25 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYes, you know how to paste©. We know that.
Determining Half-Life
By observing how fast U-238 decays into lead-206, we can calculate the half-life of U-238. This is a theoretical calculation, and we can therefore determine that the half-life of U-238 is 4.5 billion years. Remember that the half-life is a statistical measure. Granting that U-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years in no way negate ...[text shortened]... rst assumption must be wrong.
http://www.creationtoday.org/radiometric-dating-is-it-accurate/
But you don't know enough about geology to discover the errors in the text you just copied.
25 Mar 14
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat is going on in the area going north and south halfway between Africa and north and south America where the sea is spreading violently at a rate that can be seen in a few days time, visible movement.
No. Not enough to worry about anyway.
What is that all about? And why, if the continents are not moving apart or together, can we measure changes in the distance between continents via GPS data? GPS data says the America's are spreading apart from Europe about an inch a year, sometimes more.
How do you account for that data?
25 Mar 14
Originally posted by RJHindsA car manufacturer can test the gas mileage for 1000 different cars of a given model, but he is still making an assumption that those 1000 cars are reflective of the millions of other cars out there. It's not feasible to test the gas mileage of every single car on the road, and even if it were, it's certainly not feasible to test the gas mileage of every single car on the road under every single circumstance (wet roads or dry roads, 55 miles per hour or 60 miles per hour, windows open or windows closed, seatbelts on or off, day or night, etc.) imaginable.
Sure, but like I said, they can test their assumptions to see the results. Once they do the tests then they can see if they assumed correctly and if not make adjustments to their assumptions. This can not be done with dating rocks.
25 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsDid you not get the part where there are about a dozen totally different methods that agree with each other as to dates of rocks?
Determining Half-Life
By observing how fast U-238 decays into lead-206, we can calculate the half-life of U-238. This is a theoretical calculation, and we can therefore determine that the half-life of U-238 is 4.5 billion years. Remember that the half-life is a statistical measure. Granting that U-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years in no way negate ...[text shortened]... rst assumption must be wrong.
http://www.creationtoday.org/radiometric-dating-is-it-accurate/
This article shows 10 different methods and the age for which they are accurate as well as showing geological strata where some have been tilted from horizontal to vertical. You don't do that in a few thousand years.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/dating-rocks-and-fossils-using-geologic-methods-107924044
25 Mar 14
10 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseThis just shows the absurdity of his claim, that is claerly made for only thinly disguised religious reasons and of a dieing religion at that, that the Earth is not millions of years old but just a few thousand years old and thus just how delusional he has chosen to be to deny such proof:
Did you not get the part where there are about a dozen totally different methods that agree with each other as to dates of rocks?
This article shows 10 different methods and the age for which they are accurate as well as showing geological strata where some have been tilted from horizontal to vertical. You don't do that in a few thousand years.
http:/ ...[text shortened]... .nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/dating-rocks-and-fossils-using-geologic-methods-107924044
Here we have several independent scientific dating methods each working in a independently different way of the others and each clearly saying the Earth is millions of years and they all are in general agreement with each other with no contradiction. So why the massive coincidence that the all say the same thing with such amazing consistency if they are all wrong -answer, obviously, they are all right, not wrong. If they were all wrong, we should obviously expect wild inconsistencies with, say, one saying a rock is one million years old, another saying that same rock is one hundred billion years old. But there are no such inconsistencies -quite the opposite.
And yet we have not a single dating method nor a single shred of credible evidence that the earth is only a few thousand years old nor any shred of credible evidence that all the current dating methods are all wrong. If that isn't enough evidence for old Earth, exactly what would be? -obviously this powerful evidence is irrefutable scientific proof of old Earth that only those totally way out of it could possibly refute -like refuting the law of gravity for religious reasons.
26 Mar 14
Originally posted by sonhouseI don't know. Perhaps the calculations are wrong or something else is happening. But even if it is, I am not worrying about an inch a year.
What is going on in the area going north and south halfway between Africa and north and south America where the sea is spreading violently at a rate that can be seen in a few days time, visible movement.
What is that all about? And why, if the continents are not moving apart or together, can we measure changes in the distance between continents via GPS d ...[text shortened]... ng apart from Europe about an inch a year, sometimes more.
How do you account for that data?
26 Mar 14
Originally posted by wittywonkaThey test enough cars to see if they work like they expect. Then they hope they are lucky that the others work the same. If not, they might get sued. However, they have satisfied the requirement for testing.
A car manufacturer can test the gas mileage for 1000 different cars of a given model, but he is still making an assumption that those 1000 cars are reflective of the millions of other cars out there. It's not feasible to test the gas mileage of every single car on the road, and even if it were, it's certainly not feasible to test the gas mileage of every ...[text shortened]... s per hour, windows open or windows closed, seatbelts on or off, day or night, etc.) imaginable.
There is no practical test like that for the age of rocks. It is all calculations based on unproven assumptions. It is a nice theory, but can't be relied upon in practical situations.
26 Mar 14
Originally posted by sonhouseNuclear decay creates helium, which is easily lost to the air. The large amount of helium that can still be found in rock layers today indicates the earth is between 4,000 and 10,000 years old, not billions of years old.
Did you not get the part where there are about a dozen totally different methods that agree with each other as to dates of rocks?
This article shows 10 different methods and the age for which they are accurate as well as showing geological strata where some have been tilted from horizontal to vertical. You don't do that in a few thousand years.
http:/ ...[text shortened]... .nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/dating-rocks-and-fossils-using-geologic-methods-107924044
26 Mar 14
Originally posted by RJHindsDid you actually read those articles? TEN separate ways to date are shown there, some of them not even related to nuclear breakdowns.
Nuclear decay creates helium, which is easily lost to the air. The large amount of helium that can still be found in rock layers today indicates the earth is between 4,000 and 10,000 years old, not billions of years old.
You are deliberately obtuse. And that is one of your BETTER qualities.
26 Mar 14
Originally posted by RJHindsLet me go about this a different way.
They test enough cars to see if they work like they expect. Then they hope they are lucky that the others work the same. If not, they might get sued. However, they have satisfied the requirement for testing.
There is no practical test like that for the age of rocks. It is all calculations based on unproven assumptions. It is a nice theory, but can't be relied upon in practical situations.
Physicists assume that tomorrow, the laws of gravity will behave the same way that they do today and that they did yesterday. It's true, they can't know for sure, but given that physicists have repeatedly, repeatedly measured the acceleration of gravity on Earth to be 9.8 m/s^2, it's a relatively safe assumption, using scientific induction, that tomorrow, gravity's acceleration won't somehow change to 98 m/s^2. Would you agree with this analysis?
If you do agree with what I've said, then explain how that is not exactly analogous to geochemists' assumptions about the half-life of a given element. It's true, they can't know for sure, but given that geochemists have repeatedly, repeatedly measured the half-life of uranium, it's a relatively safe assumption, using scientific induction, that tomorrow, the half-life won't somehow change to half of what it is now.
26 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by wittywonkaThat is probably true. But things may change in the distant future. Also things were most likely different in the distant past. Scientists even speculate that conditions in the beginning had to be different than they are today. So those differencss are sure to effect our ability to project back into the past to determine a uniformty princple to calculate ages of objects in the too distannt past. It could work for a short period into the past or future. However, it becomes no more than a wild guess when dealing with billions of years into the past or furute. We can not test it.
Let me go about this a different way.
Physicists assume that tomorrow, the laws of gravity will behave the same way that they do today and that they did yesterday. It's true, they can't know for sure, but given that physicists have repeatedly, repeatedly measured the acceleration of gravity on Earth to be 9.8 m/s^2, it's a relatively safe assumption, u ...[text shortened]... ientific induction, that tomorrow, the half-life won't somehow change to half of what it is now.
Just look how quick that little grand canyon was made with the mount St Helens eruption in 1980.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2000/05/17/helens-evidence-for-genesis