08 May 07
Originally posted by KellyJayI am generally in agreement with you. But what is the relevance to our discussion of the age of the earth?
If I run into contradictions I'll look at it and change if I have too, do
you? I'm in agreement with you that I call what I went through
yesterday a fact, as time passes so will my memory, but that does
not mean that what occurred didn't, only my memory of it. Facts do not
depend upon my grasp of them that is perception and beliefs.
Kelly
When we talk about the age of the earth and the evidence we are talking with the basic understanding (assumption) that the earth is real and so are we and that yesterday happened. We are also assuming that the laws of physics exist and can be relied upon to be consistent. Everyone makes these basic assumptions all the time and bets their lives upon them being true. If we didn't we wouldn't even try to walk as we would not know whether gravity might change from time to time.
However you are implying without ever stating it in black and white that there is a fundamental difference between your faith in yesterday and my faith in the age of the earth. Is that what you are saying or are you just trying to shed doubt without actually making any claims?
08 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by PhuzudakaI've told you how old the Earth is, I've told you how we know how old the Earth is and I've told you why you are wrong. You have yet to present any scientific evidence as to why
So now you are attaching a character named dj2 to me because you cannot show for sure how old the earth is?
a) the assumptions used are incorrect
or
b) the age of the Earth is whatever you believe it to be
Do either one of these things. Don't ask me to prove something to you that you don't want to hear. Show factual evidence and I'll rebut it. The burden of proof lies on those who claim that science is incorrect because it became science by already passing all proof tests.
08 May 07
3 edits
Originally posted by XanthosNZSince you are the one claiming that the assumptions made are correct, you are the one who has to prove that they are correct. I will remain skeptical until you do so. And you cannot claim that the assumptions made are a fact if there is no way to varify them.
I've told you how old the Earth is, I've told you how we know how old the Earth is and I've told you why you are wrong. You have yet to present any scientific evidence as to why
a) the assumptions used are incorrect
or
b) the age of the Earth is whatever you believe it to be
Do either one of these things. Don't ask me to prove something to you that im that science is incorrect because it became science by already passing all proof tests.
I have asked you specific questions that you have ignored. I will ask one at a time.
1. How do you know that the rate of radioactive decay for the daughter isotopes of the elements used for radiometric dating have always been constant.
You assume that they have always been constant eventhough there is no way to varify it. Thus you do not KNOW what the age of the earth is, you ASSUME it.
08 May 07
Originally posted by PhuzudakaVerify, it's spelt verify.
Since you are the one claiming that the assumptions made are correct, you are the one who has to prove that they are correct. I will remain skeptical until you do so. And you cannot claim that the assumptions made are a fact if there is no way to varify them.
I have asked you specific questions that you have ignored. I will ask one at a time.
1. How ...[text shortened]... there is no way to varify it. Thus you do not KNOW what the age of the earth is, you ASSUME it.
The radio-decay rates of an element are determined by the strong and weak nuclear forces, which are in turn regulated by the laws of quantum mechanics, one of the most-verified of all scientific models. The forces that make up the radio-decay rates are not affected by pressure, temperature, magnetism, or any other known physical phenomenon.
So what is supposed to have forced quantum mechanics to have changed to such a degree that radio-decay rates have changed multiple orders of magnitude?
08 May 07
Originally posted by PhuzudakaThey have been verified using the scientific method. Thus I know the age of the earth with as much certainty as I know the distance to mars. I have not personally visited either the ancient earth nor the present mars but the evidence for both is equivalent in its veracity.
You assume that they have always been constant eventhough there is no way to varify it. Thus you do not KNOW what the age of the earth is, you ASSUME it.
The only assumption is that the scientific method works.
08 May 07
Originally posted by XanthosNZHow can one be certain that decay rates have been constant over billions of years? Scientific measurements of decay rates have only been conducted since the time of the Curies in the early 1900s. Yet Evolutionists are boldly making huge extrapolations back over 4.5 billion years and more. There is some evidence that the rate of radioactive decay can change. If the decay rates have ever been higher in the past, then relatively young rocks would wrongly "date" as being old rocks.
Verify, it's spelt verify.
The radio-decay rates of an element are determined by the strong and weak nuclear forces, which are in turn regulated by the laws of quantum mechanics, one of the most-verified of all scientific models. The forces that make up the radio-decay rates are not affected by pressure, temperature, magnetism, or any other known physic ...[text shortened]... have changed to such a degree that radio-decay rates have changed multiple orders of magnitude?
See:
Theodore W. Rybka, "Consequences of Time Dependent Nuclear Decay Indices on Half Lives," Acts & Facts, ICR Impact Series, No. 106, (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, April 1982).
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 35 (1971), pp. 261-288, and Vol. 36 (1972), p. 1167. (Includes data indicating that different radioactive dating methods used on volcanic rock on Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean gave results varying from 100 thousand to 4.4 billion years. Results from different methods were contradictory.)
Donald B. DeYoung, "A Variable Constant," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 2 (September 1979), p. 142, and "The Precision of Nuclear Decay Rates", Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 2 (March 1976), pp. 38-41. (The latter lists half-life decay variation in 20 radioactive isotopes, including Carbon-14, and variations up to 5😵.
K.P. Dostal, M. Nagel, and D. Pabst, "Variations in Nuclear Decay Rates," Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung, Vol. 32a (April 1977), pp. 345-361.
P.A. Catacosinos, "Do Decay Rates Vary?", Geotimes, Vol. 20, No. 4 (1975), p. 11.
J. Anderson and G. Spangler, "Radiometric Dating: Is the 'Decay Constant' Constant?", Pensee, Vol. 4 (Fall 1974), p. 34.
Harold L. Armstrong, "Decay Constant: Really Constant?", Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 1 (June 1974).
W.K. Hensley, W.A. Basset, and J.R. Huizenga, "Pressure Dependence on the Radioactive Decay Constant of Beryllium-7," Science, Vol. 181 (September 21, 1973). (Documents that the radioactive decay rate of Beryllium-7 varies with pressure).
J.L. Anderson, "Non-Poisson Distributions Observed During Counting of Certain Carbon-14 Labeled (Sub) Monolayers," Journal of Physical Chemistry, Vol. 76, No. 4 (1972). (Shows that the decay rate of Carbon-14 is influenced by the local atomic environment.)
G.T. Emery, "Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates," Annual Review of Nuclear Science, Vol. 22 (1972), pp. 165-202 (Shows that many radioactive elements, including Carbon-14 and Uranium-235, have had their decay rates altered in the laboratory.)
J.L. Anderson, Abstracts of Papers for the 161st National Meeting, Los Angeles (American Chemical Society, 1971).
SOME FEEL THIS PRECLUDES THE POSSIBILITY OF ACCURATE RADIOMETRIC DATING: See: A.F. Kovarik, "Calculating the Age of Minerals from Radioactivity Data and Principles," Bulletin #80 of the National Research Council (June 1931), p. 107.
John D. Morris, The Young Earth (Colorado Springs, Colorado: Master Books, 1994), pp. 62-64
Robert H. Brown, "Radiohalo Evidence Regarding Change in Natural Process Rates," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 3 (December 1990), pp. 100-102
Robert V. Gentry, "Critique of 'Radiohalo Evidence Regarding Change in Natural Process Rates'," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 3 (December 1990), pp. 103-105
Robert H. Brown, Harold G. Coffin, L. James Gibson, Ariel A. Roth, and Clyde L. Webster, "Examining Radiohalos," Origins, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Loma Linda, California: Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda University, 1988), pp. 32-38 (Creationists suggest problems with some aspects of Gentry's interpretations)
Dennis Crews, "Mystery in the Rocks," The Inside Report (October/November 1987), pp. 3-6, (January 1988), pp. 3-6, (March/April 1988), pp. 3-10 (Provides an interesting account of Gentry's research - described in layman's language)
Robert V. Gentry, Creation's Tiny Mystery, 2nd edition (Knoxville, Tennessee, 37912-0067: Earth Science Associates, 1988), 347 pp.
Paul D. Ackerman, It's a Young World After All (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1986), pp. 101-110 (easy layman-type explanation)
Jim Melnick, "The Case of the Polonium Radiohalos," Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 1 (1982), pp. 4-5.
08 May 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadActually you can verify the scientific method by using the scientific method.
They have been verified using the scientific method. Thus I know the age of the earth with as much certainty as I know the distance to mars. I have not personally visited either the ancient earth nor the present mars but the evidence for both is equivalent in its veracity.
The only assumption is that the scientific method works.
08 May 07
Originally posted by XanthosNZArriving at a "date" depends upon a chain of assumptions, each link in the chain being an assumption. The validity of the calculated date can be no stronger than the weakest link (weakest assumption) used in the calculation. What are some of the assumptions made by most Evolutionists in using these systems?
Verify, it's spelt verify.
The radio-decay rates of an element are determined by the strong and weak nuclear forces, which are in turn regulated by the laws of quantum mechanics, one of the most-verified of all scientific models. The forces that make up the radio-decay rates are not affected by pressure, temperature, magnetism, or any other known physic ...[text shortened]... have changed to such a degree that radio-decay rates have changed multiple orders of magnitude?
ASSUMPTION: It is generally assumed that the material being measured had no original "daughter" element(s) in it, or they assume the amount can be accurately estimated. For example, they may assume that all of the lead in a rock was produced by the decay of its uranium.
PROBLEM: One can almost never know with absolute certainty how much radioactive or daughter substance was present at the start.
ASSUMPTION: It is assumed that the material being measured has been in a closed system. It has often been wrongly assumed that no outside factors altered the normal ratios in the material, adding or subtracting any of the elements involved.
PROBLEM: The age estimate can be thrown off considerably, if the radioactive element or the daughter element is leached in or leached out of the sample. There are evidences that this could be a significant problem. Simple things such as groundwater movement can carry radioactive material or the daughter element into or out of rock. Rocks must be carefully tested to determine what outside factors might have changed their content.
08 May 07
Originally posted by PhuzudakaThanks for the giant list of references that you haven't read and I'm not going to.
How can one be certain that decay rates have been constant over billions of years? Scientific measurements of decay rates have only been conducted since the time of the Curies in the early 1900s. Yet Evolutionists are boldly making huge extrapolations back over 4.5 billion years and more. There is some evidence that the rate of radioactive decay can change ...[text shortened]... os," Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 1 (1982), pp. 4-5.
08 May 07
Originally posted by PhuzudakaUsing the scientific method. It is not necessary to travel to mars to measure the distance to it, neither is it necessary to measure decay rates 1 billion years ago to know what they were.
How can one be certain that decay rates have been constant over billions of years?
08 May 07
Originally posted by XanthosNZYou were the one that asked if there was any evidence to suggest that the rates of decay have not always been constant.
Thanks for the giant list of references that you haven't read and I'm not going to.
What a joke you are. Be an ostrich and bury your head in the ground.
08 May 07
Originally posted by XanthosNZGood Mantra.
Actually you can verify the scientific method by using the scientific method.
I can see all the nerd types in the lab early Monday morning repeating this chant for hours on end.
The science god is relatively new as compared to the one God theory of the Jews.
It's very popular. Lots of sheep who can find a website, but can't put much of anything into their own words.
They'll screach "it's a fact", when they tell you Piltdown man proves the origin of mankind .. they did that, not that long ago, when I was in school, but in the end ... yeah, it's based on faith.
Of course some science "clergy" will be frauds, yet the sheep will follow.
All religions have a few "leaders" and a jillion followers. Science is no different. Most of you haven't gone past HS Biology, but you're true believers. Once you accept the scientific method OR the Bible as "fact", your arse is wide open to be duped into everything from Piltdown man to the tooth farie.
08 May 07
Originally posted by jammerYour older than you realize. It wasn't 'not long ago' to some of us.
.. they did that, not that long ago, when I was in school,
All religions have a few "leaders" and a jillion followers. Science is no different.
Science isn't a religion.
Most of you haven't gone past HS Biology, but you're true believers.
Most of who? And is Biology the only science? Why pick on it?
Once you accept the scientific method OR the Bible as "fact", your arse is wide open to be duped into everything from Piltdown man to the tooth farie.
I accept the scientific method as reliable but that doesn't mean that I accept everything said by someone claiming to be a scientist. But if the people who designed my computer processor are just duping me then you will probably never get to read this post.
08 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm 65 .. unless I don't realize it.
Your older than you realize. It wasn't 'not long ago' to some of us.
[b]All religions have a few "leaders" and a jillion followers. Science is no different.
Science isn't a religion.
Most of you haven't gone past HS Biology, but you're true believers.
Most of who? And is Biology the only science? Why pick on it?
Once you accept th uter processor are just duping me then you will probably never get to read this post.
Piltdown man is one of my 1st memories of school. I was into dinosaurs bigtime as a kid.
...............
Belief system/Religion .. symantics.
Most all of the "scientists" that post here come off as pure zealots IMO. True believers.
Trouble is, scientists, like priests are only men. Warts and all. And being men, they're fallible and most definately subject to their egos. Thus, some leading scientists are corrupt .. just like priests.
ONE of these came up with Piltdown man and for 40 yrs every science student parroted this view. They swore to it.
They had faith in it due to their leaders (priests)
............................
"But if the people who designed my computer processor are just duping me then you will probably never get to read this post."
.... and thus not wasted 10 mins. of my life.