Floods, Fossils, Science and Faith (Split from Global Warming)

[Brewtus]

No my rallying is not only some book, but that the "science" used to get 60 million years is bad science. Let me demonstrate. You've heard of the Gas Laws right? For brevity's purpose we will use Charle's law: The volume of a Gas is directly proportional to its temperature: the rate at which a gas's volume increases is the same as the rate at which its temperature increases(all other factors being equal). We can indepently verify this formula. Given a gas increase its temperature by 25% and its volume also increases 25%(all other factors being equal) and measure its volume it will also increase 25%. It's verifiable. Radiometric dating is not like a gas law though. Radiometric dating spits out a date that we are unable to verify because we weren't around 60 million years ago to verify that's when the rock was formed. The only way scientists verify rocks being old is comparing them with other rocks dated the same way. That's the kind of circular reasoning people like to accuse us of. But see we do know when some rocks were formed. For instance those formed after Mt St Helen's erupted in 1980. Those rocks we can verify are formed under 30 years ago. These rocks were sent to be dated to various dating companies only to be dated between 1 Million and 2 Million years old. Do you see the problem?

And in addition to BKB's response, contrary to what you might have been told by Creationists, radiometric dating relies on independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques and do give consistent results. Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions.

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.
• Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity.
• Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (which is not based on the decay of particles).
• Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "strata that is deeper is older".

And I'd also like to see a reference to your claim about the Mount St. Helens dating issue. Who collected the sample, when and where was it taken, what method was used to collect and date, it and what laboratory performed the tests?

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

And in addition to BKB's response, contrary to what you might have been told by Creationists, radiometric dating relies on independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques and do give consistent results. Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions.

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.
• Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity.
• Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (which is not based on the decay of particles).
• Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "strata that is deeper is older".

And I'd also like to see a reference to your claim about the Mount St. Helens dating issue. Who collected the sample, when and where was it taken, what method was used to collect and date, it and what laboratory performed the tests?

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r01/ Yes this is the ICR. The article is technical, incedently someone from the ICR came to my church which is where I first heard it about the Mt St Helen's eruptions rock. You're right I've not heard about the middle two. Read the above article and see why #1 doesn't matter. If one were to believe in the flood one wouldn't assume that the rocks would be arranged in that order #4.

In the meantime you read that article, I'll research the other 2.

Incedently here's an article that shows C-14 in rock that shouldn't have it and also zircons that shouldn't have helium that do.
The point is radiometric dating is not reliable.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Like I said, I believe you are misinterpreting the word "perfect" in this context, which should instead be considered synonymous to "sinless" (in which context the sinless Jesus is probably the one "perfect" human in our history). A sinless being with free will can very certainly choose to sin (and as was proposed in the movie "The Last Temptation of Jesus Christ", I believe even Jesus had the capacity to sin if he so chose, otherwise the import of his sinlessness and fending-off of Satan's temptations is diminished).

Oh, I follow.... I misunderstood what you were saying... Yeah, I suppose so. However, on what authority do we have reason to believe the word "perfect" was intended to mean "sinless" when the word "Sinless" would have done just as well (if not better)

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Even if it was just rock from the side of the mountain you're ignoring the rest of the argument about aside from radiometric dating not being verified but by radiometric dating. The bad science part.

But the Eruption did produce magma which produces igneous rock which when cooled and hardened is when the rock is formed. Also rock exploded from the side of the mountain would not be igneous

The eruption did not produce magma, it was caused by pressure which is directly related to the magma underneath.

Likewise, you still have failed to establish that the tested materials (which produced the 1 million or2 million year old readings) are, in fact, 30 years old.

Furhtermore, I don't see any reason to conclude that even rocks which were interior rocks could not have such an age. That is to say, suppose you have 1 million years ago, a build up of pressure under St. Helens. Some Magma is pushed up far enough that it is able to cool to tempratures which would establish it as a rock for dating purposes. Despite eruptions, said rock finds it's way to the interior side of the mountain where it remains up and until the mountain cataclysmically explodes in 1980.

In short, if you want to debunk Radiometric dating, saddle up and go to Hawaii where we can physically show beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular rock is only.. say... a month old (again, assuming there is some sort of "birthday" for rocks which, as I'm not a geologist, I don't rightly know.)

Saying "I think these rocks should only be 30 years old" despite findings otherwise falls well short of any reasonable standard.

Regardless... lets just assume that we can say that radio carbon dating is off by + or - 2.8 million years. Since the readings said 2.8 million and we "know" it happened only 30 years ago.

What is your response to the 60 million year old fossils? How about 120 million year old finds? If we put in the + or - margin of error exemplefied by your reasoning, we're still talking about 57 million year old fossils.

 

[BayBuck]

Oh, I follow.... I misunderstood what you were saying... Yeah, I suppose so. However, on what authority do we have reason to believe the word "perfect" was intended to mean "sinless" when the word "Sinless" would have done just as well (if not better)

I guess I was trying to refer to "perfect" as it had been generally used in this thread, rather than to any specific biblical passage.

 

[Bleed S & G]

Oh, I follow.... I misunderstood what you were saying... Yeah, I suppose so. However, on what authority do we have reason to believe the word "perfect" was intended to mean "sinless" when the word "Sinless" would have done just as well (if not better)

Being without sin would be the defination of perfect in Gods eyes, no?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I guess I was trying to refer to "perfect" as it had been generally used in this thread, rather than to any specific biblical passage.

Hmmm.. well, in that case, I suppose we'd have to defer to the one who used the term "pefect" first and ask him what he meant (I say he, cause I don't think any BP chicks have posted on this thread)

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Being without sin would be the defination of perfect in Gods eyes, no?

As I'm sure Bgrad would agree, I am in no position to understand what God would mean by the word "Perfect"

But to answer the question, I would think so. Not that the definition is complete by being without sin, but that being without sin is part of what is required to be perfect.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Rut roh... it would seem we have evidence that TBuckeyeScott is doing nothing more than picking and choosing what expert he want's to believe on the Carbon dating issue at the exclusion of reasoning to the contrary.

As I suggested earlier.... you have no facts at all. You have beliefs. I openly admit I have no facts, hell I base my theory of life the universe and everything on a friggin theoretical construct that is impossible to emirically prove (as you correctly noted). But, then, I'm also not trying to argue that reality is different from what it actually is.

Of course, you'd say the same thing.... The difference between our views - I think - is that my God survives if the world is as these crazy Scientists describe, and yours apparently does not. Which, of course, is why you have to cling to it as hard as you do, manipulating data as you HAVE to to keep your God alive in some sense.

 

[Brewtus]

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r01/ Yes this is the ICR. The article is technical, incedently someone from the ICR came to my church which is where I first heard it about the Mt St Helen's eruptions rock. You're right I've not heard about the middle two. Read the above article and see why #1 doesn't matter. If one were to believe in the flood one wouldn't assume that the rocks would be arranged in that order #4.

The problem with Steven Austin's paper (I guess the Six Million Dollar Man went into Creation Science research when he retired ) is that he sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable. Since Austin misused the measurement technique, he should expect inaccurate results, but the fault is his, not the technique's. Also, Austin's samples were not homogeneous, as he himself admitted. Any xenocrysts in the samples would make the samples appear older (because the xenocrysts themselves would be old). A K-Ar analysis of impure fractions of the sample, as Austin's were, is meaningless.

Here's a link to more on Austin's paper:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm

As for my fourth point, the argument was that if radiometric dating was inaccurate why would rocks that are further from the surface of the Earth date older than rocks near the surface? Wouldn't an inaccurate technique provide results across the board and not in a consistent manner?

In the meantime you read that article, I'll research the other 2.

Incedently here's an article that shows C-14 in rock that shouldn't have it and also zircons that shouldn't have helium that do.
The point is radiometric dating is not reliable.

While you're researching the other two I'll look into your other article on C-14.

EDIT: Here's a reference to my second point:
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eos96336.html
And here's a reference to my third point:
http://www.tim-thompson.com/luminescence.html

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Please. So we're clear, I said radiometric which does include C-14 dating to what I was talking about, but C-14 dating doesn't encompass C-14 dating. I Know that c-14 dating is not used to determine the age of the earth. Please refrain from putting something in my mouth. The dating I was referring to was Kr- Ar Dating.

Edit: this reply refres to BKB's post.

Also the standard thought among Creation Scientists is now that any Radiometric dating is unreliable

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Oh, for the love of poop... read This. Debunk him (if you can) Seems to me, on the carbon dating issue, we have yet another example of creationists twisting reality to cling to their God on Life Support.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

His claim is that noone has found a difference in Half lives while that is not true. Uranium has shown to have different half lives.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

His claim is that noone has found a difference in Half lives while that is not true. Uranium has shown to have different half lives.

Oh my god... are you friggin kidding me? This what you mean?
Uranium-238 ~half life=4.5 billion years
Uranium-235 ~half life=704 million years

The half life of U-238 is ALWAYS about 4.5 Million years. the Half life of U-235 is ALWAYS about 704 Million years. Different isotopes have different half lives. Shocking. Try again

 

[Jagdaddy]

But the Eruption did produce magma which produces igneous rock which when cooled and hardened is when the rock is formed. Also rock exploded from the side of the mountain would not be igneous

Actually, rock exploded from the side of the mountain would almost certainly be igneous as the volcano has erupted many times and the magma flowing therefrom is what built it. In fact, about 95% of the upper crust of the Earth is igneous rock.