Can any creationist tell me ...

[blü 2]

Since nothing affects radioactive decay I guess atomic bombs are just not possible. Sure radioactive decay is affected by outside influences.

What outside influences?

The dating method is selected by the dater. It is not determined by the sample. And if it's off by a few million years why should I trust It?

What example of 'being off by a few million years' do you have in mind? How recent was it?

 

[blü 2]

No. What I referenced shows that geologists use preconceived assumptions before they even consider dating a sample. They use them during the dating process, too.

I asked you ─

So what specifically is wrong with those principles you mention, do you say? That they've been found to be erroneous? Or what?
​

And your answer shows that you have no such error to report. You don't even appear to have checked the methods by which the system of reading geological strata have been verified.

Your only objection is to the age of the science.

Since your bible is ten to fifteen times older than that, I take it you think your bible's science is ten to fifteen times worse again?

 

[DavidFirth]

What outside influences?

What example of 'being off by a few million years' do you have in mind? How recent was it?

1. Creation by God. What if God created the rock 8000 years ago with the elements already having the properties of having decayed for the period indicated by the dating method? I guess the dating method would have to be thrown out in that case.

What if some other kind of radiation or very similar radiation from a different source affected the rate of decay in the rock? Again, the current dating method would be no good.

Geologists are forced to assume that the rock was in its pristine state when it formed with zero decay for their dating methods to be even somewhat accurate.

2. Do you know of an instance when a geologist is 100% sure his dating method is 100% accurate? No, there is always margin for error many times it is millions of years or 100s of millions of years. Rock dating is far from an exact science.

 

[DavidFirth]

I asked you ─

So what specifically is wrong with those principles you mention, do you say? That they've been found to be erroneous? Or what?
​

And your answer shows that you have no such error to report. You don't even appear to have checked the methods by which the system of reading geological strata have been verified.

Your only objection is to the age of the science.

Since your bible is ten to fifteen times older than that, I take it you think your bible's science is ten to fifteen times worse again?

Again, you're not listening. My objection is to the reliability of the science based on the preconceived assumptions made about it before the methods are applied. Also, the fact that it is hardly an exact science bothers me a lot.

 

[sayak83]

Well, I'm no Ph.D. so my knowledge is limited. I can't discuss it on that level as I have no formal education about it.

Well, I do know the dating methods result in far from precision. If being off by a few million years doesn't bother you, fine. But it does bother me.

How can a geologist know that no radiation or outside influence of any kind - for millions of years - has affected the rock in such a way that the dating methods can be reliable at all? Different methods produce different results and must be used according to preference. That bothers me, too.

In a different thread I had written a bit about this. Take a look at the three post below

Evidence for an ancient earth

Evidence for an ancient earth

Evidence for an ancient earth


Let me know if the content of these posts are clear and what doubts and questions come to mind. Just for reference, I am linking a really good paper that showcases how dating methods are used for zircon crystals, which are gold standard for determination of age of the earth. I don't expect anyone to really understand what's going on in the paper below, but if we have a good discussion, I hope the basic ideas would become clear.

Continental and Oceanic Crust Recycling-induced Melt–Peridotite Interactions in the Trans-North China Orogen: U–Pb Dating, Hf Isotopes and Trace Elements in Zircons from Mantle Xenoliths | Journal of Petrology | Oxford Academic

 

[blü 2]

Again, you're not listening. My objection is to the reliability of the science based on the preconceived assumptions made about it before the methods are applied. Also, the fact that it is hardly an exact science bothers me a lot.

Alas I fear that your out-loud contempt for science is making you want it to be wrong.

If not, you can simply read up on it on the net, weigh all the factors, and come to a decision based on understanding why science accepts it.

 

[Looncall]

1. Creation by God. What if God created the rock 8000 years ago with the elements already having the properties of having decayed for the period indicated by the dating method? I guess the dating method would have to be thrown out in that case.

What if some other kind of radiation or very similar radiation from a different source affected the rate of decay in the rock? Again, the current dating method would be no good.

Geologists are forced to assume that the rock was in its pristine state when it formed with zero decay for their dating methods to be even somewhat accurate.

2. Do you know of an instance when a geologist is 100% sure his dating method is 100% accurate? No, there is always margin for error many times it is millions of years or 100s of millions of years. Rock dating is far from an exact science.

Your ignorance of radioactivity is appalling. It is one of the best-understood phenomena. Nothing changes nuclear decay rates. I have personally carried out research to verify that. I have made my living working with radioactivity for some 30 years. I find that to have some religion-addled bible thumper cast aspersions on nuclear science is beneath contempt.

All measurements carry uncertainty. A million in several billion is good going. How do you propose to better it? Using the scribblings of ancient savages? Not likely!

 

[metis]

Since nothing affects radioactive decay I guess atomic bombs are just not possible. Sure radioactive decay is affected by outside influences.

"Radioactive decay" simply is not at all the same as a "nuclear reaction".

 

[metis]

I totally disagree with you. The kind of story I told is exactly what scientists do.

No serious scientist would do as such for reasons I previously mentioned, and why do you presume to know more than those of us who actually do the work, whereas you even admit your own limitations on this?

Let me recommend that you find a church that teaches truth and honesty instead of what your church, along with the church I grew up in, appears to teach you. They simply appear to be lying to you while fleecing you of your money.

 

[metis]

1. Creation by God. What if God created the rock 8000 years ago with the elements already having the properties of having decayed for the period indicated by the dating method?

That has God as being a trickster who deceptively makes young things look old. And if God is tricking us with that, what else is He tricking us with? Maybe the Bible is a trick whereas we should be doing the opposite? I certainly don't believe that, but it logically would have to be a possibility for you using your position on creation by a deceptive deity.

2. Do you know of an instance when a geologist is 100% sure his dating method is 100% accurate? No, there is always margin for error many times it is millions of years or 100s of millions of years. Rock dating is far from an exact science.

That's not how it works. When something is dated, it's put into the context of being bracketed with a probability range of it being 90% correct.

So, let's say a particular sample tests out at being 1 million years b.p., and the bracket is + or - 200,000 years. Therefore it would be from 1,200,000 to 800,000 years b.p. with approximately a 90% chance of being correct. The degree of error may be different, however, depending other factors, so it could be 100,000 years or 50,000 years, for examples.

But what's also important to know is that this type of testing is not done in a vacuum, so other objects found in the same strata may also be dated as well, which forms as a double-check.

You must think that geologists and nuclear physicists are idiots or are dishonest, as they supposedly either don't know what they're doing or are so utterly dishonest that they just out-and-out lie-- or both. To prevent such ignorance or dishonesty, scientists constantly double-check each other, a process that one can see if you simply buy one copy of "Scientific American" and read the critiques of previous studies.

 

[DavidFirth]

That has God as being a trickster who deceptively makes young things look old. And if God is tricking us with that, what else is He tricking us with? Maybe the Bible is a trick whereas we should be doing the opposite? I certainly don't believe that, but it logically would have to be a possibility for you using your position on creation by a deceptive deity.

That's not how it works. When something is dated, it's put into the context of being bracketed with a probability range of it being 90% correct.

So, let's say a particular sample tests out at being 1 million years b.p., and the bracket is + or - 200,000 years. Therefore it would be from 1,200,000 to 800,000 years b.p. with approximately a 90% chance of being correct. The degree of error may be different, however, depending other factors, so it could be 100,000 years or 50,000 years, for examples.

But what's also important to know is that this type of testing is not done in a vacuum, so other objects found in the same strata may also be dated as well, which forms as a double-check.

You must think that geologists and nuclear physicists are idiots or are dishonest, as they supposedly either don't know what they're doing or are so utterly dishonest that they just out-and-out lie-- or both. To prevent such ignorance or dishonesty, scientists constantly double-check each other, a process that one can see if you simply buy one copy of "Scientific American" and read the critiques of previous studies.

1. Not at all. If men are foolish enough to interpret the evidence that way instead of believing God, that's hardly God's fault. After all God has already said that the wisdom of men is foolishness before Him. God has already said how He created and described it quite well. If men choose to believe wild theories instead that is on them.

2. No, I don't think they're idiots. All of us are deceived by Satan into thinking sinful thoughts so no, I don't think they're idiots. I do think it foolish to believe in something to be true that has only a 90% probability of being correct (90% according to them, not me). Several football teams with the odds of 10:1 against them have won before. 90% is hardly foolproof.

 

[DavidFirth]

Your ignorance of radioactivity is appalling. It is one of the best-understood phenomena. Nothing changes nuclear decay rates. I have personally carried out research to verify that. I have made my living working with radioactivity for some 30 years. I find that to have some religion-addled bible thumper cast aspersions on nuclear science is beneath contempt.

All measurements carry uncertainty. A million in several billion is good going. How do you propose to better it? Using the scribblings of ancient savages? Not likely!

I beg to differ. Research into radioactive decay hardly proves anything with 100% certainty. Since I'm 100% certain God created, you'll need 100% certainty to be able to convince me that He didn't.

You see, Genesis 1 & 2 will never change. Your scientists thoughts concerning the things you speak of will change almost certainly within the next decade. Good luck with that.

 

[Looncall]

I beg to differ. Research into radioactive decay hardly proves anything with 100% certainty. Since I'm 100% certain God created, you'll need 100% certainty to be able to convince me that He didn't.

You see, Genesis 1 & 2 will never change. Your scientists thoughts concerning the things you speak of will change almost certainly within the next decade. Good luck with that.

100% certainty is not available in any endeavor. It is merely delusion induced in the minds of pathetic victims of vicious scams.

 

[DavidFirth]

100% certainty is not available in any endeavor. It is merely delusion induced in the minds of pathetic victims of vicious scams.

Translation: I prefer Man's speculations to the word of God.

 

[sayak83]

Translation: I prefer Man's speculations to the word of God.

Do you have any comments on my post?

 

[DavidFirth]

Do you have any comments on my post?

Sorry, I had missed it among my 35 alerts.

It's still just speculation based on assumption. All 3 are. The math looks impressive but nothing is proved that I can see.

Try these:

Is there evidence for a young earth? | Bibleinfo.com

Evidence for a Young World | The Institute for Creation Research

The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth

 

[sayak83]

Sorry, I had missed it among my 35 alerts.

It's still just speculation based on assumption. All 3 are. The math looks impressive but nothing is proved that I can see.

Try these:

Is there evidence for a young earth? | Bibleinfo.com

Evidence for a Young World | The Institute for Creation Research

The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth

I would prefer if you summarize the points yourself, as I did in my posts. I am not interested in what other people have written, but how you approach the topic. I would also like you point what are the things that cause you to doubt the validity arguments in the posts I made.

 

[blü 2]

I beg to differ. Research into radioactive decay hardly proves anything with 100% certainty. Since I'm 100% certain God created, you'll need 100% certainty to be able to convince me that He didn't.

100% certain because someone once told you?

Interesting.

Genesis 1 & 2 will never change.

If they contain errors, I doubt immutability will help.

Your scientists thoughts concerning the things you speak of will change almost certainly within the next decade. Good luck with that.

Thank you. However, it's because science sets out to update its findings and correct its errors as fast as it finds them. Unfortunately some religions resist doing that.

By the way, congratulations on your Scottish descent. My own Gaelic-speaking patrilinear ancestors emigrated in 1837, agus tha mi fhathast dèidheil orra.

 

[DavidFirth]

100% certain because someone once told you?

Interesting.
If they contain errors, I doubt immutability will help.

Thank you. However, it's because science sets out to update its findings and correct its errors as fast as it finds them. Unfortunately some religions resist doing that.

By the way, congratulations on your Scottish descent. My own Gaelic-speaking patrilinear ancestors emigrated in 1837, agus tha mi fhathast dèidheil orra.

At first I wasn't certain but now that I know Jesus I am. The Holy Spirit tells us the truth and makes it known to us. Jesus is truth.

My parents moved here when I was very young. I don't even have a Scottish accent but I wish I did. My mother doesn't, either, she's American.

 

[DavidFirth]

I would prefer if you summarize the points yourself, as I did in my posts. I am not interested in what other people have written, but how you approach the topic. I would also like you point what are the things that cause you to doubt the validity arguments in the posts I made.

How I approach the topic is very different from the way you do. I posted those for you, I don't need them.

I believe God and I believe the Bible because God revealed the truth to me by the Holy Spirit. A true believer has the benefit of prayer. God reveals truth to those who trust in Him.