Originally posted by RJHinds
Here are a few assumptions to get you started:
The age of the Universe is the inverse of Hubble’s constant.
Light travels.
The constant rate of the laying down of sedimentary deposits.
All fossils in lower sedimentary deposits are older than those on top.
The age of geological columns.
Sedimentary rock layers always start horizontal and the ...[text shortened]... decay rate
4. There is no leaching or addition of parent or daughter isotopes
The Instructor
Light travels.
err, you deny this!? Wow that's stupid even for you.
The constant rate of the laying down of sedimentary deposits.
This assumption is generally not made. Geologists are obviously well aware that that rate varies with seasons and varies with other variable conditions.
All fossils in lower sedimentary deposits are older than those on top.
This assumption is also generally not made because geologists are obviously well aware that sedimentary rock is often inverted over millions of years due to ground movements and they would generally try and find out which way up it is and take that into account.
The age of geological columns.
why would that be an “assumption” after it is dated using several different dating methods that give the same result? This proves the age of it -no “assuming” required.
Sedimentary rock layers always start horizontal and then are tilted after they formed, to form sloped strata as we see today.
are you saying they generally didn't start horizontal? If so, how do you explain that mystery? You do accept the way gravity works -right?
Most rock dating methods rely on the following basic assumptions:
1. Initial conditions are known
2. Initial ratio of daughter/parent isotopes is known
3. A constant decay rate
4. There is no leaching or addition of parent or daughter isotopes
1, No, this isn't assumed for most dating methods. Generally either the particular relevant initial condition is a known fact with the other initial conditions being irrelevant and thus not assumed for dating purposes or there is no relevant initial condition needed for dating. One example of the latter would be when dating by counting the annual layers from one that is currently being laid down because this requires just counting the layers -what "initial condition" is assumed there?
2, that's because it is known. There are GOOD REASONS why the initial ratios are the way they are.
3, A constant decay rate of any given chemical element is determined by the laws of physics thus this is not an assumption. Have you got any physical evidence that the decay rate changes? -answer, no.
4, why would there be “leaching” in particular? Have you got any evidence that sufficient 'leaching' has occurred to drastically interfere with the results? And “leaching” and "addition" from what place to what other place and why don't we see this in those places? and why would such "leaching" and "addition" just happen by massive coincidence to always miraculously happen to ALL types of isotopes used for dating in such a way as to falsely indicate old Earth rather than young earth!? -there is just so much wrong with that!