ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
Show us some scientist who has used C-14 to measure "billions of years."
In fact, conditions that would kill all living things on Earth change radioactive rates by a tiny fraction of one percent. Even if those temperatures could somehow be consistent with life on Earth, it would mean that instead of being four billion years old, the Earth is only 3.996 billion years old.
So it doesn't really help you. And do show us where scientists measured billions of years, using C-14.
Try to produce enough heat to cause all of the volcanism in earths history. Try to produce enough heat to move the continental plates and all the subduction of the other plates in all of earths history. Try to produce enough heat to cause the core of the earth to become molten. Try to produce enough heat to bring the mantle to the temperature it is today. Do all of that without the CRUTCH of disk accretion theory. There isn't enough radioactive material in the earth to create all of that heat in 4.56 billion years of time given today's decay rates.
Location: South Florida (a town that once catered to wealthy horse owners)
Rep Power: 104671
Christian
More right than left
Slogan/motto:
"May you always know the truth and see the light surrounding you"
Reputation:
June 20th, 2012, 07:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by voltaire
Try to produce enough heat to cause all of the volcanism in earths history. Try to produce enough heat to move the continental plates and all the subduction of the other plates in all of earths history. Try to produce enough heat to cause the core of the earth to become molten. Try to produce enough heat to bring the mantle to the temperature it is today. Do all of that without the CRUTCH of disk accretion theory. There isn't enough radioactive material in the earth to create all of that heat in 4.56 billion years of time given today's decay rates.
Can you show us your figures on that?
Why do you think we should throw out accretion disk theory?
Is there a good reason you think we should discard a theory first developed in the 1940s which is supported by evidence in physics?
Are you saying that because there is some contraversy regarding angular momentum transport then the whole theory is rubbish?
Do you have another scientific theory that better explains the heat within the earth?
Or are you saying since you feel this theory is not good, then we should abandon it and adopt your model of geological history?
Militant Moderate
Last edited by noguru; June 20th, 2012 at 08:18 PM.
Show us some scientist who has used C-14 to measure "billions of years."
Give the guy a break! So he forgot to take out the word "carbon" during his editing process! He knows carbon dating only claims to be accurate to 60,000 yrs.
His point is that, as carbon dating was the first of the "dating game" techniques, the other radiometric techniques that came along and are supposed to yield longer results, use the same flawed principle - that being assumptions based on uniformitarian ideas.
Once they go outside of counting rings on living trees, the dates are much less sure. And even on living trees, with the occasional multiple-rings in some years, the dates get less sure the more years the tree was alive. This again you should know if they were more up-front with their assumptions.
I think you're typically only nit picking, clearly it is climate anomalies that help to create an identifiable signature, there's more to it than the counting of rings.
Here is what creationists need to make any changes to their well-thought out criticism of radiometric dating.
Assumptions made about the starting values for isotopes, contamination, and their decay rates in the distant past, based on present day measurements, are not valid. If geologists can show that these are not assumptions, we will be dealt a heavy blow. Until then, any assumptions, including our own, made about the past, are purely hypothetical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Affleck
Give the guy a break! So he forgot to take out the word "carbon" during his editing process! He knows carbon dating only claims to be accurate to 60,000 yrs.
His point is that, as carbon dating was the first of the "dating game" techniques, the other radiometric techniques that came along and are supposed to yield longer results, use the same flawed principle - that being assumptions based on uniformitarian ideas.
Looks like you've never heard of isochron dating techniques.
Try to produce enough heat to cause all of the volcanism in earths history. Try to produce enough heat to move the continental plates and all the subduction of the other plates in all of earths history. Try to produce enough heat to cause the core of the earth to become molten. Try to produce enough heat to bring the mantle to the temperature it is today. Do all of that without the CRUTCH of disk accretion theory. There isn't enough radioactive material in the earth to create all of that heat in 4.56 billion years of time given today's decay rates.
The inner core of the earth isn't molten. The latent heat of fusion released by the progressive freezing of the core contributes to the heating of the rest of the interior of the planet.
... the same flawed principle - that being assumptions based on uniformitarian ideas.
So the conclusion is that there isn't, and never can be, any kind of dating that is accurate, since we can't assume any kind of consistent behavior in Nature.
Even historical records are suspect. Perhaps days were 48 hours long 1,000 years ago? or years had only 200 days?
The methods used by scientists to calculate absolute dates using radiometric dating are sound. What is flawed is the basic premise. In an ideal world, decay rates and parent/daughter element ratios would also be ideal, but we don't live in a perfect world. The premise that there is no daughter element in the rock when it is formed is hopeful at best, as there is no way of knowing this. This is why recently formed rocks (as in the last few years at volcanic sites) that have been measured as a calibration exercise have returned ages of as much as 60 million years. For those of you who are unaware, the basic premise of radiometric dating is that, when certain rocks are formed by volcanic action, they contain certain radioactive elements that decay over time. By calculating the amount of the given element, knowing its half-life, and measuring the amount of daughter element (the element that it becomes) contained in the rock, one can calculate how long the process of decay has taken. This is the ideal, but things are seldom (if ever) ideal. This method does not take into account any variables, because there is just no way of knowing what may have influenced the process in the past. Just because things are stable now doesn't mean they have always been that way.
The methods used by scientists to calculate absolute dates using radiometric dating are sound. What is flawed is the basic premise. In an ideal world, decay rates and parent/daughter element ratios would also be ideal, but we don't live in a perfect world. The premise that there is no daughter element in the rock when it is formed is hopeful at best, as there is no way of knowing this. This is why recently formed rocks (as in the last few years at volcanic sites) that have been measured as a calibration exercise have returned ages of as much as 60 million years. For those of you who are unaware, the basic premise of radiometric dating is that, when certain rocks are formed by volcanic action, they contain certain radioactive elements that decay over time. By calculating the amount of the given element, knowing its half-life, and measuring the amount of daughter element (the element that it becomes) contained in the rock, one can calculate how long the process of decay has taken. This is the ideal, but things are seldom (if ever) ideal. This method does not take into account any variables, because there is just no way of knowing what may have influenced the process in the past. Just because things are stable now doesn't mean they have always been that way.
Similar problems exist with isochron dating as with other forms of radiometric dating. Additionally, the samples used must be assumed to be from the one unit that formed at the same time, and the effects of leaching and transfer of parent/daughter element is not taken into account.
Linear Mode
