It is not the dating that is accurate. It is only the measuring of isotopes that is accurate to that level. The dating associated with the measuring of these isotopes is not the same thing.
Yes⌠but in the assumptions that certain dating methods must remain constant, while others do not, even without hard evidence, is a biased selection for dating methods. While you are right that present rates might have been faster than the past, as well as having been slower, yet some justification for suggesting slower rates in the past ought to be given. In otherwords, an educated speculation is better than merely an adhoc speculation. I can think of one reason why they might have been slower salt accumulation in the past if during an ice age, there was less erosion and less runoff to bring salts into the ocean. On the other hand, a sensible reason for faster accumulation rates could be due to an increase in volcanism both on dry land and under the ocean, or an erosion of saltier land, such as that which was uplifted former seabottom land.
You have made a number of statements such as
without giving any numbers. The current rate is something we have, something that can be measured. It is a starting point. Nor is it the assumed minimum rate. The point is that to accumulate the present salt level based on present knowledge is 62my. Even giving factors for a rate twice as slow in the past only results in 120my. To get from 62 my, which is already slower than present rates, to 4.5 by requires not twice as slow, not ten times as slow, but 70 or 100 times slower rate. How can this happen?
Even if there is a hypothetical reason, it must be kept in mind that there might also be hypothetical reasons for salt accumulation to occur much, much quicker as well, and thus the hypothetical reasons must be weighty enough to counter the potential for faster past rates.
Of course, the contention that the moon would never have formed under these conditions, is the point, and the YEC are saying that therefore, these conditions never existed. You are maintaining a constant 4cm/yr which would be an error due to the fact that the closer the moon was, the greater its recession rate, due to the increased gravitational pull creating a larger tidal friction. Thus the present rate of recession would be much slower than in the past. It is for that reason that their calculations show that the moon would have been at the Roche limit (18,400km) at just over a billion years (1.37 billion years) ago, and not at the presumed 4.5 by.
For the technical reader: since tidal forces are inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, the recession rate (dR/dt) is inversely proportional to the sixth power of the distance. So dR/dt = k/R6, where k is a constant = (present speed: 0.04 m/year) x (present distance: 384,400,000 m)6 = 1.29x1050 m7/year. Integrating this differential equation gives the time to move from Ri to Rf as t = 1/7k(Rf7 âRi7). For Rf = the present distance and Ri = the Roche Limit, t = 1.37 x 109 years. There is no significant difference if Ri = 0, i.e. the earth and moon touching, because of the high recession rate (caused by enormous tides) if the moon is close. See also Don DeYoung, âThe Earth-Moon Systemâ, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Vol. II, pp. 79â84, 1990.(Sarfati.)
ok. let my ask you this: if a method can be wrong in about 1000% or more from the real age, do you will consider it a scientific method?
JohnZ, what is the best study for presumably showing this error in testing? Problems in C14 testing hardly impugns evolutionary science ⌠since C14 is NEVER used to prove that something is millions of years in age. OTHER tests are used for such decisions.
If you are going to prove that we cannot measure millions of years ⌠you really need to use focus on the tests used to do that ⌠not attempt to show problems in relatively recent history testing.
It would seem the only reason C14 is so closely examined is invalidate âhuman scienceâ in generalâŚ
You are making a tautology. And evading the point. And arguing against an imaginary person and an imaginary argument of your own making. No one is arguing that C14 is used to prove that something is millions of years old. No one. Not one person on this board, nor any of the references I have read. Repeat that to yourself until it sinks in please. The point is that if a different radioactive decay method leads to a hundred of millions of years age determination, then no C14 should be found in the material. None. It should be gone after 100,000 years or at least undetectable by present methods. Of course the C14 cant prove that it is millions of years old. But it can demonstrate that it is not that old.
You suggest C14 can invalidate science. However, C14 cannot invalidate human science in general, because C14 is human science, and it cannot invalidate itself.
A simple example of two dating methods that conflict: a man walks down the street wearing an ancient Egyptian clothing. We know such clothing is not worn today, and know that the period clothing is 3000 yrs old, and that only Egyptians of that time wore this clothing, so we conclude the man must be 3000 years old, since no one else has worn this type of clothing. But then we see a birth certificate, in addition to the manâs parents, which gives evidence the man is only 30 years old. So the clothing is the wrong dating method. The more recent evidence is more reliable than the older assumptions. Although this is not a perfect parallel example, it does point out that presence of C14 over-rules the presumptions of other methods which are less precise, and which make more unprovable assumptions.
Ahhh⌠now here is an AGE OF THE EARTH thread ⌠very nice! Fancy meeting you here, JohnZ !
Since C14 doesnât make claims on the age of the Earth, the only reason you discuss it is to divert the discussion, right? Give me your most persuasive study on C14 being UNRELIABLY HIGH with an object that should score LOW.
Letâs drill-down right into the methodology ⌠and see what the best case is for your argument.
George
Thatâs actually my whole point. I havenât given any numbers here because the original argument doesnât either. It doesnât tell us either the maximum or the minimum rate at which ocean salinity has changed in the past. Could there have been times, for instance, at which it has actually decreased? It merely hand-waves the question as a ârescuing deviceâ rather than providing rigorous theoretical and experimental grounds for determining and verifying these limits.
All Iâm saying here is that this is what distinguishes good scientific arguments from bad ones. A good argument will take great care to ensure that all known relevant factors, including their uncertainties, are rigorously quantified. Where assumptions have to be made, the results will be cross-checked against other methods to verify that these assumptions are valid. On the other hand, a bad scientific argument will have gaps in the data.
@dcscccc
No, I would not call such a method scientific.
But also it might be possible that there are no better means available.
And you have always to indicate the accuracy of your method, especially when the error is extreme.
It was almost 60 years ago that I made mathematical exercises on the EarthâMoon system and I donât remember the details of the calculation. Therefore Iâm unable to proof that you are completely wrong. But that does not change the fact that you are completely wrong. Aside from that, you overlook the expansion of the Earth. The Moon was formed over 4 billion years ago, when a rogue planet collided with the Earth. A large part of the crust was jettisoned in space and remaining of the crust broke up and sank down. A new crust, made of granite was formed. A crust without mountains. When normal temperatures were restored, the water rained down and a kilometers deep ocean covered the whole Earth. Genesis 1.2 describes this situation. Earth continued to expand and the crust was torn up. The cracks became more widely as the process continued. Liquid lava was welling up from below and water came in from above, clotting the lava. This continued. When the cracks were wide enough to contain all the water, dry land was formed and the present continents and large islands became visible. Presently some 70% of Earth is ocean bottom and the remaining 30% is original crust. The diameter of Earth has almost doubled, Earthâs surface has become almost four times larger, volume has become almost eight times lager and mass has become more than ten times larger.
To me it is undeniable that this increase of size and mass is an essential factor in the reciprocal interaction between Earth and Moon, and I miss that completely in your calculationâŚ
Which brings me to a different, related subject: the continuous, unstoppable and harmful discussions on details, where the main objective, in my considered opinion, is not coming nearer to God by finding the truth, but winning the dispute. Winning the discussions has become more important than loving God and our neighbors.
Those YEC-ies, ID-people and alike are generally alpha-oriented people, - or maybe I should say, are not having a thorough beta training and attitude -, who are rumbling with beta knowledge they do not understand, creating confusion, while forgetting that our primary tasks are to love and honor God, and to love and unselfishly help our neighbors.
I saw on Internet the footprint of a 400,000 year old human, space-traveling civilization.
(Personally I would not surprised if there are also a few people from those earlier civilizations are living also here or near by in space to keep an eye on us.)
Prof. Bryan Sykes did an extensive research on mitochondrial DNA and found that the whole human population of Earth is descending from a single woman who lived 150,000 years ago.
And they talk about creation less than 10,000 years ago!
I read somewhere that the Colorado Canyon had been formed in a short time when the limestone was still soft, which ignores that the limestone is never soft and that limestone is formed by deposition of skeletons of microscopic organisms, which requires living, i.e. created organisms and several millennia per centimeter deposits.
And then I wonder, are they blind for these facts? Are they deliberately lying? Are they refusing to see the truth? What do they hope to gain by writing this?
They are not unique. Look at Margaret Heffernan: Dare to disagree | TED Talk. It is about medical doctors deliberately ignoring that Rontgen radiation is fatal for unborn children and it lasted 25 years before they stopped murdering them by using Rontgen on pregnant females. Apparently a whole generation of doctors had to become extinct before a new generation stopped doing this.
Geologists are even worse. They even donât know the most elementary facts of their field of knowledge, like how, where and why liquid lava is formed, or the cause of the magnetic field of Earth, or why Venus has no magnetic field.
And I, an outsider, needed only high school physics to find out. Why did they not find out the basics of their field?
Why should I? C14 is more or less reliable in modern ages, because we know about the impacts of nuclear testing, for example, and because in the short term we also know something about climate and radiation. When we get to 20,000 years we are speculating.
What discussion am I diverting?
[quote=âjammycakes, post:56, topic:3582â]
I havenât given any numbers here because the original argument doesnât either. It doesnât tell us either the maximum or the minimum rate at which ocean salinity has changed in the past.
Austin and Humphreys calculated that about 457 million tonnes of sodium now comes into the sea every year. The minimum possible rate in the past, even if the most generous assumptions are granted to evolutionists, is 356 million tonnes/year.
Actually, a more recent study shows that salt is entering the oceans even faster than Austin and Humphreys thought.5 Previously, the amount of SGWD was thought to be a small fraction (0.01â10%) of the water from surface runoff, mainly rivers. But this new study, measuring the radioactivity of radium in coastal water, shows that the amount of SGWD is as much as 40% of the river flow.6 This means that the maximum possible age of the ocean is even smaller.
[/quote]
> However, the rate of all of this sodium output is far less than the input. Austin and Humphreys calculated that about 122 million tonnes of sodium leaves the sea every year. The maximum possible rate in the past, even if the most generous assumptions are granted to evolutionists, is 206 million tonnes/yearâŚGranting the most generous assumptions to evolutionists, Austin and Humphreys calculated that the ocean must be less than 62 million years old. Itâs important to stress that this is not the actual age, but a maximum age. (Sarfati)
It seems your argument is a bad one.
Well, you COULD be discussing the fact that tests that are DESIGNED to measure millions of years (unlike C14 tests) ⌠DO show the Earth is MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD.
Your preferring to discuss C14 issues (instead of other test methods) is like looking for your lost wallet one block away from where you last saw it ⌠because the light is bad where you lost it.
thanks. now, we know that radiometric dating can be wrong in about more then 1000% from the real age (for example: a living snail shell date by this method to 27000years and seal about 1300). therefore its not a scientific method. do you agree?
It looks like youâve understood my point hereâyouâre certainly heading in the right direction. The important thing is to make sure that all aspects of your argument are covered by the data.
Iâd be inclined to ask for more detail about the figures theyâre quoting here though. How did they derive them, and what are their uncertainties? In particular, what are the uncertainties in historical rates? Also, how much consensus is there among different experts as to what these values are? Is there consistency between different studies, or are figures from different research papers all over the map?
The reason Iâm saying this is that Iâd have thought that sodium inputs and outputs to the oceans would be very difficult to determine accurately even for modern day, observed rates, and if they are known to within 10% or better I would be very surprised. Historical rates would be orders of magnitude harder to pin down.
Incidentally thereâs a fairly thorough and detailed critique of the salty seas argument at the Age of Rocks blog (here, here and here)âdo you have any particular thoughts on this?
@johnZ
Hello John, I get the impression that you try to use the limitations of the C14 method as proof against the idea that our planet is more than 4 billion years old. If you wish to estimate the age of Earth by a different method, then try this: limestone is formed by the deposits of the skeletons of plankton. These deposits are layered because there are those special Floods at irregular intervals. The average interval is in the range of 50 millennia. The average limestone layer in the region where I live is some 10 to 20 cm thick. So the deposits were produced at a speed in the range of 2 to 4 mm per millennium. The Grand Canyon attains a depth of 1,857 meters, which is 1,857,000 mm. Then the age of the bottom of the canyon there is some 450,000 to 900,000 millennia or 0.45 to 0.9 billion years. That is quite a bit older than the 6,000 years stated by the YEC-ies, the limestone deposits are much thicker than the canyon depth, and the deposits started a few billion years after the formation of Earth.
Greetings, Jan.
@dcscccc
With such errors I would primarily question the ability of the person who applied the C14 method.
I skimmed your first link, and the logic or lack of logic turned me off. He seemed to think that quoting Austin and Humphreys work by Snelling who postulated 42 my maximum was illegitimate, when Austin and Humphreys were clear about 62 my being their maximum under extra generous assumptions. Of course, inputs and outputs are difficult to determine accurately⌠but it depends on what you mean by accurate. Like climate models that try to predict variances of onehalf degree C, note the recent Paris conference that distinguished between a 1.5C and 2.0C temperature rise by 2050, so salt equations are probably in the same error range. Which is why I said that even if they overestimated salt influx by 50%, it still would give a maximum age of 120 my, which is a far cry from 4.5 b.y. I doubt they are claiming accuracy to 10%.
As far as how they derived these rates, Iâm sure they used the relevant data and research, although they were generous, which means they did not discount those factors with which they might have disagreed, but included them anyway. So in this scenario, they assumed a zero salt content for beginning state, and there is no real legitimate reason for doing so. They did not assume for this scenario, any outlier inputs such as massive volcanic eruptions, or massive groundwater inputs, and there is not a real legitimate reason for this either. Both of these conditions would dramatically reduce the age of the ocean, likely to less than a million years.
Not all limestone is plankton skeletons; much is derived from seashells.