If The Age of The Earth is Billions of Years ...

[Dirty Penguin]

The same sadness I feel for those who so ignorantly proclaim with such conviction and certainity,where we come from ,how many we were, how long we existed and what we looked like, it's just simply amazes me that intelligent people follow the hypothesis

What we say is that we have a theory of evolution. What some theist say is a god did it.

The same proof you ask of us we ask of you. We come to you with the information that is out there for everyone who wants to take it and test it to either disprove or agree with the theory presented.

What information can you provide to allow us to determine the validity of what you assert?

 

[kmkemp]

Radiometric dating has been calibrated to 45,000 years using varve analysis, and remains constant to that age. Do you know something about physics that should cause the world's physicists to think it would suddenly change after that time. In any case, without using radiometric dating, and only counting varves, we already know the world is much older than YEC holds.

Remains constant? Even scientists will admit an error margin of up to ~17% due to changes in the atmosphere. That is to not even mention other factors that can increase error margin or make dating completely useless.

 

[kmkemp]

Aren't you comparing apples to oranges?

Projecting population growth rates into the past is unreasonable because we cannot predict factors such as war or plague which significantly affect the equation.

The decay rate of certain isotopes however, are very well understood and predictable, unless you find our current understanding of atomic theory lacking.

There are many factors that can affect dating techniques as well and they are well documented. I say I'm comparing green apples to red apples.

 

[McBell]

There are many factors that can affect dating techniques as well and they are well documented. I say I'm comparing green apples to red apples.

Yet you are concentrating on the green and red and ignoring the apple part.

 

[kmkemp]

Yet you are concentrating on the green and red and ignoring the apple part.

Ummm... perhaps you need to google analogy and reread this thread?

 

[yossarian22]

That is completely avoiding the point.

What point? The absurd demand for certainty?

Yes, it is a reasonable assumption that dating techniques have a much larger error than currently believed. Why? Well, I have already stated the why. Let's take population growth for the last 10 years and pretend that that is all that we are able to test. Just for the sake of argument, lets pretend that it is at least constant with a small deviation.

Fine.

Now, we know NOW that that doesn't hold true for hundreds of years ago much less thousands.

Then it is not constant is it?

How can we make the claim that we can just tens of thousands of years back based on that short term data? Even if it is perfectly consistent, we don't have any means of backing that up.

If it is constant that means it is... constant. It does not change. Unfortunately for this argument, radioactive decay is far from a complex system and can easily be modeled. How do we know there is not a bigger pattern than we see? Because we can chart data on a residual plot which instantly tells us if our data is not linear. (Half life decay is not linear, but it can be made such. Logarithmic conversion I think)
Edit:

Remains constant? Even scientists will admit an error margin of up to ~17% due to changes in the atmosphere.

So this means that 77% of radioactive isotopes present in a sample are defined by time. That is an extremely strong relationship.
I can demonstrate this to you if you wish. PM me

 

[McBell]

If it is constant that means it is... constant. It does not change. Unfortunately for this argument, radioactive decay is far from a complex system and can easily be modeled. How do we know there is not a bigger pattern than we see? Because we can chart data on a residual plot which instantly tells us if our data is not linear. (Half life decay is not linear, but it can be made such. Logarithmic conversion I think)

And thus the paying exclusive attention to the red and green and ignoring the apple.

 

[camanintx]

There are many factors that can affect dating techniques as well and they are well documented. I say I'm comparing green apples to red apples.

Isn't that why scientists usually use at least two different methods to determine a specimen's age? If both methods agree, can't we be confident that any distorting effects have been accounted for?

 

[kmkemp]

What point? The absurd demand for certainty?


Fine.

Then it is not constant is it?

If it is constant that means it is... constant. It does not change. Unfortunately for this argument, radioactive decay is far from a complex system and can easily be modeled. How do we know there is not a bigger pattern than we see? Because we can chart data on a residual plot which instantly tells us if our data is not linear. (Half life decay is not linear, but it can be made such. Logarithmic conversion I think)
Edit:

So this means that 77% of radioactive isotopes present in a sample are defined by time. That is an extremely strong relationship.

So...

1) You admit that decay is not linear.
2) You admit that we can't see the whole pattern.

Seems like you are making my case, but yet you want to disagree with me. I think I see why. You state correctly that a short-term plotting of findings can instantly tell us if the decay is not linear. However, just because it is linear for the short-term past tells us nothing about its long-term action.

p.s. The ~17% error is due to (surprise surprise) known environmental factors that caused varying degrees of carbon buildup. Which, of course, begs the question... how can we know that we are accounting for all factors? Are we even safe to assume that we have likely accounted for all factors?

 

[kmkemp]

Isn't that why scientists usually use at least two different methods to determine a specimen's age? If both methods agree, can't we be confident that any distorting effects have been accounted for?

Surely it lends credibility, but they all suffer from the same inherit weakness.

 

[camanintx]

Surely it lends credibility, but they all suffer from the same inherit weakness.

What inherent weakness would produce the same measurement errors in radiometric dating, stratigraphy and dendrochronology?

 

[Autodidact]

Remains constant? Even scientists will admit an error margin of up to ~17% due to changes in the atmosphere. That is to not even mention other factors that can increase error margin or make dating completely useless.

Do you have a reference for this (erroneous) assertion? Why would changes in the atmosphere affect rocks taken form a core drilled deep in the earth? Are you perhaps confusing "radiometric" with "carbon?"

Using argon-argon dating, scientists accurately dated pumice from the volcanic explosion at Pompeii to + or - 5%, and scientists consider younger materials to be more difficult to date accurately.

In any case, even if the margin of error for any form of radiometric dating was 17%, which I don't believe is correct, it doesn't get you from 4.56 billion years to 6000 years.

 

[yossarian22]

So...

1) You admit that decay is not linear.

Yes. But that is the point.

2) You admit that we can't see the whole pattern.

We can see the whole pattern. If there were deviations from our pattern we would see it quickly on a residual plot

You state correctly that a short-term plotting of findings can instantly tell us if the decay is not linear. However, just because it is linear for the short-term past tells us nothing about its long-term action.

Of course it is not linear. What the hell gave you that impression? We are continuously taking multiplying by 1/2. That is not a linear eqation. We can make it a linear equation by modifying the units. The equation y=2^x can be turned into a linear function by transforming the units into a logarithim. It seems that I need to explain this entire relationship to you.
1. We take data plotting remaining percentage of radioactive elements against time.
2. We plot this daata on a graph.
Now this data will not form a line or curve. There is no reason to expect it too due to human error and a variety of other factors, namely our equipment.
3. We note that the data is non-linear, so we transform the graph so it becomes linear, or we just leave it be if the equation is not complicated. Linear equations simplify predictions though.
4. We calculate the least squares regression line of this data. The general equation of this line is

(predicted Y) = A*X+B (in statistics this changes but is besides the point)
5. We calculate the

for each of our data points. We take our actual value and subtract the expected value. This gives us a value for each data point called a residual.
6. Now we plot the residuals against X. If points are randomly scattered above and below a line, there is no bigger pattern. If there is a clear pattern, such as a curve, then there is a bigger pattern.

The ~17% error is due to (surprise surprise) known environmental factors that caused varying degrees of carbon buildup. Which, of course, begs the question... how can we know that we are accounting for all factors? Are we even safe to assume that we have likely accounted for all factors?

7. Let's trust your 17% margin of error figure. that means we must have an r^2 (correlation squared) value of .83. R^2 tells us how Y responds to X. An r^2 value of .83 means that 83% of the Y(isoptope concetration) is explained by change in X(time). Working backwards gives us an r (correlation) of +/- .911, meaning that there is a very strong positive of negative linear relationship between x and y. While the actual relationship is not linear, we have manipulated the data so that it is. Calculation of r is a bit long, but ask and I will explain how.

 

[Autodidact]

Remains constant? Even scientists will admit an error margin of up to ~17% due to changes in the atmosphere. That is to not even mention other factors that can increase error margin or make dating completely useless.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Do you know what "calibrate" means? They do radiometric dating. Then they count the varves. (Do you know what varves are?) They come up with the same result, + or - a few years, back to 45,000 years. So we know that radioactive decay rates remain constant at least back that far, and have no reason to hypothesize that it would suddenly change at that point. Further, the results of radiometric dating correlate with other less precise measures, such as erosion of islands, spreading of earth's mantle at Atlantic ridge, etc. etc. All come to about the same results.

And, as I say, without getting all fancy and physics-ish, we can just count the varves and know the earth is at least 45,000 years old, which blows Genesis out of the water right there. What do you care if it's 45,001 years old or 4.56 billion years old, if it'snot 6000 years old?

 

[Autodidact]

There are many factors that can affect dating techniques as well and they are well documented. I say I'm comparing green apples to red apples.

Yes, it's a good thing the technicians who perform the lab work know how to check and account for these factors, isn't it? I mean, you have to check your scale against tare weight every now and then, but it doesn't mean we can't use it to weigh things.

 

[Autodidact]

That is completely avoiding the point. Yes, it is a reasonable assumption that dating techniques have a much larger error than currently believed.

No it isn't.

Why? Well, I have already stated the why.

I must have missed that. Would you be so kind as to repeat it? Thanks.

Let's take population growth for the last 10 years and pretend that that is all that we are able to test. Just for the sake of argument, lets pretend that it is at least constant with a small deviation. Now, we know NOW that that doesn't hold true for hundreds of years ago much less thousands. But if the last 10 years is all of the information we had to go on, we could not reasonably assume that it was true for all of history. Similarly, there is a great risk we take when making dating assumptions. Let's say that we have some relics that we are absolutely positive of their dates from even say 2000 years ago (I'm sure there are such relics). How can we make the claim that we can just tens of thousands of years back based on that short term data? Even if it is perfectly consistent, we don't have any means of backing that up.

Except that one depends on something extremely variable, with many factors, and one relies on only two assumptions, both of which have been checked and double-checked to be so constant that they are used to set the world's most accurate clocks.

We don't use the same methods for 2000 years and tens of thousands of years. And we do have means of checking and calibrating, which have been done. I guess my main question is, do you think that all the world's physicists, taken together, are just plain dumb? Or do you think they've maybe thought of some of these questions?

 

[Autodidact]

So...

1) You admit that decay is not linear.
2) You admit that we can't see the whole pattern.

Seems like you are making my case, but yet you want to disagree with me. I think I see why. You state correctly that a short-term plotting of findings can instantly tell us if the decay is not linear. However, just because it is linear for the short-term past tells us nothing about its long-term action.

p.s. The ~17% error is due to (surprise surprise) known environmental factors that caused varying degrees of carbon buildup. Which, of course, begs the question... how can we know that we are accounting for all factors? Are we even safe to assume that we have likely accounted for all factors?

How would carbon buildup affect argon-argon methods or argon-potassium methods?

 

[Autodidact]

Meanwhile, there are actual scientists who study population statistics and growth, and try to actually extrapolate back through time to the best of their ability. Here is a summary of the time period 10,000 and 8,000 years ago, including several of the leading experts:
Year Summary Biraben Durand Haub McEvedy
and Jones Thomlinson UN, 1993 UN, 1999 USCB Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper -10000 1 10 4 1 10 -8000 5 5 -6500 5 10 5 10 -5000 5 20 5 5 20 -4000 7 7
( from here)
Note this is not some kind of anti-creationist site, just some more scientists from yet another field who found, to the best of their ability, that the data did not support YEC. Just like the astronomers, cosmologists, paleontologists, zoologists, botanists, geologists, physicists, and everyone else who would have to be wrong for YEC to be right.

So what we see is that the best attempt to actually estimate human population, as opposed to just making stuff up to support your pet belief, concludes that around 10,000 years ago there may have been as many as a million human beings. And of course, according to YEC, this is a time that did not exist. So population statistics, like all other scientific analyses, actually disproves YEC. That is why YEC advocates all hate science so much.

 

[kmkemp]

That is a lot of responses to come back to and I don't really have the effort to respond to them all. I will say that it's rather funny that you are trying to explain calculus instead of addressing the very simple observation that short-term does not equal long-term. Do you know what a logarithmic curve looks like? If you were to only measure the short term, you would have the impression of near linearity. But it a logarithmic curve actually linear in the long-term? Very simple concept here.

And to autodidact... I don't believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. Check some of the old polls. We're not even on the same page. I am simply pointing out that dating techniques are not perfect. I don't think I am flying in the face of all the world's scientists, but rather pointing out a simple inherit flaw that any scientist would recognize. When you have so much faith in science as to overlook its weaknesses (and there are many), then you have misplaced it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am simply pointing out that dating techniques are not perfect.

No. You're intentionally seeking to denigrate the evidence. It's a petty tactic. :yes: