The ToE and common ancestry of all life forms did not come from looking at the evidence

[Alceste]

That's nice, but the real question is bigger than that. How old is the rock that the house was built on? That is the question that either makes or breaks evolution by common ancestry. If it is 10,000 years old, evolution cannot be true because it takes billions of years, if it is billion of years old then evolution can be put into that timeline.

We cannot determine the age of the rock without making assumptions about the past.

Wrong again.

Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.

link

 

[Gunfingers]

We've sort of left the analogy behind and stopped using metaphors for radiometric dating, so i'll just explain how radiometric dating works.

See, the only assumption i have to make is that the laws of physics haven't changed drastically in the last billion years or so. Then i can measure the degree to which certain isotopes in the rocks have decayed and compare that to how much they are expected to decay. BAM! Age of the rocks.

BAH! Alceste, why you always ninja-ing me!?

 

[Alceste]

We've sort of left the analogy behind and stopped using metaphors for radiometric dating, so i'll just explain how radiometric dating works.

See, the only assumption i have to make is that the laws of physics haven't changed drastically in the last billion years or so. Then i can measure the degree to which certain isotopes in the rocks have decayed and compare that to how much they are expected to decay. BAM! Age of the rocks.

BAH! Alceste, why you always ninja-ing me!?

Mwahahahaa.... :devil:

 

[Man of Faith]

Wrong again.

Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.

link

I'm sorry that you follow that line of thinking because I am working on a post that destroys radiometric dating methods as having any usefulness in determining the age of the earth.

 

[tumbleweed41]

That's nice, but the real question is bigger than that. How old is the rock that the house was built on? That is the question that either makes or breaks evolution by common ancestry. If it is 10,000 years old, evolution cannot be true because it takes billions of years, if it is billion of years old then evolution can be put into that timeline.

We cannot determine the age of the rock without making assumptions about the past.

Actually, geologists can accurately date most rocks using radiometric dating.
Radioactive elements were incorporated into the Earth when the Solar System formed. All rocks and minerals contain tiny amounts of these radioactive elements. These elements are unstable, they breakdown spontaneously into more stable atoms over time. This is known as radioactive decay. Radioactive decay is constant, specific to each isotope.
Radiometric 'clocks' are 'set' when each rock forms, meaning the moment an igneous rock solidifies from magma, sedimentary layers are deposited, or a rock heated by metamorphism cools down. This resetting process gives geologists the ability to date rocks that formed at different times in history.

Now we know how old the rock is that the house sits on. Amazing stuff, isn't it?

 

[tumbleweed41]

I'm sorry that you follow that line of thinking because I am working on a post that destroys radiometric dating methods as having any usefulness in determining the age of the earth.

Going for a Nobel are we?

 

[Man of Faith]

Actually, geologists can accurately date most rocks using radiometric dating.
Radioactive elements were incorporated into the Earth when the Solar System formed. All rocks and minerals contain tiny amounts of these radioactive elements. These elements are unstable, they breakdown spontaneously into more stable atoms over time. This is known as radioactive decay. Radioactive decay is constant, specific to each isotope.
Radiometric 'clocks' are 'set' when each rock forms, meaning the moment an igneous rock solidifies from magma, sedimentary layers are deposited, or a rock heated by metamorphism cools down. This resetting process gives geologists the ability to date rocks that formed at different times in history.

Now we know how old the rock is that the house sits on. Amazing stuff, isn't it?

Once you are educated with my future radiometric dating post, you might not be so confident in it.

 

[Gunfingers]

I'm sorry that you follow that line of thinking because I am working on a post that destroys radiometric dating methods as having any usefulness in determining the age of the earth.

*gets popcorn and a root beer*

This is gonna be entertaining.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

I'm sorry that you follow that line of thinking because I am working on a post that destroys radiometric dating methods as having any usefulness in determining the age of the earth.

Don't post it here. Post it in a scientific journal. I wouldn't want any claims of the breakthrough originating here damaging your rise to fame for successfully debunking radiometric dating as a valid way of estimating ages.

 

[Man of Faith]

Going for a Nobel are we?

Nobels are only given to those that support the evolutionists and naturalists worldviews.

 

[Man of Faith]

Don't post it here. Post it in a scientific journal. I wouldn't want any claims of the breakthrough originating here damaging your rise to fame for successfully debunking radiometric dating as a valid way of estimating ages.

I would but I'm not a scientist, but I like to use my 8th grade science education to confound the scientific community.

 

[rojse]

I would but I'm not a scientist, but I like to use my 8th grade science education to confound the scientific community.

How well has this plan been workign so far, Man of Faith?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Once you are educated with my future radiometric dating post, you might not be so confident in it.

Allow me,


Creationist, YEC, ID Claim


Radiometric dating gives unreliable results!!!

Source:

Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 24.
Facts:

1. Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results (Dalrymple 2000; Lindsay 1999; Meert 2000). Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions.
2. Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example:
   • The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001).
   • Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997).
   • Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999).
   • Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older" (Lindsay 2000).
3. The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples. Creationists ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results (e.g., Harland et al. 1990).

Source

 

[tumbleweed41]

I would but I'm not a scientist, but I like to use my 8th grade science education to confound the scientific community.

Or how about...

Creationist, YEC, ID claim:

Carbon-14 dating gives unreliable results!!!
Source:

Lee, Robert E., 1981. Radiocarbon: Ages in error. Anthropological Journal of Canada 19(3): 9-29. Reprinted in Creation Research Society Quarterly 19(2): 117-127 (1982).
Facts:

1. Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement that exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages as old as 50,000 years but not much older. Using it to date older items will give bad results. Samples can be contaminated with younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results. Because of excess 12C released into the atmosphere from the Industrial Revolution and excess 14C produced by atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950s, materials less than 150 years old cannot be dated with radiocarbon (Faure 1998, 294).
   
   In their claims of errors, creationists do not consider misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for them to misuse radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old (for example, Triassic "wood") or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the carbon-14 dating method.
2. Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back. It has also been tested on items for which the age is known through historical records, such as parts of the Dead Sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb (MNSU n.d.; Watson 2001). Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques (e.g., Bard et al. 1990).

Source

 

[MSizer]

Were the Universe and the earth suppsoedly created around the same time according to YEC? If so, how is it that we can see andromeda, which is 2.5 million light years away? If the universe is only about 10 thousand years old, we wouldn't be able to see andromeda yet. (and andremeda is far from the only object more than 10 thousand light years away which we can see without any instruments but our eyes)

 

[misanthropic_clown]

But Tumbleweed... I don't think this is grade 8 level stuff.

Prepare to be confounded.

 

[Tristesse]

I'm sorry that you follow that line of thinking because I am working on a post that destroys radiometric dating methods as having any usefulness in determining the age of the earth.

Radiometric dating isn't the only dating method that is used. They use numerous types of dating methods to determine the age.

 

[tumbleweed41]

But Tumbleweed... I don't think this is grade 8 level stuff.

Prepare to be confounded.

True, I am often confounded by my teenagers logic.

 

[Gunfingers]

Wait wait...was MoF saying that he only took science through the 8th grade, or that he's in the 8th grade?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Wait wait...was MoF saying that he only took science through the 8th grade, or that he's in the 8th grade?

Struggling mightily to resist the obvious comeback!!!

In keeping with the rules, let's just say that some of us are more "advanced" in our understanding of what an 8th grade science course teaches.