Radiometric dating and long ages

We have all see the debates before. One side claims the world is billions of years old and the other says is thousands.

The long agers say they have science while the young agers make no such claim. The young agers cry that science has not proven any age. The debate rages on with neither side giving an inch.

So this is the science and technology forum. I hope to find someone who can say that

A.) The dating methods show the earth to be billions of years old
B.) The dating methods comply with the scientific method.

Those claims have been made in many places (not all), but have never been upheld. If they are shown to be correct, then this is resolved for me.
If they are not, then this should be moved to a conspiracy forum.

A cannot be answered until B is answered.

The scientific method requires that you have two of three factors of a puzzle, and then use the two that you have, to find the one that you dont. (simplified for this usage)

When the ratio of metals in rocks is taken, scientists assume that the start of the rock...its "creation" had zero daughter element. They take the current ratio, and the current rate of decay, and announce that the rock is X amount of years old.
This is not scientific at all. This is 7th grade lab work.

In the field of medicine, 'science' work like this would result in jail time. People would die. Yet we allow this to go into our schools and be taught to our children as fact. In medicine this would get people killed.

So is there another way to measure the age of rocks? No. Its not even fair to say that you can measure the age or rocks since this is not even close to the 'scientific method'.

In the end, neither can make thier case by dating rocks.

This is why I said in the beginning that this might need to be moved to another forum if it turns out the dating methods are not science after all.

I think you are a little confused. Radio-isotope dating can only be used to date items that are realitvely new - generally within the accepted age of the earth for creationists. Carbon-14 dating, the most common method, is only really good for a couple thousand years. There are other isotopes that can be used, but I don't know of any that are good beyond 10,000 years...

On to your question of science, If we cannot make any assumptions about the past - we will never be able to date anything before some suitable documentation exists. However, Carbon-14 dating has repeatedly been shown accurate with items of known age - with a few exceptions caused by environments rich in carbon.

It is impossible to "prove" anything scientifically. You can only show evidence that something works a certain way - given enough evidence it becomes generally accepted. If you are unwilling to believe anything that hasn't been absolutely proven - well that's up to you.

I dont think the author of this post understands the concept of radiation decay. All atoms decay. Some faster than others. Carbon has a half life of a few thousand years while plutonium has a half life of billions of years. Its very easy math. When an atom decays, its molecualr weight changes, or atomic weight, one or the other, im not a chemist. As the isotopes decay, they provide a lifetime for the scientists. The more isotopes decay, the longer the atom has been around. So if a scientist finds a fossil with decayed plutonium in it, he can back calculate its age. Easy

Train

I think the exsistance of sedimentary rock pretty much blows the thousands of years theory out of reality doesn't it?

starwars,
Im not going to try to set early dates, I just want to get an honest evaluation of the playing field.
The methods that date rock take on more then one assumption. At best, they can only be considered extreme guesses, verses 'cut in stone scientific fact'.

That is all I'm trying to establish. I agree that there is some good math going on, but ..for all the bells and whistles of the math, the input data is bad.

Carbon dating has its own pros and cons and should really be addressed on its own. I am prepared to do that once we conclude this thread.


BigTrain,
you may not know it, but you have betrayed your own lack of knowledge, and no one elses


twitchy,
The 'theory' on how that rock got there into the form that it did, is based on the faulty dates arrived at by the faulty radiometric dating methods.
Again, if we can concentrait on the scientific validity (or lack there of) of these methods first, and then move on, it will be helpful to us all.

Out of pride i think most scientists don't metion the problems with how contamination and lack of double-blinds tests can affect the radio-dating process. We do know the decay rate of Isotopes, and how they are formed. That is how it is used to provide dating. But contamination, and even the Nuclear tests done in the 40s and 50s can affect the results.

It is assumed that all percausions were taken when radio-dating objects. And only pride can get in the way of that.

Carbon-14 dating is only good up to about 40k to 50k years, after that you ahve to use Potasium or Argon. But in some cases with older dates, the "age" of the magma, or the sediments can drastically alter the dates of an object your trying to date.

I feel that for 2/3 it is pride. Most of the rest it is agenda.

Even that agenda is based on pride sometimes though. People do not want to have to be responsible to a higher authority. If Evolution falls apart, then by default it will catapult creationism to the front.
Cant have that now can we?
I know there are other 'theories' but evolution went to the top by hanging onto creationisms back. If it falls, creationism will be at the top by itself.

This is the reason why evolution and the dating methods that support it are treated like a sacred cow. Its all part of human nature.

Yep, Jake1997 you must be right. Everyone else is wrong.

You, however, may have failed to consider when making your argument that many, many of the scientists who do said faulty experiments solely to discredit creationism are very religious. Though some of them disagree with the times given by modern religious orginizations, they do believe in God, creation and evolution.

The great flaw with the religous creatinist movement (IMO) is that it attempts to fight and discredit a group of people who do not disagree with them ... Thus making only themselves look like the retards.

posted by: Starwars51: The great flaw with the religous creatinist movement (IMO) is that it attempts to fight and discredit a group of people who do not disagree with them ... Thus making only themselves look like the retards.

You, IMO just did what you accuse creationists of, and iI would also like to add that the creationist movement has many theories and you cannot lump them all together like you did. This is from an old-earth creationist:Roger C. Wiens, PhD

The Accuracy of Radiometric Dating. Though work on radiometric dating first started around 1910, relatively slow progress was made before the late 1940s. Many dating methods have now been tested and retested for over fifty years. Radiation detectors measure the half-lives of radioactive isotopes either directly by counting the number of atoms decaying in a given amount of time from a known amount of the parent material, or by measuring the ratio of daughter-to-parent atoms in a sample that originally consisted of parent atoms only. While the number of atoms to decay in fifty years may be a small fraction of the total, extremely precise counting of the daughter atoms can be accomplished.

Not all 'creationists' believe that the earth/universe are young, and as you say........."fight and discredit a group of people who do not disagree with them ... Thus making only themselves look like the retards"..So why do you employ those tactics?

We do believe GOD is the creator(something science can never validate), regardless I like to think GOD is pleased to see us so invovled and curious about creation, whether-or-not we got it right, or if anyone does for that matter.

Originally posted by Rren

You, IMO just did what you accuse creationists of, and iI would also like to add that the creationist movement has many theories and you cannot lump them all together like you did. This is from an old-earth creationist:Roger C. Wiens, PhD

Sorry for not making myself clear. I would lump myself into that category as well - I can think of no more godlike, unexplainable act than the big bang.

I was in fact referring to those who believe that creation, from a godlike being - and the currently accepted scientific principles such as the age of the universe are mutually exclusive.

I thank you for clarifying the point I was trying to make.

ahh So common for people to doubt things they do not understand. This is not at all a religion Vs Science topic, it is one of pure scientific endeavor and much of it done by faithful christians. Please, take a look at this document and enlighten yourself on the subject of Radiometric dating, its methids and results.

www.asa3.org...

starwars
I detect a bit too much opinion and very little scientific endeavor in your posts.
IF you happen to be wrong, WOULD YOU WANT to know the truth?
Thats the key.
Do you WANT to know the TRUTH?

The following is a fact:
"Radiometric dating does not comply with the scientific method".
There are not a "few" tests that have been skewed
There are not a 'few" long agers or evolutionists who have made a few error ridden tests.
The process itself does not comply.

So what does this tell us about the date of the rocks?
It says that beyond recorded history, we dont have a clue.
That is as far as I am pushing the envelope. The truth.
Im not going to argue gap christianity or evolution
Just the test and the sceintific method.

q.) When measuring the ratio of parent to daughter element in a test sample, what was the ration when the sample was created, and how do you know?

Start right there.

Hey jake;

Why dont you clarify why you think I have betrayed my own knowledge?

And by the way, with regards to this question of yours....."q.) When measuring the ratio of parent to daughter element in a test sample, what was the ration when the sample was created, and how do you know?"

If you dont care enough to research that question or you dont have the education behind you to know the answer, then how in the world can you come on this board, ask people for answers and then berate them and accuse them of having an agenda when you dont even care about the ways, methods or techniques that are involved in this topic. Next time, pick up a book and learn something before you accuse me and others of being totally wrong when you dont know half of what science is about. Ill say it for the last time and im done with you and this topic.

Very simply, all atoms have isotopes (One of two or more atoms having the same number of protons in its nucleus, but a different number of neutrons and, therefore, a different mass). This alpha decay, over time, slowly decays and leaves the atom! All atoms have different half lifes, eg. time it takes for half of the atom to decay!! Therefore, carbon dating, as said before, can only be accurate to around 20-30 thousand years!!! Other atoms, like plutonium, uranium 238 (half life of 4.8 billion yrs) are longer. Now, scientists can determine, with certain atoms, not all of the same element, which ones have been undisturbed, etc etc. By using isotopes, they know the age of the material in which it resides, rock, whatever.

And again, Im sure it is the scientists who have about 1,000 times more knowledge than you, so i think they know what they're doing, but you, with no knowledge is saying they are the ones with the agenda, no jakey boy, it is YOU with the agenda, you who believes in god as a creation within itself. So as you ponder this science, ask yourself, if energy cannot be created, if something cannot come from nothing, then how do you explain the creation of your GOD?

Check this out if you need help man:
www.nuclides.net...


Train

[edit on 29-4-2005 by BigTrain]

I 'd have to agree with almost everything you said, and not to 'nit-pick' with ya, ....but...

So as you ponder this science, ask yourself, if energy cannot be created, if something cannot come from nothing, then how do you explain the creation of your GOD?

First of all, for the believer, GOD was never created, he always was, always is, forever will be. I know thats philosophy, and not science, but could I not also ask science to prove/define time or the concept of infinity.(somethings are always beyond us, anwers lead to new questions, hence infinty.)

And finally for the same reason you cannot use philosophy to disprove science, you cannnot use science to disprove philosophy...

Again not to jump on you, like I said I agreed with most of your post until it's conclusion. I can appreciate your frustration after reading all the posts and you seem to know what your talking about

Originally posted by BigTrain
Hey jake;

Why dont you clarify why you think I have betrayed my own knowledge?

I wont have to because you do it again further down in this post.
Shall we....

If you dont care enough to research that question or you dont have the education behind you to know the answer, then how in the world can you come on this board, ask people for answers and then berate them and accuse them of having an agenda when you dont even care about the ways, methods or techniques that are involved in this topic. Next time, pick up a book and learn something before you accuse me and others of being totally wrong when you dont know half of what science is about. Ill say it for the last time and im done with you and this topic.

I do not know whether to laugh or cry. This is not what I was asking. This is 'the math'. This is the scientific part.

lets give an analogy shall we.
You have a glass of water in a room on a table. You come upon the glass and it is 3/4 full. A second glass is 1/2 full. Now you take the temp in the room and the water , test the humidity in the air and the breeze and find out the evaporation rate. '
The rate is 1/4 glass per day. How long have the glasses been there.
The evolutionist says 1 and 2 days respectively... the THINKING person asks
"How full were the glasses when they were put there?" It turns out the glasses were just put there. Not only that, its winter outside and the windows were just shut.
Those are factors that are never taken into the test.


So I will ask again, what was the ratio when the element was created?

And again, Im sure it is the scientists who have about 1,000 times more knowledge than you, ...

This is where you show your ignorance. You want to just do the easy math part and not think about variables.

The ozone layer is thining by X amount per year. The earth is X amount of years old. Therefore the ozone layer is thining at 'this much' per year.
UNLESS... it just started to thin during the industrial revolution!?

Now if you were not so arrogant then I could assume you simply misunderstood. As it is, I must assume that you have a reading comprehension problem, or are just plain ignorant.

WE ARE HERE TO DENY IGNORANCE.
Now please honor your own words and do not reply in this thread anymore.

Thanks.

Anyone else care to discuss this like normal people or is it going to be this way with everyone?

If there is no answer to the question, then the dating method does not comply with the Scientific Method.
The data is not reliable.
The earth is not 4.5 billion years old.

anyone?

All radiometric dating is based on this very simple equation and the exponentially decreasing curve. In other words, N is the present abundance of parent atoms, the original abundance of parent atoms equals N0, t is time, and k is a constant related to the half-life (the time it takes for half of the parent atoms of a radioactive isotope to decay). The simplicity of this equation combined with the fact that it works with many different dating methods produces great confidence in its reliability.
By Roger C. Wiens, PhD.

Now I think your not suggesting that the formula is wrong, just that they are, in you opinion "guessing"?at the original number of parent atoms to start with.(correct?)

However, a small complication remains. One cannot always assume that no daughter atoms existed to begin with, so the initial amount of the daughter product must be determined. Each dating method solves this problem in its own way. Particular types of dating work better in some rocks; others perform better in other rocks, depending on the rocks’ composition and age. By Roger C. Wiens, PhD.

I'm sorry to say that I dont have the backgroung to answer your question specifically, and I know that you wish to limit the debate to just this one method of dating. But the various dating methods seem to be showing the same thing even though they use different techniques.

Radiometric dating has proven reliable from relatively short timescales of seconds, minutes, days, and years (calibrated with laboratory clocks), to a few thousand years (cross-calibrated with other reliable age indicators), to many millions of years (cross-comparison performed between dating methods).

also conforms to astronomical principals:

Radiometric dates agree with astronomical timescales.5 In astronomy, decay rate constancy can be tested easily by studying stars at varying distances. Since these distances represent different light travel times (hence different astronomical eras), astronomers can observe whether or not decay rates were slower or faster at different eras. Their research reveals constancy, and constancy confirms established radiometric dates.

and this speaks directly to your question:

Most rocks are, for practical purposes, closed systems. Some doubters have tried to dismiss geologic dating by saying that no rocks are completely closed systems (i.e., rocks are not isolated from their surroundings and as a result have lost or gained some isotopes used for dating). From an extremely technical perspective this point may be true—perhaps one atom out of a trillion has leaked out of nearly all rocks—but such a change makes an unmeasurably small change in the result. Many books written over the past forty years detail the precise conditions under which dating mechanisms work

IMO, your assuming science got it wrong, while in my laymans opinion your question is valid, but you offer no proof. And it appears that the scientific community has.


[edit on 30-4-2005 by Rren]

IMO, your assuming science got it wrong, while in my laymans opinion your question is valid, but you offer no proof. And it appears that the scientific community has.

Thats why I didnt want opinions or other dating methods.
I intended to keep it one at a time for a reason. Each "confirming" THEORY has its own assumptions built into it. The fact is that they assume a certain rate over billions of years and they assume a certain starting amount.

now, back to the point.

The dating methods used to date rock do not comply with the Sceintific Method. They are not science fact. They are a guess.
So who old is the earth?
We dont know.

Jake, how is it that your sig says deny ignorance, and yet you completely block out what other people are saying.

Rren answered your questions in a precise and clear manner.

You say he proves nothing because he used other dating methods as an example. It's called correlation. That's how science works. You ask for scientific proof, get the proof, and then say it's not scientific.

Are you just trying to make people angry so they respond to your thread?

You guys really have to keep your personal opinions and beliefs out of this so you dont get all huffed up.
He never showed how a starting amount is determined. The examples of the glasses of water show just that.

Now you know what I say to Deny Ignorance.

Just been reading this thread and it is quite clear you have liitle knowledge of the whole halflife thing. Although I admit I do not either I do know the basics but the fact remains that if this theory of the eart being billions of years old was a piece of rubbish would hundreds of other scientists all accept the theory? One scientist saying "yar, umm the earth is billions of years old. I know this because i tested some rocks" isn't going to convince the rest. Plenty of independent studies would have been carried out to help provide evidence for the theory, each with different groups of scientists. Science isnt like a rumor - you cant just start it and let it grow and people will believe it, the "rumor" will be check, tested and then check and tested again by someone else and so on. Creationist (and im not trying to cause some fat debate here) are just trying to cling onto what the bible says. the bibles creation story is simply a device used to help people understand how god created us, the earth, the universe and everything in it. it is by no means a scientific text - for instance the bibles creation story does not take into account dinosaurs which undeniably existed and we know them to have died out around 65million years ago. This simple fact shows htat the earth can not be thousands of years old. il admit it doesnt prove its billion of years old either...