1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThis would mean the uniformity of geology would be messed up, not the uniformity of radioactive decay rates. Radioactive elements are neither created nor destroyed through geologic processes.
However, we know that there has been many catastrophic events in the Earth's history, so that would mean the uniformity would be messed up.
Anyway, this mass spectrometer is not a clock to measure time. As I understand it, this machine measures ions or isotopes of elements, not time. The age is determined by using formulas to calculate it
And we know these formulas to be very accurate. They have been tested repeatedly. The only way they wouldn't be accurate is if the laws of physics were different in the past. If a clock accurately measures seconds and minutes, it is safe to assume it can measure longer time periods like hours and days. The same is true for radiometric dating.
Edit: it looks like you added to your post after I responded. The main point you made was that there could be errors. Sure there could be errors, that is why many different types of samples and radiometric dating techniques are used, to limit this possibility.
More importantly, if there are errors, they could work both ways. It could just as easily be underestimating the age of the earth as overestimating it.
Finally, you have not offered any evidence that the Earth is young. Even if we grant you, for the sake of argument, that Catastrophic Geology is completely true and radiometric dating is completely unreliable, where does that get you? It just would mean that the age of the Earth is indeterminate by those methods, but it certainly wouldn't indicate the Earth is young. What is your evidence that the Earth is young?
Originally posted by PatNovakAnother problem with the accuracy of radiometric dating is with the the assumption of a constant rate of decay over millions and billions of years. It turns out that there is evidence that the rate of decay is not always constant. One of the sources is from a scientific research project known as RATE, or Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth.
This would mean the uniformity of geology would be messed up, not the uniformity of radioactive decay rates. Radioactive elements are neither created nor destroyed through geologic processes.
[b]Anyway, this mass spectrometer is not a clock to measure time. As I understand it, this machine measures ions or isotopes of elements, not time. The age is dete ...[text shortened]... t certainly wouldn't indicate the Earth is young. What is your evidence that the Earth is young?
Originally posted by RJHindsAgain, for the sake of argument, let us assume that radiometric dating is completely unreliable. This would still not be evidence of a young Earth. You titled this thread "Evidence For A Young Earth." Please provide evidence that the Earth is young.
Another problem with the accuracy of radiometric dating is with the the assumption of a constant rate of decay over millions and billions of years. It turns out that there is evidence that the rate of decay is not always constant. One of the sources is from a scientific research project known as RATE, or Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThe RATE project was done by the "Institute for Creation Research." On their own website (http://www.icr.org/how-we-do-research/) they admit they are unscientific by saying:
Another problem with the accuracy of radiometric dating is with the the assumption of a constant rate of decay over millions and billions of years. It turns out that there is evidence that the rate of decay is not always constant. One of the sources is from a scientific research project known as RATE, or Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth.
"The Institute for Creation Research is unique among scientific research organizations. Our research is conducted within a biblical worldview, since ICR is committed to the absolute authority of the inerrant Word of God. The real facts of science will always agree with biblical revelation because the God who made the world of God inspired the Word of God.
All origins research must begin with a premise.1 ICR holds that the biblical record of primeval history in Genesis 1–11 is factual, historical, and clearly understandable and, therefore, that all things were created and made in six literal days. Life exists because it was created on Earth by a living Creator. Further, the biblical Flood was global and cataclysmic, and its after-effects therefore explain most of the stratigraphic and fossil evidence found in the earth’s crust. It is within this framework that ICR research is conducted."
Originally posted by PatNovakUranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.
The RATE prject was done by the "Institute for Creation Research." On their own website (http://www.icr.org/how-we-do-research/) they admit they are unscientific by saying:
"The Institute for Creation Research is unique among scientific research organizations. Our research is conducted within a biblical worldview, since ICR is committed to the absolute a ...[text shortened]... vidence found in the earth’s crust. It is within this framework that ICR research is conducted."
Gentry, R. V., G. L. Glish, and E. H. McBay, Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste containment, Geophysical Research Letters 9(10):1129-1130 (October 1982).
Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years.
Humphreys, D. R, et al., Helium diffusion age of 6,000 years supports accelerated nuclear decay, Creation Research Society Quarterly 41(1):1-16 (June 2004). See archived article on following page of the CRS website: www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/4
1/41_1/Helium.htm.
This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.
Originally posted by RJHindsIf the best you can do is reference papers from places like the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society, you do more to discredit your position than I ever could. These organizations admit they are not scientific organizations by their very mission statements.
Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.
Gentry, R. V., G. L. Glish, and E. H. McBay, Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear wast ...[text shortened]... half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.
The Creation research society says that you must accept this statement to be a member: "The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths." (https://www.creationresearch.org/index.php/about-crs/statement-of-belief)
Originally posted by PatNovakWell, this is the spirituality Forum. Did you forget that little detail?
If the best you can do is reference papers from places like the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society, you do more to discredit your position than I ever could. These organizations admit they are not scientific organizations by their very mission statements.
The Creation research society says that you must accept this statemen ...[text shortened]... e historical truths." (https://www.creationresearch.org/index.php/about-crs/statement-of-belief)
Originally posted by RJHindsFair enough. If you are admitting that your young earth evidence is spirituality based, I won't press further. The OP seems to be claiming that the young earth evidence was science based, and that is what I was objecting to.
Well, this is the spirituality Forum. Did you forget that little detail?
Religiously speaking:
RJHinds has every right to believe in anything, including creationism.
However, when he claims that his religion is science, and real science is bogus, then he is wrong. When furthermore he redefines science to fit his religious ideas, then he is dead wrong. When he insults people when they don't agree with him and at the same time whines when he feels insulted by others makes him childish. When he jumps between seriosity to childishness ( "ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME." remember?) he is mentally unstable. He call himself 'genius', 'instructor' and even 'moron' which very well demonstrate his mental condition.
So he is a very difficult individual to discuss things with. I've given up. I can respond to his methods, but never more to his twisted views.
But, as anyone else, he can have any religious ideas, it is his right.
1 edit
Originally posted by PatNovakThe Young Earth evidence is just as much science based as the Old Earth view is. However, the YEC position is also based on the Holy Bible.
Fair enough. If you are admitting that your young earth evidence is spirituality based, I won't press further. The OP seems to be claiming that the young earth evidence was science based, and that is what I was objecting to.
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasI once called myself "The Moron Instructor" - the idea is that I was declaring myself the instructor to the morons on RHP that need instruction in the truth. You seem to be one of those that still need instruction in the truth. But I am not calling you a moron.
Religiously speaking:
RJHinds has every right to believe in anything, including creationism.
However, when he claims that his religion is science, and real science is bogus, then he is wrong. When furthermore he redefines science to fit his religious ideas, then he is dead wrong. When he insults people when they don't agree with him and at the same t ...[text shortened]... to his twisted views.
But, as anyone else, he can have any religious ideas, it is his right.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIt is not really objective when someone bases their science on their belief that God does not exist and that the theory of evolution is true before it has been proven. Being objective should include any possibility.
There is an objectivity requirement with science. Basing it all on the Bible breaks that.
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd creationism has been refuted by science a hundred times over but all your buddies do is ignore the refutations and just post the same crap on their political video's time and time again, not caring about real science, only in getting enough political power to force changes in laws so that creationism can be taught as if it were some kind of science, in a science classroom and if they get their way, there would be no study called evolution anymore. It would be kicked out of schools completely as heretical.
It is not really objective when someone bases their science on their belief that God does not exist and that the theory of evolution is true before it has been proven. Being objective should include any possibility.
Iran here we come.