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
greyline
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 61 (49822)
08-10-2003 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by joshua221
08-10-2003 9:40 PM


Re: ......
quote:
How would you date these half lives? Most Dating methods of today are unreliable, this "evidence" isn't really reliable at all... I want proof.
Is prophecyexclaimed confusing the scientific methodology of radioactive dating used to date rocks, etc. (which creationists tend to find controversial), with the physical concept of radioactive decay and half life (which to my knowledge creationists don't have a problem with)?
The way the above is phrased makes me think so. Just curious.
------------------
o--greyline--o

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by joshua221, posted 08-10-2003 9:40 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 6 of 61 (49824)
08-10-2003 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by joshua221
08-10-2003 9:40 PM


Re: ......
How would you date these half lives?
By measuring the number of decays per minute in a known amount of material and dividing the rate constant you get into the natural logarithm of 2. They've been doing it since Marie Curie.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by joshua221, posted 08-10-2003 9:40 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 380 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 7 of 61 (49827)
08-10-2003 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by joshua221
08-10-2003 9:40 PM


Re: ......
lets see what I can do without dating Methods. hmmmm? why if the earth is only 6000 years old are so many Animals extinct? and if you are going by the bible I have some questions for you. why where they not saved on the Ark? And as for fossils Most creationists claim it is due to the Great flood of Noah why did all the sea life from the Periods we call the
Cambrian ,Ordovician ,Silurian and the Devonian (the age of sea life)
get killed in the flood? surly they would have lived? if not all current ones where brought on the ark? did Noah have fish Tanks? Also why are there no Fossils of Other animals(modern ones) with Dinosaurs?
answer these if you can't this points to an Older Earth Without dating

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by joshua221, posted 08-10-2003 9:40 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 8 of 61 (49829)
08-10-2003 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by joshua221
08-10-2003 9:40 PM


Re: ......
prophecyexclaimed writes:
quote:
How would you date these half lives?
Physics.
quote:
Most Dating methods of today are unreliable,
Why? You said you wanted proof. We gave you proof. Now you're saying you don't recognize it. In that case, you're going to have to explain why. What, specifically, is "unreliable" in radiometric dating?
Perhaps you should take a look at this link:
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective
quote:
this "evidence" isn't really reliable at all... I want proof.
You were given proof.
If you don't accept it, you have to explain why. Your say so is insufficient.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by joshua221, posted 08-10-2003 9:40 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 61 (49844)
08-11-2003 1:05 AM


one at a time...
[Hi Proph!
Please do not cut-n-paste long excerpts into messages. The discussion is intended to be between members rather than between exceprts from websites. Please instead compose the argument in your own words and provide the link as a reference. I have edited your message to eliminate the lengthy cut-n-pastes and replaced them with links. This is the only time I will be doing this as it is time consuming. The next time I will simply delete the message if it hasn't drawn any responses by the time I detect it, or suspend your posting privileges if it has. If your posting privileges should become suspended, you may get them restored by sending email to Admin containing assurances that you will follow the requests of administrators and follow the forum guidelines in the future.
Thanks!
--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator]
"...half-lives of hundreds of millions of years or more, and are used for radiometric dating."
"So even though you don't even know how the half-lives of radiometric elements are measured, you nonetheless know that dating methods based upon these half-lives are unreliable? Hmmm."
I was confused because of how he said it... I am not familiar with half life dating... I have heard of it. I was pointing out that radiometric dating is unreliable and inaccurate which I firmly believe.
This is Why, I read this from Interactive Bible Home Page www.bible.ca
[Lengthy cut-n-paste from deleted. --Admin]
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dating-radiometric.htm#inaccurate
ALSO bible.ca
[Lengthy cut-n-paste from deleted. --Admin]
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dating-radiometric.htm#decayrate
I know this is a lot of information but might as well give you guys something to think about. *RRhain you've stated some dogmatic remarks about how David was a homosexual and how in the Bible it says nothing about homosexuality being wrong. That is crazy... Any Christian can normally give you a reference off the top of their head and if they can't they'll just tell you that homosexuality is said to be an abomination to the Lord in the Bible! I doubt I can take any more comments from you seriously after that. Plain Ignorance is what it is.
[Please stay on topic. --Admin]
------------------
The Greatest single cause of Atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips but walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable. -DC Talk
[This message has been edited by Admin, 08-11-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by roxrkool, posted 08-11-2003 2:31 AM joshua221 has replied
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 08-11-2003 2:34 AM joshua221 has replied
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2003 3:52 AM joshua221 has not replied
 Message 13 by Coragyps, posted 08-11-2003 10:21 AM joshua221 has not replied
 Message 15 by John, posted 08-11-2003 11:20 AM joshua221 has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 10 of 61 (49852)
08-11-2003 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by joshua221
08-11-2003 1:05 AM


Re: one at a time...
Then how do you explain the fact that all the different radiometric dating methods agree with one another? A miracle? A conspiracy?
No one is saying the method is perfect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by joshua221, posted 08-11-2003 1:05 AM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by joshua221, posted 08-11-2003 12:33 PM roxrkool has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 61 (49854)
08-11-2003 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by joshua221
08-11-2003 1:05 AM


Re: one at a time...
RRhain you've stated some dogmatic remarks about how David was a homosexual and how in the Bible it says nothing about homosexuality being wrong. That is crazy... Any Christian can normally give you a reference off the top of their head and if they can't they'll just tell you that homosexuality is said to be an abomination to the Lord in the Bible!
Sure, the English Bibles say that... You do know that the Bible wasn't written in English, right? And that Rrhain is quoting from the more original Greek bibles?
You seem to be replying to a message in a different topic. - AM
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-11-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by joshua221, posted 08-11-2003 1:05 AM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by joshua221, posted 08-11-2003 12:36 PM crashfrog has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 12 of 61 (49861)
08-11-2003 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by joshua221
08-11-2003 1:05 AM


Re: one at a time...
Just to make soem general points :
1) We don't need great accuracy in radiometric dating to show that the Earth is far older than Young Earth Creationism allows. If all the dates were ten times greater than they should be (and there's no reason to think that they are even nearly that bad) then the Earth would be old.
2) Isochrons ARE a solution to some of the problems you mention - especially initial concentrations of daughter product.
3) The site calls the assumptions underlying radiometric dating "arbitrary" which is false. Constancy of decay rate is strongly supported by the evidence. The others can be and should be checked for by the geologist taking the samples
4) Neutrinos VERY rarely interact with nucleii. That suggestion is not even plausible.
5) Studies to produce calibrations for radiocarbon have found no sign of any significant variation in the decay rate.
6) Temperature and pressure do not affect radioactive decay rate except in extreme conditions that could not exist on Earth.
There are probably more errors - I'm no expert, but how can you call this a trustworthy source ? And why do you "firmly" beleive a site dedicated to defending a religious belief in a Young Earth AGAINST science ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by joshua221, posted 08-11-2003 1:05 AM joshua221 has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 13 of 61 (49919)
08-11-2003 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by joshua221
08-11-2003 1:05 AM


Re: one at a time...
If the radiometric dating problem has been solved in this manner, then why do we need isochrons, which are claimed to be more accurate?
This is like asking a machinist why he needs a micrometer when he already has a yardstick - it's more accurate!!!
PE, please read the link Rrhain gave in post #8 above - it handles the objections in your source very well. If there are still points you want to discuss, bring them back here, but read the article first.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by joshua221, posted 08-11-2003 1:05 AM joshua221 has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 14 of 61 (49926)
08-11-2003 10:44 AM


This is not a Battle of the Links
To All:
Discussion at EvC Forum should be conducted by composing arguments in your own words. You should note the following when writing messages:
  1. Avoid long cut-n-pastes from other websites (like the plague). You should instead summarize the argument in your own words and provide a link to the correct page of the website. This isn't in the guidelines yet because it isn't something I thought would come up very often, but I'll probably add it soon.
  2. Do not post bare links with no accompanying discussion.
  3. When you post a link, post a link to the correct webpage of the site, not just a general link. For example, do not post the link Interactive Bible Home Page www.bible.ca when the information is actually at http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dating-radiometric.htm.
Thanks!
------------------
--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 61 (49936)
08-11-2003 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by joshua221
08-11-2003 1:05 AM


Re: one at a time...
quote:
I was confused because of how he said it... I am not familiar with half life dating... I have heard of it. I was pointing out that radiometric dating is unreliable and inaccurate which I firmly believe.
This is Why, I read this from Interactive Bible Home Page www.bible.ca

Hmmm... radiometric dating is based on the half-lives of radioactive material. Thus Percy's ( I believe ) challenge still stands. You are convinced that radiometric dating doesn't work but you don't know scat about it. That is shameful.
quote:
This would seem to imply that the problem of radiometric dating has been solved, and that there are no anomalies.
You need to get over the creationist 'all or nothing' mindset. There ARE problems and anomalies. Some methods and materials are very problematic. This doesn't mean they give meaningless dates. It means that you have to be careful with the sample and use the appropriate method for the material. Think about taking a set of fingerprints from a piece of glass. There are a hundred ways you could mess up the sample. This doesn't invalidate fingerprinting. I watched an investigator look for fingerprints on a laptop that had been dropped on the sidewalk as the thief fled the scene. The officer decided it wasn't even worth trying because of the texture of the plastic case. Fingerprints wouldn't be obtainable or reliable if some trace were found. This doesn't invalidate fingerprinting either. Yet, creationists will use the wrong methods and claim to invalidate radio-dating. Creationist also complain when scientists toss unreliable data-- such as the officer would have obtained had he dusted the laptop for fingerprints.
quote:
So if we take a lava flow and date several minerals for which one knows the daughter element is excluded, we should always get the exact same date, and it should agree with the accepted age of the geological period. Is this true? I doubt it very much.
You DOUBT it? You haven't bothered to check? Sorry, but we do get the same dates, within a margin of error. Not only that but various different methods are used where possible and these also agree, within a margin of error. Some features can be identified all over the planet. These too agree. If the dates turn out to be odd, then geologists have a problem to solve. Contamination? Well, test a new set of sample collected with extreme paranoia.
quote:
If the radiometric dating problem has been solved in this manner, then why do we need isochrons, which are claimed to be more accurate?
Why would you not want something more accurate? A ruler that measures centimeters is great until you try to measure bacteria. It is unbelievable that you are using the attempt to get even better data as a criticism.
quote:
But are dates from mica always accepted, and do they always agree with the age of their geologic period? I suspect not.
Maybe you should stop suspecting and actually learn about these things?
Dates are not always accepted. Why? Consider: You and nine friends walk for an hour each counting his steps. At the end of the walk, nine of you agree within a hundred paces, but one of you is a thousand steps off. Which count do you accept? The average of the nine plus/minus 100? Or the thousand pace anomaly?
quote:
1. The decay constant and the abundance of K40 must be known accurately.
No evidence suggests that the decay rates change. In fact, for decay rates to change 99% of our understanding of physics would have to be wrong.
As for the second statement, I am pretty sure that the absolute value for K in the newly formed sample is not necessary. The method works on ratios, not absolutes. Somebody smart can correct me if I am wrong.
quote:
2. There must have been no incorporation of Ar40 into the mineral at the time of crystallization or a leak of Ar40 from the mineral following crystallization.
Correct. The original K-Ar method assumed zero argon in the newly formed sample. Most-- two-thirds-- of the time this is a valid assumption. In the remaining few cases the trapped argon gives slightly older date than than it should. When dating old rock, this is acceptable. It may give 51mya instead of 50mya. Yes, contamination is a problem. Geologists are careful to choose samples which are most likely to be uncontaminated.
quote:
3. The system must have remained closed for both K40 and Ar40 since the time of crystallization.
Basically the same objection as #2.
quote:
4. The relationship between the data obtained and a specific event must be known.
What? This doesn't make sense.
( Your three unreferenced quotes are in violation of forum guidelines. )
quote:
It is known that neutrinos interact with atomic nucleii, so a larger density of neutrinos could have sped up radioactive decay and made matter look old in a hurry.
It is also known that trillions of neutrinos pass through the earth and don't hit a thing. Do you have any idea how rarely a nuetrino hits something? Read up on neutrino detectors a bit.
quote:
a. In the lead-uranium systems both uranium and lead can migrate easily in some rocks,
So you don't date those rocks.
quote:
and lead volatilizes and escapes as a vapor at relatively low temperatures
Yup... relatively low-- 327.5 C. Kinda rules out most places on earth. In other words, this problem is easily avoided.
quote:
It has been suggested that free neutrons could transform Pb-206 first to Pb-207 and then to Pb-208, thus tending to reset the clocks and throw thorium-lead and uranium-lead clocks completely off, even to the point of wiping out geological time.
It has been? What are the details?
quote:
Furthermore, there is still disagreement of 15 percent between the two preferred values for the U-238 decay constant.
Ahem....
Scroll down to the bottom of the page and you will discover that this edition is copyrighted 1998. It might come to as a surprise to anyone unfamiliar with creationist deceit that when one checks Kofahl’s endnote one finds that his documentation for this is dated 1974. Kofahl is using a nearly three-decades old reference to support the statement what is current status of this question. This is a good example of creationist deceit. They know that the vast majority of ordinary people do not read the endnotes and thus will not notice how utterly inadequate the reference really is.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie022.html
It took ten seconds to find that. Try harder, maybe?
Besides, even 15% off gets nowhere near a 6000 year old Earth.
quote:
Furthermore, the value of the decay constant is still disputed, although the scientific community seems to be approaching agreement.
As of 1991 at least, the rates were known to within 1%.
quote:
Historically, the decay constants used for the various radiometric dating systems have been adjusted to obtain agreement between the results obtained. In the potassium/argon system another adjustable "constant" called the branching ratio is also not accurately known and is adjusted to give acceptable results.
Wrong. Both the decay rates and branching ratios can be measured directly. Dating methods, which are more complicated-- ie. there are more variables involved-- than the decay rates and branching ratios are used to cross-calibrate one another much as you might use several different clocks to calibrate your watch.
quote:
In general, if lava was heated after the initial flow, it can yield an age that is too young.
No kidding? That is how the method is supposed to work. The clock is set by temperature. Reheat == reset.
'K. That is all I can stand of this cut-n-paste. Bye now.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
{Fixed 1 quote box - AM}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-11-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by joshua221, posted 08-11-2003 1:05 AM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by joshua221, posted 08-11-2003 12:51 PM John has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024