There is uncertainty in isotope-dating. Even when matching with tree-rings. Trees can produce multiple rings in a single season.
The article you link discusses Carbon 14 dating not radioisotope dating. Carbon 14 dating can be used to approximate the age of organic matter, i.e. fossils up to 50,000 to 60,000 years old. C-14 reaches the earth as a result of radioactive particles colliding with the earth's magnetic fields. C-14 eventually reaches the surface of the earth carried by precipatation. Plants and animals consume C-14 throughout their lifetimes and the element has a 1.0: 1.5 ratio to the more stable C-12. When the organism dies C-14 begins to decay at a fairly predictable rate. It reaches its half life in approximately 5,300 years. After Carbon 14 has gone through 9 half lives, the amount of Carbon 14 remaining in the fossil is so miniscule that dating becomes problematic. C-14 has been used to date hominid fossils like Cro Magnon and Neanderthal.
Paleotologists use stratigraphy to date older fossils. The date them according to the strata of rock in which they are found. They use radioisotope dating of the surrounding rock to date the fossil. To do this, they use U-235 to lead dating. U-235 decays at a constant rate. It's half life is 700 million years, which allows for the older dating.
The article you link discusses Carbon 14 dating not radioisotope dating. Carbon 14 dating can be used to approximate the age of organic matter, i.e. fossils up to 50,000 to 60,000 years old. C-14 reaches the earth as a result of radioactive particles colliding with the earth's magnetic fields. C-14 eventually reaches the surface of the earth carried by precipatation. Plants and animals consume C-14 throughout their lifetimes and the element has a 1.0: 1.5 ratio to the more stable C-12. When the organism dies C-14 begins to decay at a fairly predictable rate. It reaches its half life in approximately 5,300 years. After Carbon 14 has gone through 9 half lives, the amount of Carbon 14 remaining in the fossil is so miniscule that dating becomes problematic. C-14 has been used to date hominid fossils like Cro Magnon and Neanderthal.
Paleotologists use stratigraphy to date older fossils. The date them according to the strata of rock in which they are found. They use radioisotope dating of the surrounding rock to date the fossil. To do this, they use U-235 to lead dating. U-235 decays at a constant rate. It's half life is 700 million years, which allows for the older dating.
I understand half-lives and the Arrhenius equation and such.
But the assumption for c-14 is radiation from the sun has been generally constant? Then the assumption is also that the ratios within living organisms has always been constant. I understand that the creationists believe in a denser atmosphere before the flood (which BTW helps explain how pterodactyls can fly, not just glide) Aren't the assumptions for all types of dating are that the conditions are generally constant.
didn't one (was it Argon-potassium or something?) Was shown to be useless. And after a volcano or something?
Plus, sure, if all the elements were exposed to the same catastrophes in the layering there's possiblities for other reasons as to why we see the data we see.
We can't go back in time and see what happened. My understanding is there are a lot of assumptions made for these types of dating. What conditions can change the rate of decay? How do we know exactly who much we started with? For me, that opens the door for other possibilities.
I'm taking a course right now on chemical kinetics. Even reactions we can watch from beginning to end have a lot of uncertainty in measurement.
I know that the dating we're discussing deals with the nucleus and not the electron chemistry, but for scientists to say they can speak with confidence about millions and billions of years is a lofty notion IMO.
I understand half-lives and the Arrhenius equation and such.
But the assumption for c-14 is radiation from the sun has been generally constant? Then the assumption is also that the ratios within living organisms has always been constant.
What evidence do you have to show that C-14 has not been relatively constant over the course of the last 6,000 (just a little more than its half life) so as to render it ineffective as a measurement of time?
What conditions can change the rate of decay? How do we know exactly who much we started with? For me, that opens the door for other possibilities.
What evidence do you have to show that C-14 has not been relatively constant over the course of the last 6,000 (just a little more than its half life) so as to render it infective as a measurement of time?
What conditions would you care to assert?
The sun is a big ball of fire (or something similar). Ever stared at a candle? Even the tamest flicker now and then. I'm just posing questions. I don't see why there isn't room for doubt about the Earth being old.
My understanding is that the old earth idea started when someone postulated that water erosion caused a lot of the geological formations we see, over a long time. I believe this was about the same time Gap Theory came to be (1700s?).
The creation museum showed video of events that showed otherwise. (There's a NOVA episode about a Megaflood in Montana that I think is interesting).
I wonder, if had they had known then what they know now about geology, if the old earth idea would have got started. A theory was begun, all new data was believed to fit the old theory. That history would be interesting to look into I think.
I wonder, if had they had known then what they know now about geology, if the old earth idea would have got started. A theory was begun, all new data was believed to fit the old theory. That history would be interesting to look into I think.
If the earth is approximately 6,000 years old then it would follow that radioisotope dating must be flawed. What evidence exists to undermine it as a measure of geologic time?
If the proponents of "young earth" are correct then recent discoveries regarding the background noise of the Big Bang must be in error. How would they interpret the recent findings?
If the earth is approximately 6,000 years old then it would follow that radioisotope dating must be flawed. What evidence exists to undermine it as a measure of geologic time?
If the proponents of "young earth" are correct then recent discoveries regarding the background noise of the Big Bang must be in error. How would they interpret the recent findings?
The creationists have their reasons that I haven't looked into yet. (There are many areas they cover, basically all areas of science)
Not trying to be a smartfoot, but I doubt the majority of people have proven to themselves the results of current scientific data anyway. Bottom line for me is that neither the creationist nor the old-earth theory has been proven to me enough to convince me either way. I know most folks are happy to accept the common theory, and others simply reject it. I'm really open to either one being true at this point. I can see that either one (or both) could be completely flawed.
My family just went to the museum yesterday. It was very nicely done! I think for the people that want more scientific evidence for creation, they need not go any further than the creation bookstore.
They have every book, DVD, etc. that covers just about any aspect of which you could dream.
The museum is not for the hardcore science seeker because it is meant to reach the masses.
Institute for Creation Research has quite a bit of deep science materials. They also have a museum,although it isn't as grand as the one in Kentucky. I am not going to debate anyone here, because I simply do not have the time, but there are many materials to read and listen to that any science minded person will find very interesting. I gave evolution a try and tried to convice myself that it was true, but there was simply no solid evidence that could keep me going.
The young earth view simply has mounds of evidence and seems very logical. Many of the Creation Scientists are available for questions and are happy to get into deep topics. Dr. David Menton is one the smartest men that I have ever met and he was there at the museum ready to answer questions.
I believe that Dr. Menton works there as well as travels for speaking engagements. AIG family camp is I think next week and that's when you really get to meet these very learned people. That is where I met Dr. Menton. You can spend alot time asking deep questions and they take the time to answer each one. Camp is a wonderful place where you get alot more than the milk so to speak of the subject. He also has teachings out on DVD that will captivate the science student in you.
But how did marsupials (or any mammal you may choose) get to Australia after the flood?
The kangaroos hopped and the dingos walked.
The supercontinent didn't break up until Peleg's day. Which I believe means they had hundreds of years to get there before the split. The YECs also seem to believe that the Ice Age was a period of time following the flood, so Water was trapped as ice, lowering the ocean levels, meaning more land bridges.
Where is the geologic evidence that the continents were moving apart at hyperspeeds compared to what they are moving today?
This is an interesting chart that outlines the underlying beliefs / assertions of New Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Theistic Evolution and Natural Evolution against known scientific data.
The NASA Magellan mission to Venus in the early 1990s revealed that Earth’s sister planet had been globally resurfaced in the not so distant past via a catastrophic mechanism internal to the Venus mantle.22 Magellan’s high-resolution radar images showed evidence of extreme tectonic deformation that generated the northern highlands known as Ishtar Terra with mountains having slopes as high as 45°.23 More than half of the Venus surface had been flooded with basaltic lava to produce largely featureless plains except for linear fractures caused by cooling and contraction. Runaway sinking of the cold upper thermal boundary layer of the planet seems the most plausible mechanism to explain such catastrophism at the surface.22 Given such clear and tangible evidence for runaway in a planet so similar in size and composition as Venus, it is not unreasonable to consider lithospheric runaway as the mechanism behind the global scale catastrophism so apparent in the Earth’s Phanerozoic sedimentary record.
God supposedly killed the entire world with a flood in Noah's day and segregated the entire world in Peleg's day primarily for sin related reasons. Why exactly did He cause this catastrophic geological event on Venus?
God supposedly killed the entire world with a flood in Noah's day and segregated the entire world in Peleg's day primarily for sin related reasons. Why exactly did He cause this catastrophic geological event on Venus?
Nobody's suggesting life on Venus, or the Sun. Venus is known as Earth's "Sister Planet". If surface changes can happen rapidly there, why do we assume Earth's takes millions or billions of years?
I don't think scientists assume this and I certainly don't. There are many different types of dating techniques which are assumed by creation scientists to be wrong. What you are referencing are people that assume first that the Bible's literal version of origins is correct and then try to find the science to back up their view, meanwhile ignoring or dismissing mountains of other evidence. It is not honest or genuine science.
The reason I ask about God's motives is because the events you are discussing are stories in the Bible and the only reasons for these magnificent life and earth altering events (the only two in the Bible's version of the history of the world) are God's reaction to widespread sin of man. So, if it can happen on Venus by natural course, then why wouldn't it happen on earth in the same way? If we are to read Genisis in a literal way concerning creation then, should the flood and Peleg not also be read this way?
It makes more sence to me that just as massive geological events happened on Venus without man or God in the equation then large scale events could happen on earth in the same fashion whether they take ten years or ten million. It would then also make more sense to me that catestophic local events occuring in a time when other world religions attributed things like rain, snow, flooding, earthquakes, and volcanoes to their respective dieties, that the Bible is no different.
So since there seems to be no reason for God to drastically change Venus' landscape, and that it happened by purely natural causes and reasons, then why did it happen there and not here. The short answer is that even though it is our "sister planet" does not mean that it is at all as similar to earth as genetic siblings. I would say that most of the amazing geologic and atmospheric events that take place on Venus are simply by virtue of it's location in the solar system and it's planetary make up. Which are actually the same reason. I would also think that if there are events which have made a noticable impact on Venus where we can see the effects from a great distance, that more than just creation scientists would have realised that similar geologic events happened here on earth.
I don't think scientists assume this and I certainly don't. There are many different types of dating techniques which are assumed by creation scientists to be wrong. What you are referencing are people that assume first that the Bible's literal version of origins is correct and then try to find the science to back up their view, meanwhile ignoring or dismissing mountains of other evidence. It is not honest or genuine science.
. . .
Assumptions.
Scientists assume the world to be old. They assume their dating methods work, and there are a number of assumptions in the theories of how they work. I'm a scientist. When I write a report, I indicate my assumptions. Science does not, and cannot, know everything. I do not know why people think that science is separate from biased opinions of human beings. As data comes in, old theories are challenged, even gravity. The old geological earth is based on an assumption that slow erosion caused formations like the Grand Canyon. All new ideas are assumed to fit under the old idea.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
16
13
17
74
Popular Days
Jul 6
33
Jul 3
27
Jul 5
18
Jul 4
17
Top Posters In This Topic
GT 16 posts
oenophile 13 posts
GarthP2000 17 posts
Bolshevik 74 posts
Popular Days
Jul 6 2007
33 posts
Jul 3 2007
27 posts
Jul 5 2007
18 posts
Jul 4 2007
17 posts
oenophile
The article you link discusses Carbon 14 dating not radioisotope dating. Carbon 14 dating can be used to approximate the age of organic matter, i.e. fossils up to 50,000 to 60,000 years old. C-14 reaches the earth as a result of radioactive particles colliding with the earth's magnetic fields. C-14 eventually reaches the surface of the earth carried by precipatation. Plants and animals consume C-14 throughout their lifetimes and the element has a 1.0: 1.5 ratio to the more stable C-12. When the organism dies C-14 begins to decay at a fairly predictable rate. It reaches its half life in approximately 5,300 years. After Carbon 14 has gone through 9 half lives, the amount of Carbon 14 remaining in the fossil is so miniscule that dating becomes problematic. C-14 has been used to date hominid fossils like Cro Magnon and Neanderthal.
Paleotologists use stratigraphy to date older fossils. The date them according to the strata of rock in which they are found. They use radioisotope dating of the surrounding rock to date the fossil. To do this, they use U-235 to lead dating. U-235 decays at a constant rate. It's half life is 700 million years, which allows for the older dating.
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/...ssildating.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I understand half-lives and the Arrhenius equation and such.
But the assumption for c-14 is radiation from the sun has been generally constant? Then the assumption is also that the ratios within living organisms has always been constant. I understand that the creationists believe in a denser atmosphere before the flood (which BTW helps explain how pterodactyls can fly, not just glide) Aren't the assumptions for all types of dating are that the conditions are generally constant.
didn't one (was it Argon-potassium or something?) Was shown to be useless. And after a volcano or something?
Plus, sure, if all the elements were exposed to the same catastrophes in the layering there's possiblities for other reasons as to why we see the data we see.
We can't go back in time and see what happened. My understanding is there are a lot of assumptions made for these types of dating. What conditions can change the rate of decay? How do we know exactly who much we started with? For me, that opens the door for other possibilities.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'm taking a course right now on chemical kinetics. Even reactions we can watch from beginning to end have a lot of uncertainty in measurement.
I know that the dating we're discussing deals with the nucleus and not the electron chemistry, but for scientists to say they can speak with confidence about millions and billions of years is a lofty notion IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
What evidence do you have to show that C-14 has not been relatively constant over the course of the last 6,000 (just a little more than its half life) so as to render it ineffective as a measurement of time?
What conditions would you care to assert?
Edited by oenophileLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The sun is a big ball of fire (or something similar). Ever stared at a candle? Even the tamest flicker now and then. I'm just posing questions. I don't see why there isn't room for doubt about the Earth being old.
My understanding is that the old earth idea started when someone postulated that water erosion caused a lot of the geological formations we see, over a long time. I believe this was about the same time Gap Theory came to be (1700s?).
The creation museum showed video of events that showed otherwise. (There's a NOVA episode about a Megaflood in Montana that I think is interesting).
I wonder, if had they had known then what they know now about geology, if the old earth idea would have got started. A theory was begun, all new data was believed to fit the old theory. That history would be interesting to look into I think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
If the earth is approximately 6,000 years old then it would follow that radioisotope dating must be flawed. What evidence exists to undermine it as a measure of geologic time?
If the proponents of "young earth" are correct then recent discoveries regarding the background noise of the Big Bang must be in error. How would they interpret the recent findings?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
me too! ...how do they explain this!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The creationists have their reasons that I haven't looked into yet. (There are many areas they cover, basically all areas of science)
Not trying to be a smartfoot, but I doubt the majority of people have proven to themselves the results of current scientific data anyway. Bottom line for me is that neither the creationist nor the old-earth theory has been proven to me enough to convince me either way. I know most folks are happy to accept the common theory, and others simply reject it. I'm really open to either one being true at this point. I can see that either one (or both) could be completely flawed.
Do you know the story of the Quantum Revolution?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gladtobeout
Hello all,
My family just went to the museum yesterday. It was very nicely done! I think for the people that want more scientific evidence for creation, they need not go any further than the creation bookstore.
They have every book, DVD, etc. that covers just about any aspect of which you could dream.
The museum is not for the hardcore science seeker because it is meant to reach the masses.
Institute for Creation Research has quite a bit of deep science materials. They also have a museum,although it isn't as grand as the one in Kentucky. I am not going to debate anyone here, because I simply do not have the time, but there are many materials to read and listen to that any science minded person will find very interesting. I gave evolution a try and tried to convice myself that it was true, but there was simply no solid evidence that could keep me going.
The young earth view simply has mounds of evidence and seems very logical. Many of the Creation Scientists are available for questions and are happy to get into deep topics. Dr. David Menton is one the smartest men that I have ever met and he was there at the museum ready to answer questions.
It was worth out trip
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You met Dr. Menton? Do you know if he was just visiting or does he works there full-time?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
No, but I'd like to meet Dr. Demento.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Sorry, Sushi
The Doctor is out .
He'll be right back with----------------------.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gladtobeout
I believe that Dr. Menton works there as well as travels for speaking engagements. AIG family camp is I think next week and that's when you really get to meet these very learned people. That is where I met Dr. Menton. You can spend alot time asking deep questions and they take the time to answer each one. Camp is a wonderful place where you get alot more than the milk so to speak of the subject. He also has teachings out on DVD that will captivate the science student in you.
Have a great one
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Oenophile,
Marsupial fossils have been found in every continent. Some beleive they originated in the Americas.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...tmarsupial.html
http://planet.uwc.ac.za/nisl/Biodiversity/LOE/page_180.htm
Flesh eating kangaroos:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...5-kangaroo.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
But how did marsupials (or any mammal you may choose) get to Australia after the flood?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The kangaroos hopped and the dingos walked.
The supercontinent didn't break up until Peleg's day. Which I believe means they had hundreds of years to get there before the split. The YECs also seem to believe that the Ice Age was a period of time following the flood, so Water was trapped as ice, lowering the ocean levels, meaning more land bridges.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Where is the geologic evidence that the continents were moving apart at hyperspeeds compared to what they are moving today?
This is an interesting chart that outlines the underlying beliefs / assertions of New Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Theistic Evolution and Natural Evolution against known scientific data.
http://www.originscience.com/origin-views-...rison-chart.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Maybe start with what the evidence is that they weren't?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/...e_tectonics.asp
Seems to have happened on Venus. Why not here?
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Here's a creationist theory on hydroplates:
http://creationwiki.org/Hydroplate_theory
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
God supposedly killed the entire world with a flood in Noah's day and segregated the entire world in Peleg's day primarily for sin related reasons. Why exactly did He cause this catastrophic geological event on Venus?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Nobody's suggesting life on Venus, or the Sun. Venus is known as Earth's "Sister Planet". If surface changes can happen rapidly there, why do we assume Earth's takes millions or billions of years?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I don't think scientists assume this and I certainly don't. There are many different types of dating techniques which are assumed by creation scientists to be wrong. What you are referencing are people that assume first that the Bible's literal version of origins is correct and then try to find the science to back up their view, meanwhile ignoring or dismissing mountains of other evidence. It is not honest or genuine science.
The reason I ask about God's motives is because the events you are discussing are stories in the Bible and the only reasons for these magnificent life and earth altering events (the only two in the Bible's version of the history of the world) are God's reaction to widespread sin of man. So, if it can happen on Venus by natural course, then why wouldn't it happen on earth in the same way? If we are to read Genisis in a literal way concerning creation then, should the flood and Peleg not also be read this way?
It makes more sence to me that just as massive geological events happened on Venus without man or God in the equation then large scale events could happen on earth in the same fashion whether they take ten years or ten million. It would then also make more sense to me that catestophic local events occuring in a time when other world religions attributed things like rain, snow, flooding, earthquakes, and volcanoes to their respective dieties, that the Bible is no different.
So since there seems to be no reason for God to drastically change Venus' landscape, and that it happened by purely natural causes and reasons, then why did it happen there and not here. The short answer is that even though it is our "sister planet" does not mean that it is at all as similar to earth as genetic siblings. I would say that most of the amazing geologic and atmospheric events that take place on Venus are simply by virtue of it's location in the solar system and it's planetary make up. Which are actually the same reason. I would also think that if there are events which have made a noticable impact on Venus where we can see the effects from a great distance, that more than just creation scientists would have realised that similar geologic events happened here on earth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Assumptions.
Scientists assume the world to be old. They assume their dating methods work, and there are a number of assumptions in the theories of how they work. I'm a scientist. When I write a report, I indicate my assumptions. Science does not, and cannot, know everything. I do not know why people think that science is separate from biased opinions of human beings. As data comes in, old theories are challenged, even gravity. The old geological earth is based on an assumption that slow erosion caused formations like the Grand Canyon. All new ideas are assumed to fit under the old idea.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.