OLD ROCK

[Furrowed Brow]

Rock potentially 4.28 billion years old has been found on the shore of the Hudson Bay.

They sent samples for chemical analysis to scientists at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, who dated the rocks by measuring isotopes of the rare earth elements neodymium and samarium, which decay over time at a known rate.

Question for Creationist who believe the age of the Earth should be counted in only thousands of years: what is wrong with dating rock by the decay of neodymium and samarium? Where have the scientists gone wrong?

[Cathar1950]

Rock potentially 4.28 billion years old has been found on the shore of the Hudson Bay.

They sent samples for chemical analysis to scientists at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, who dated the rocks by measuring isotopes of the rare earth elements neodymium and samarium, which decay over time at a known rate.

Question for Creationist who believe the age of the Earth should be counted in only thousands of years: what is wrong with dating rock by the decay of neodymium and samarium? Where have the scientists gone wrong?

From the article:

Professor Francis was looking for clues to the nature of the Earth's mantle 3.8 billion years ago.

So he went looking for evidence that it is at least 3.8B years old and he found it.

The rocks turned out to be far older than first thought

Of course they did. That would make the discoverers famous.

They sent samples for chemical analysis to scientists at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, who dated the rocks by measuring isotopes of the rare earth elements neodymium and samarium, which decay over time at a known rate.

What I would like to know is how they can guarantee these decay rates have remained constant for 4.3B years.

The oldest rocks, termed "faux amphibolite", were dated within the range from 3.8 to 4.28 billion years old.

"4.28 billion is the figure I favour," says Francis.

Classic. Of course he favours 4.28B. That would make him famous. He'll probably receive grant money now.

"It could be that the rock was formed 4.3 billion years ago, but then it was re-worked into another rock form 3.8bn years ago. That's a hard distinction to draw."

It's only a 500M year margin of error. No biggie when we're talking Billions, right?

The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.

TalkOrigins
Here's is something that bothers me. A 1% degree of margin. Sounds reasonable until we do the math. That's almost a 46million year margin of error. Can't they get it a little more precise than that? I mean this is supposed to be scientific.

So. Is the earth 4.6B? 4.3B? Older? Younger or what?

How precise do you want them to be?
If you do the math and understand it 46 million years isn't much, it is 1%. How much margin of error do you think the Bible has when you read the myths?
I think the margin of error of a successful surgery is much less yet yet people do take the risks.
It looks like you are straining at a gnat when it comes to science and therefore believe the bible is true and swallow a train camels.

[Goose]

Actually, not yet. The further away something gets, the more blurry the picture. The evidence currently suggests that the Earth is more than 4 billion years old and less than 5.

And what are the assumptions that evidence is built upon?

I'll repeat my question.

What I would like to know is how they can guarantee these decay rates have remained constant for 4.3B years.

It would be dishonest for scientists to conclude a degree of accuracy that is not warranted by the evidence.

If the evidence can't be calculated to be more accurate than a degree of margin of 500M, maybe scientists should be far less dogmatic about the earth being 4.6B years old. That would be the honest position.

You say 4B to 5B. Let's cut it in half at 4.5B.

Mr. Jones,a Billionaire, goes to his accounting firm for his annual review. They tell him he is worth $4.5B, give or take $500M. If you are Mr. Jones what do you do?
a) Say to the firm, "Sounds reasonable, after all I do have lots of money." And leave with a smile.
b) Find a new accounting firm.

It is similar to Sir James Lightfoot who calculated from Biblical evidence that creation occurred at 9 AM Oct 3, 4004 BC. Even a literal reading of the Bible yields a certain margin of error.

In other words, you can't do much better than those who infer an age from the Bible. Gotcha.

It is intellectually dishonest to try to make the point that science must be wrong, because it recognizes the current limitations and can estimate its own degrees of accuracy.

How is this dishonest? A 500M degree of error is more than simply admitting a limitation of degrees of accuracy. If the degrees of current limitations lead to such large discrepancies perhaps new methods need to be explored. What is intellectually dishonest is for science to proclaim something to be correct when such limitations and discrepancies exist. That's dishonest!

The rock in question is clearly older than 10,000 years. Lots older

How much older? Can't you narrow it down just a tad?

[Goat]

Actually, not yet. The further away something gets, the more blurry the picture. The evidence currently suggests that the Earth is more than 4 billion years old and less than 5.

And what are the assumptions that evidence is built upon?

I'll repeat my question.

What I would like to know is how they can guarantee these decay rates have remained constant for 4.3B years.

It would be dishonest for scientists to conclude a degree of accuracy that is not warranted by the evidence.

If the evidence can't be calculated to be more accurate than a degree of margin of 500M, maybe scientists should be far less dogmatic about the earth being 4.6B years old. That would be the honest position.

You say 4B to 5B. Let's cut it in half at 4.5B.

Mr. Jones,a Billionaire, goes to his accounting firm for his annual review. They tell him he is worth $4.5B, give or take $500M. If you are Mr. Jones what do you do?
a) Say to the firm, "Sounds reasonable, after all I do have lots of money." And leave with a smile.
b) Find a new accounting firm.

It is similar to Sir James Lightfoot who calculated from Biblical evidence that creation occurred at 9 AM Oct 3, 4004 BC. Even a literal reading of the Bible yields a certain margin of error.

In other words, you can't do much better than those who infer an age from the Bible. Gotcha.

It is intellectually dishonest to try to make the point that science must be wrong, because it recognizes the current limitations and can estimate its own degrees of accuracy.

How is this dishonest? A 500M degree of error is more than simply admitting a limitation of degrees of accuracy. If the degrees of current limitations lead to such large discrepancies perhaps new methods need to be explored. What is intellectually dishonest is for science to proclaim something to be correct when such limitations and discrepancies exist. That's dishonest!

The rock in question is clearly older than 10,000 years. Lots older

How much older? Can't you narrow it down just a tad?

Yes, we can. It is about 4.28 billion years older, give or take 1%.

As for the assumptions it makes... I suggest you read up on radiometric dating, which, contrary to the inaccurate claims of the Young Earth Creationist, has been very strongly tested and verified.

[McCulloch]

And what are the assumptions that evidence is built upon?

That the laws of physics have remained consistent and that God has not intervened. Without those assumptions, wouldn't we be back into a kind of Last Thursdayism?

It would be dishonest for scientists to conclude a degree of accuracy that is not warranted by the evidence.

If the evidence can't be calculated to be more accurate than a degree of margin of 500M, maybe scientists should be far less dogmatic about the earth being 4.6B years old. That would be the honest position.

No it would not. If the evidence supports that the Earth is 4.6 Billion ± 500 Million, then that is what scientists should honestly claim.

You might want to rework your example using the GNP for the United States. I doubt that anyone can reliably estimate that number within 1%. Degrees of error are part of science. They are usually measured in per cent. Even if the degree of error was a whopping 20%, if it was an honest 20%, what is the big problem?

It is similar to Sir James Lightfoot who calculated from Biblical evidence that creation occurred at 9 AM Oct 3, 4004 BC. Even a literal reading of the Bible yields a certain margin of error.

In other words, you can't do much better than those who infer an age from the Bible. Gotcha.

I was using this as a clear example of someone articulating a degree of precision unwarranted by the data. You seem to be indicating that scientists follow Lightfoot's example.

It is intellectually dishonest to try to make the point that science must be wrong, because it recognizes the current limitations and can estimate its own degrees of accuracy.

How is this dishonest? A 500M degree of error is more than simply admitting a limitation of degrees of accuracy. If the degrees of current limitations lead to such large discrepancies perhaps new methods need to be explored. What is intellectually dishonest is for science to proclaim something to be correct when such limitations and discrepancies exist. That's dishonest!

It is dishonest to express degrees of error in absolute terms rather than in percentages. For example, I normally express my age to within one year but the age of yogurt in the fridge to within a day.

The rock in question is clearly older than 10,000 years. Lots older

How much older? Can't you narrow it down just a tad?

Probably. What's the point? The evidence shows that the rock in question is orders of magnitude older than 10,000 years. We are not discussing percent. We are discussing something on the order of 500,000 times.

[micatala]

Rock potentially 4.28 billion years old has been found on the shore of the Hudson Bay.

They sent samples for chemical analysis to scientists at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, who dated the rocks by measuring isotopes of the rare earth elements neodymium and samarium, which decay over time at a known rate.

Question for Creationist who believe the age of the Earth should be counted in only thousands of years: what is wrong with dating rock by the decay of neodymium and samarium? Where have the scientists gone wrong?

From the article:

Professor Francis was looking for clues to the nature of the Earth's mantle 3.8 billion years ago.

So he went looking for evidence that it is at least 3.8B years old and he found it.

So if the FBI goes looking for evidence that mob boss Tony Soprano was running a drug ring, and they find it, they should immediately discount the evidence because they were looking for it?????

The rocks turned out to be far older than first thought

Of course they did. That would make the discoverers famous.

You are essentially saying the scientists are falsifying their conclusions in order to be famous. Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

Would you say that any detective or prosecuting attorney involved in a high profile prosecution (e.g. OJ Simpson) is falsifying evidence just so they can gain fame by getting the famous person convicted?

Now, are there cases where 'fame-mongering' happens? Sure. But a few cases does not mean we scrap the entire criminal justice system and free all the convicts.

So, so far we have unsubstantiated accusations of falsification of data, and an unsubstantiated hypothesis of why the scientists would do the falsifying.

They sent samples for chemical analysis to scientists at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, who dated the rocks by measuring isotopes of the rare earth elements neodymium and samarium, which decay over time at a known rate.

What I would like to know is how they can guarantee these decay rates have remained constant for 4.3B years.

A reasonable question. Here is one response.

2.1 Constancy of radioactive decay rates.
Rates of radiometric decay (the ones relevant to radiometric dating) are thought to be based on rather fundamental properties of matter, such as the probability per unit time that a certain particle can "tunnel" out of the nucleus of the atom. The nucleus is well-insulated and therefore is relatively immune to larger-scale effects such as pressure or temperature.

Significant changes to rates of radiometric decay of isotopes relevant to geological dating have never been observed under any conditions. Emery (1972) is a comprehensive survey of experimental results and theoretical limits on variation of decay rates. Note that the largest changes reported by Emery are both irrelevant (they do not involve isotopes or modes of decay used for this FAQ), and minuscule (decay rate changed by of order 1%) compared to the change needed to compress the apparent age of the Earth into the young-Earthers' timescale.

A short digression on mechanisms for radioactive decay, taken from USEnet article <CK47LK.E2J@ucdavis.edu> by Steve Carlip (subsequently edited in response to Steve's request):

For the case of alpha decay, [...] the simple underlying mechanism is quantum mechanical tunneling through a potential barrier. You will find a simple explanation in any elementary quantum mechanics textbook; for example, Ohanion's Principles of Quantum Mechanics has a nice example of alpha decay on page 89. The fact that the process is probabilistic, and the exponential dependence on time, are straightforward consequences of quantum mechanics. (The time dependence is a case of "Fermi's golden rule" --- see, for example, page 292 of Ohanion.)

An exact computation of decay rates is, of course, much more complicated, since it requires a detailed understanding of the shape of the potential barrier. In principle, this is computable from quantum chromodynamics, but in practice the computation is much too complex to be done in the near future. There are, however, reliable approximations available, and in addition the shape of the potential can be measured experimentally.

For beta decay, the underlying fundamental theory is different; one begins with electroweak theory (for which Glashow, Weinberg and Salam won their Nobel prize) rather than quantum chromodynamics.

As described above, the process of radioactive decay is predicated on rather fundamental properties of matter. In order to explain old isotopic ages on a young Earth by means of accelerated decay, an increase of six to ten orders of magnitude in rates of decay would be needed (depending on whether the acceleration was spread out over the entire pre-Flood period, or accomplished entirely during the Flood).

Such a huge change in fundamental properties would have plenty of noticeable effects on processes other than radioactive decay (taken from <16381@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> by Steve Carlip):

So there has been a lot of creative work on how to look for evidence of such changes.

A nice (technical) summary is given by Sisterna and Vucetich (1991) . Among the phenomena they look at are:

searches for changes in the radius of Mercury, the Moon, and Mars (these would change because of changes in the strength of interactions within the materials that they are formed from);
searches for long term ("secular") changes in the orbits of the Moon and the Earth --- measured by looking at such diverse phenomena as ancient solar eclipses and coral growth patterns;
ranging data for the distance from Earth to Mars, using the Viking spacecraft;
data on the orbital motion of a binary pulsar PSR 1913+16;
observations of long-lived isotopes that decay by beta decay (Re 187, K 40, Rb 87) and comparisons to isotopes that decay by different mechanisms;
the Oklo natural nuclear reactor (mentioned in another posting);
experimental searches for differences in gravitational attraction between different elements (Eotvos-type experiments);
absorption lines of quasars (fine structure and hyperfine splittings);
laboratory searches for changes in the mass difference between the K0 meson and its antiparticle.
While it is not obvious, each of these observations is sensitive to changes in the physical constants that control radioactive decay. For example, a change in the strength of weak interactions (which govern beta decay) would have different effects on the binding energy, and therefore the gravitational attraction, of different elements. Similarly, such changes in binding energy would affect orbital motion, while (more directly) changes in interaction strengths would affect the spectra we observe in distant stars.

The observations are a mixture of very sensitive laboratory tests, which do not go very far back in time but are able to detect extremely small changes, and astronomical observations, which are somewhat less precise but which look back in time. (Remember that processes we observe in a star a million light years away are telling us about physics a million years ago.) While any single observation is subject to debate about methodology, the combined results of such a large number of independent tests are hard to argue with.

The overall result is that no one has found any evidence of changes in fundamental constants, to an accuracy of about one part in 1011 per year.

To summarize: both experimental evidence and theoretical considerations preclude significant changes to rates of radioactive decay. The limits placed are somewhere between ten and twenty orders of magnitude below the changes which would be necessary to accommodate the apparent age of the Earth within the young-Earth timescale (by means of accelerated decay).

The oldest rocks, termed "faux amphibolite", were dated within the range from 3.8 to 4.28 billion years old.

"4.28 billion is the figure I favour," says Francis.

Classic. Of course he favours 4.28B. That would make him famous. He'll probably receive grant money now.

More unsubstantiated accusations.

"It could be that the rock was formed 4.3 billion years ago, but then it was re-worked into another rock form 3.8bn years ago. That's a hard distinction to draw."

It's only a 500M year margin of error. No biggie when we're talking Billions, right?

Whether this error is "big" or not depends on your viewpoint. What is your problem with this error? At any rate, I am not sure why you are objecting to the scientists being honest about the accuracy of their results. Would you rather they say 4.32658 billion and claim accuracy to five decimal places? First you accuse the of dishonesty, then you object when they are honest. I get the feeling you won't be satisfied not matter what.

The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.

TalkOrigins
Here's is something that bothers me. A 1% degree of margin. Sounds reasonable until we do the math. That's almost a 46million year margin of error. Can't they get it a little more precise than that? I mean this is supposed to be scientific.

Why is 1% error not scientific? You do realize that scientific polling typically reports results with 3% margins of error.

Suppose a policeman is investigating a car crash. She estimates the care was traveling 50 mph when it hit the light pole. Would you say the policeman was doing shoddy work if she said her speed estimate might be off by 1%? Would it significantly alter her case if the car was traveling 49.5 mph instead of 50 mph?

So. Is the earth 4.6B? 4.3B? Older? Younger or what?

How about we just say it is about 4.5 billion years. If we know with 95% confidence that it is between 4.3 and 4.7 billion years, this is a pretty specific claim that we have a high degree of confidence in. You seem to disparage this, I suspect simply for religious reasons.

I suspect that you would be willing to accept this level of specificity and confidence in most other scientific areas, the criminal justice area, etc. If a prosecuting attorney produced convictions for 95% of arrests, most people would say they are doing pretty well, especially if these convictions stood up under appeal.

Dating techniques have proven quite reliable, albeit within their appropriate margins of error. They have been tested and retested innumerable times, and have stood up under these numerous 'appeals.'

[byofrcs]

.......

What I would like to know is how they can guarantee these decay rates have remained constant for 4.3B years.

It would be dishonest for scientists to conclude a degree of accuracy that is not warranted by the evidence.

If the evidence can't be calculated to be more accurate than a degree of margin of 500M, maybe scientists should be far less dogmatic about the earth being 4.6B years old. That would be the honest position.

You say 4B to 5B. Let's cut it in half at 4.5B.

Mr. Jones,a Billionaire, goes to his accounting firm for his annual review. They tell him he is worth $4.5B, give or take $500M. If you are Mr. Jones what do you do?
a) Say to the firm, "Sounds reasonable, after all I do have lots of money." And leave with a smile.
b) Find a new accounting firm.
......

Given today's financial climate, if anyone can mark-to-market just about any asset class and come up with anything as accurate as 500 million in 4.5 billion they are doing well because tomorrow it may be worth 1 billion less or more or who the heck knows.

Unless it's sitting on the desk as 4.5 billion in cash (which would weight about 100,000 pounds), no one has no real idea and you should in fact fire the first person who said they knew exactly what you were worth.

Basically it would be a lot easier dating rocks.

[Goat]

.

Basically it would be a lot easier dating rocks.

I would rather be dating a blond. It might be more difficult than dating a rock, but a heck of a lot more fun.

[C-Nub]

Goose -

I think its safe to say that your 'scientists lie!' hypothesis, as means of explaining why the dates would be in error, is both grossly inappropriate but also completely full of holes, as pointed out by my friend with the scientific mantra. All finds such as this as subjected to significant peer review.

As for the margin of error, this is how science works. We use the best techniques we have while we develop more and more efficient means of understanding our universe. We know roughly how old the earth is, now we try to narrow it down. The margin for error is, I grant you, a lot years from our point of view (but not that of, say, a planet, which is, after all, what we're discussing) but at the same time, it's a lot closer to the truth than 6000 years, which is off by roughly 4.5 billion, give or take.

So I'm curious, are all the scientists lying? Did they fake every prehistoric fossil they ever found? Did they lie about how the Hawaii formed, the age of the grand Canyon, and the asteroid that hit 65 million years ago and killed the dinosaurs?

How far does this conspiracy extend? Are the rules that scientists have formulated falsified? Does my microwave actually work, or do I only believe it does because I am so deceived by these dastardly men of science? Have I been eating raw chicken?!?!

[Cathar1950]

Goose -

I think its safe to say that your 'scientists lie!' hypothesis, as means of explaining why the dates would be in error, is both grossly inappropriate but also completely full of holes, as pointed out by my friend with the scientific mantra. All finds such as this as subjected to significant peer review.

As for the margin of error, this is how science works. We use the best techniques we have while we develop more and more efficient means of understanding our universe. We know roughly how old the earth is, now we try to narrow it down. The margin for error is, I grant you, a lot years from our point of view (but not that of, say, a planet, which is, after all, what we're discussing) but at the same time, it's a lot closer to the truth than 6000 years, which is off by roughly 4.5 billion, give or take.

So I'm curious, are all the scientists lying? Did they fake every prehistoric fossil they ever found? Did they lie about how the Hawaii formed, the age of the grand Canyon, and the asteroid that hit 65 million years ago and killed the dinosaurs?

How far does this conspiracy extend? Are the rules that scientists have formulated falsified? Does my microwave actually work, or do I only believe it does because I am so deceived by these dastardly men of science? Have I been eating raw chicken?!?!

It seems to me that it is more likely those that feel the earth is much younger are lying. If not to others then to themselves. It is also more likely the stories in the Bible are myths and I see no reason to think those that wrote the stories didn't know they were myth given the freedom they had changing them or combining a number of myths together. Eve the idea that Moses wrote the myths is unlikely given there is no reason to think they were written no later then the 9th century BCE using sources from Babylon and Sumer that date back at least a thousand years before that. With a little 1% margin of error that is closer then anything Goose can muster for whatever he feels is the truth.
For some odd reason he wants 100% and absolute certainty for which he seems to know nothing about given his posts.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

Give me some time between questions here, my brain needs more blood than I'm giving it.

For some reason, creationists who look at things like red light shifting, radioactive dating, canyon strata, antarctic ice-cores, cosmic background radiation, moon rocks, fossil evidence, mineral deposits, volcanism / plate tectonics, and just for fun let's say... cave paintings... believe that God wants to trick us. He created the Universe so that it looks that old. I haven't heard any compelling reasons as to why, I always just took it for the desperate rationalization it is.

God obviously made it look like the Bible is wrong about the age of the universe to make it less credible so he can send more people to hell.

What I would like to know is how they can guarantee these decay rates have remained constant for 4.3B years.

Maybe the fact that radioactive decay is an established scientific law. I suppose you are suggesting that God slowed the decay of the rock somehow. I have to ask why God would do such a thing as it undermines the credibility of his word (or what you claim to be his word).

Of course they did. That would make the discoverers famous.

Other scientists could easily repeat the tests that he made to ensure their accuracy.

It's only a 500M year margin of error. No biggie when we're talking Billions, right?

6,000 years ago is far outside of the margin of error though. Scientific evidence points to the earth being between 3.8 billion and 4.3 billion years old and, although this is a wide range, we don't need to narrow the range to figure out that the evidence shows that the earth is older than 6,000 years old.

Here's is something that bothers me. A 1% degree of margin. Sounds reasonable until we do the math. That's almost a 46million year margin of error. Can't they get it a little more precise than that? I mean this is supposed to be scientific.

It is only scientific because they refuse to admit that they know an exact date, and recognize that their results are not infallible, just what is most likely based on the evidence that has been gathered. Like I said before though, this one percent is irrelevant in disproving the the Young Earth Theory.