Quality of the extrapolation leading to billions of years

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@johnZ

No, it is like saying that when you measure a blade of grass you know how long it was two weeks ago, or how old the plant was three weeks ago.

It’s only like that in that way that Chris has described, which is the opposite of the point you’re trying to make.

@johnZ

A measurement of how much isotope remains does not tell you how much time has elapsed.

It does, because we know the half-life of the isotope.

@johnZ

So as with the isotopes, you first have to make assumptions about the initial conditions, ie. the amount of parent or daughter element present when the rock was formed.

You are using that word “assumptions” again. You are trying to make it sound like radiometric dating is guesswork, and based on unprovable, untestable, unreliable assumptions. But this is the opposite of the truth. Radiometric dating doesn’t start with such assumptions. It starts with known facts, which have been established through a multitude of independent tests, and which are corroborated with information from other fields.

@johnZ

When an assumption is shown to be unreliable due to new evidence, then the assumption ought to change.

But you haven’t shown that there are any unreliable assumptions in the case of radiometric dating. In fact I even gave you a link to a page demonstrating how radiometric dating is established as reliable, on the basis of demonstrable facts.

There’s a reason why Chris, Argon, and Ben have all identified your understanding of radiometric dating as wrong; it is wrong, despite them (and me), describing the process to you repeatedly. When you can demosntrate that radiometric dating is unreliable, please just post it here.

Remember that astronomy has given us access to radiometric records which are billions of years old. Billions. We have direct physical evidence for the rate of decay of certain isotopes millions to billions of years ago. We can literally see into the past and know the rate of decay remained constant during that time.

And that’s before we even start on the other information we have from astronomy, such as light. When we point our radio telescopes to the stars, we are literally looking into the past. Those radio telecscopes are like time machines. We are literally able to look events which happened millions of years ago. We can see a star which formed 13 billion years ago. We can see stars which already died thousands, tens of thousands, millions of years ago, because we are looking directly at their past. YEC is simply unable to explain this.

Likewise, how do you find oil and mineral desposits if you’re YEC? You can’t, because you don’t believe they formed over time, you believe they were all put there instantly by God, and you would have to just make wild guesses as to where He put them, and how much He put there. That’s why oil and mineral companies use geologists to find these resources, not YECs.

[GJDS]

I think this debate should be put into two parts. (1) the instrumentation and method(s) used in dating, and (2) the basis and theory underpinning it.

On (1), I think that criticism is misplaced, and techniques have improved enormously and the accuracy and reproducibility of these methods have been demonstrated.

On (2), I think workers in this area are aware (as all scientists) that the way a sample is obtained, and its history, are significant factors, and it is this area that may cause some concern and/or controversy. However, we should understand that collecting samples is always a difficult matter - questions can always be asked - how representative are they, how sure are we of the history (especially lengthy periods), and how confident are we the processes that occurred millions (and hundreds of millions) of years ago, are understood under our conditions.

I think workers in this area are aware of these difficulties and from a few papers I have looked at, have gone to some lengths to address such concerns. So while we may have concerns, I think we need to understand this work is justified and helpful for these discussions,

[GCS]

Thank you for referring me to How are the ages of the Earth and universe calculated? - Common Question - BioLogos. Regrettably, it has taken me four months to find the time to read it but it is a certainly a case of “better late than never”. The article is well written and I express my appreciation to the writer (whoever that may be). Hopefully, it won’t take me another four months to read come the references cited in the article.

[johnZ]

@Chris_Falter

Actually, it’s easy to know quickly my grass grows. If I happen to know that I haven’t cut it in 2 weeks, and I measure the length, I can easily infer how long the grass was 2 weeks ago.

Well, Chris, you know that this statement is really what shall we call it charitably? Simply untrue? If you haven’t cut the grass in two weeks, you can only measure how high the grass is now, and will not know nor be able to infer how long the grass was 2 weeks ago, unless your mower is still at the same height, and you can measure how high it cuts today. Growth rates of grass change, and are not consistent… sometimes grass can grow six inches in two weeks, while other times it may only grow a half inch in two weeks, under dry conditions. Or when frozen. But my example really applied to when grass was not cut at all.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

Just putting this here.

@Jonathan_Burke

Remember that astronomy has given us access to radiometric records which are billions of years old. Billions. We have direct physical evidence for the rate of decay of certain isotopes millions to billions of years ago. We can literally see into the past and know the rate of decay remained constant during that time.

And that’s before we even start on the other information we have from astronomy, such as light. When we point our radio telescopes to the stars, we are literally looking into the past. Those radio telecscopes are like time machines. We are literally able to look events which happened millions of years ago. We can see a star which formed 13 billion years ago. We can see stars which already died thousands, tens of thousands, millions of years ago, because we are looking directly at their past. YEC is simply unable to explain this.

Likewise, how do you find oil and mineral desposits if you’re YEC? You can’t, because you don’t believe they formed over time, you believe they were all put there instantly by God, and you would have to just make wild guesses as to where He put them, and how much He put there. That’s why oil and mineral companies use geologists to find these resources, not YECs.

[Chris_Falter]

Hi John,

Hope this email finds you doing well today. I apologize for the sloppiness of my rough-and-ready analogy. I am sure that if I had only invested more effort in qualifying the conditions of my analogy, the last obstacle to your ability to understand radiometric dating would disappear, and you would finally be able to take delight in the ability that God has given us humans, created in His image, to gain understanding of the world around us with science and technology.

Until your last comment, I was wondering how so much evidence–so many links to the relevant scientific literature–could be offered to you in this thread, and yet you have not grasped the most rudimentary concepts of radiometric dating. I had been thinking that you had not really read the resources pointed out to you, and were instead just staying in your comfort zone. Because, let’s face it, it’s a lot easier to stay in a comfort zone than to read and ponder evidence that challenges a deeply cherished belief.

But I now acknowledge to my shame that it is solely my fault, the lack is mine, since I offered an analogy without explaining its fine details. Mea culpa.

Since so much is on the line with my forum participation, I will give it another go for your sake, John.

If I happen to know the following:

1. The height of my grass just after my recent mowing,
2. The current height of my grass,
3. The rate of my lawn’s growth in late July and early August is equal a known constant whose precision and accuracy is comparable to the precision and accuracy of the rates of radioactive decay in earth conditions, and
4. The accuracy of my grass measuring technology is comparable to the accuracy of equipment used by radiometric labs…

then I can easily calculate how long ago I most recently mowed my grass.

There you go. Now that I have clarified my example, I’m sure you can finally understand why radiometric dating is such a well-established scientific practice, and give thanks together with me for the hard and smart work that thousands upon thousands of geologists have rendered over many generations.

Cheers,

Chris Falter

[johnZ]

@Chris_Falter

I am sure that if I had only invested more effort in qualifying the conditions of my analogy, the last obstacle to your ability to understand radiometric dating would disappear, and you would finally be able to take delight in the ability that God has given us humans, created in His image, to gain understanding of the world around us with science and technology.

I appreciate your sense of humor, Chris. [quote=“Chris_Falter, post:174, topic:4700”]
Because, let’s face it, it’s a lot easier to stay in a comfort zone than to read and ponder evidence that challenges a deeply cherished belief.
[/quote]

Your self analysis is very astute, chris.

@Chris_Falter

There you go. Now that I have clarified my example, I’m sure you can finally understand why radiometric dating is such a well-established scientific practice, and give thanks together with me for the hard and smart work that thousands upon thousands of geologists have rendered over many generations.

I’m glad you had fun with this, Chris.

Of course, the validity of the syllogism depends on the truth of each proposition on which it depends. The irony would be that you would know the height of the grass when cut, and not know the date on which you cut it. And as you know, the rate of lawn growth is not precise, and depends on many factors which change over time. And the validity of the conclusion, the rate of growth of grass, can be verified (or disproved) by the actual record of the date, and the measurement of the grass before and after. And so your analogy proves my point, and not yours. Thankyou for doing my work for me.

Have a great day!!

(Well, an analogy can never really prove a point, but still…)

[Chris_Falter]

@johnZ

Chris: Because, let’s face it, it’s a lot easier to stay in a comfort zone than to read and ponder evidence that challenges a deeply cherished belief.

johnZ: Your self analysis is very astute, chris.

And your observation is quite astute–how do you do it, John? You see, I spent decades as a YEC advocate who would listen to the words of geologists, and even just concerned friends, but only enough so that I could classify their argument, then pull out the standard refutation from my bag of YEC tricks.

Yep, that’s what I did for decades.

@johnZ

The irony would be that you would know the height of the grass when cut, and not know the date on which you cut it.

I’m very forgetful, so forgetting dates is a special super-power of mine. But we still need to fix the analogy:

@Chris_Falter

If I happen to know the following:

1. The height of my grass just after my recent mowing. This is verified by running the mower over a portion of the lawn and measuring the fresh cut. Also, because johnZ is so clever and will look far more closely at my analogy than at literature accepted by the scientific community, the mower does not have a height adjustment mechanism–it’s stuck on the same height. And the wheels cannot come off, so the current wheels haven’t been substituted for different-sized originals. And the height of the mower blade cannot be adjusted. Hope I didn’t forget anything there.
2. The current height of my grass,
3. The rate of my lawn’s growth in late July and early August is equal a known constant whose precision and accuracy is comparable to the precision and accuracy of the rates of radioactive decay in earth conditions, and
4. The accuracy of my grass measuring technology is comparable to the accuracy of equipment used by radiometric labs…

then I can easily calculate how long ago I most recently mowed my grass.

@johnZ

And as you know, the rate of lawn growth is not precise, and depends on many factors which change over time.

Not in my analogy! In my analogy, which I am about to submit to the U.S. Office of Copyright, the rate of lawn growth is as steady as the decay of rubidium into strontium. Or of U-238 into U-235. Of of K-40 into Ar-40. In the range of conditions that have existed on the earth over the past 4.5B years.

@johnZ

the rate of growth of grass, can be verified

Exactly! I’m not sure of when you became aware of the fact that the decay rates of elements used in radiometric dating have been very precisely measured–to within a fraction of a percent, even. Since you have acknowledged this fact. you have proven my point. Thank you for doing my work for me.

Cheers,

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@Chris_Falter

I’m very forgetful, so forgetting dates is a special super-power of mine.

Chris_Falter:

Uh oh. I sense a super hero showdown coming on. You may really think you’re something when it comes to dropping dates. But I bet I could lose a name faster than you or anyone else here. (my current record in this would need to be measured in seconds.) For that matter, I may be the master of you on dates as well.

what was this thread about again?

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

what was this thread about again?

I think it’s about Chris’ lawn.

[johnZ]

You should have picked a better analogy for your purposes.

[Chris_Falter]

You would definitely learn a lot more by dipping your toe into the scientific literature. You should try it; it’s quite fascinating and far more educational than anything I could write!

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@johnZ

You should have picked a better analogy for your purposes.

@johnZ

You need to explain how @Chris_Falter’s lawn analogy fails its purpose…

[johnZ]

Yeah, of course, when all else fails, tell someone to read something. You should read and understand the creation.com material; it is quite fascinating and more educational than anything I could write. (and more than anything I have seen here as well).

[johnZ]

@Chris_Falter

You seem not to understand how radiometric dating works, John. If the sample falls below the reliable detection limit, it does not indicate an age of zero. It indicates an age which is below the detection limit of the apparatus, so the age could be anything from zero up to whatever the limit is.

This has been responded to, but this statement indicates the lack of understanding of concepts and protocol with regard to radiometric dating. You are saying that the method indicates an age that is below its detection limit. Which is absurd, right? If it is below the detection limit, it cannot indicate anything, much less an “age”. That is the problem you are not seeming to understand.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

I think you are saying the same thing, despite your differences. You are both saying that a result below the detection limit is nonsensical.

[Chris_Falter]

John, you have no idea what I have read. Since you seem to think that I am cynical, I feel I must defend my intellectual integrity, which is quite unfortunate. But since you made it an issue, here is my response:

1. I read “The Genesis Flood” by Henry Morris

2. I read “Scientific Creationism” by Henry Morris

3. I read “Evolution? The Fossils Say No!” by Duane Gish.

4. I cheered racously for Duane Gish when he debated Stephen Jay Gould in 1980 on the Princeton campus.

5. I have read about 25 articles on the AiG website.

6. I have read a dozen or so articles on the creation.com website.

Over to you, John. Now you have the opportunity to tell us how deeply you have researched the works written by mainstream geologists and evolutionary biologists.

EDIT: I also read both RATE reports.

[Lynn_Munter]

@johnZ

This is a good response, @Chris_Falter. But the point is that something that is below the detection limit, would indicate zero, since it could not be detected. When it is detected at low levels, but within the range of error or variance, it should be less than the error limit of the detection method, which is reported at about 200,000 years equivalent, or sometimes at 280,000 years equivalent. If this is all that is detected within this range, then the report should indicate this equals zero. However, the values were well outside this range, up to 3.5my.

@Jonathan_Burke Without having extensively looked into radiometric dating myself, isn’t the problem with this that the margin of error is not actually constant over time, but grows wider as we leave the ideal dating range of the isotope in question? So the ‘error limit,’ I’m sure, would be calibrated to samples within the lab’s stated detection range, that is, >2my, and would naturally be larger once we approached 0.

Just because the lab gave a good faith attempt at dating it, based on the assumption that it was somewhere around the lower limit, doesn’t mean that whipping out the little factiod that the sample was of an age known to give bad results using that dating method should invalidate other, proper uses of the dating method.

[thabo (Mike Carney)]

i am sorry to come late to this reading.
I became convinced of the time scale because of plate tectonics.
i live on the west coast of the united states where earthquakes happen. and in the 1950’s there was some uncertainty as to the source. Some movies show earthquakes as miraculous always, "the 10 commandments with Charelton Heston, and The last Crusade with Indiana Jones. Now plate techtonics appears in grade schools. based on the observation that Africa was once joined to South America. They saw the outline of the coast matched up, then they compared geologic deposits and found them matching. how did that happen? how long did it take? how fast is it going on today? I am skeptical about radiometric readings because i don’t see those little neutrons and alpha particles and beta particles. but from satellite photos you can see stretch marks in the atlantic ocean, matching shorelines. about 400million years ago.you can do the math as distance = rate times time. We all learned that math. then other things fall out. You might notice that the appalacians once connected with the Ozark mountains, but around 400million years ago they cracked. We can see land offsetting in orchards in California. it is not esoteric it is cracks on the ground and mountain ranges. And there is not a point where you could say, aha, here is where creation happened. Count the layers in the grand canyon. they extened further back than 7000 years to Adam, and there is no special layer where you might say, things progressed normally to this layer and everything older is - what? the invention of the devil to confuse us?
and different fossils in these layers of rock point to evolution - it is written in stone, you have only to look. I only mow the grass 3 months of the year, never is grass growth constant.