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?

[Goose]

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?

nygreenguy disagrees.

No, no, because the laws of physics were different during the early universe.

From here

So are the laws the same or are they not? There's seems to be some confusion.

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.

But that's not what some claim. See my link to talkorigins. They claim 4.6B and a degree of error of 1%. 500M is more than 1%.

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%...

But they don't guestimate the GNP or GDP based on observing, let's say, the production habits of a few Americans in one day then multiply by 365 and then multiply by the population. Which would be an inference. Which, in a manner of speaking, is how the 4.6B number is arrived at.

...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?

An honest error is still an error. 20% no big problem? Really? You are quite forgiving.

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.

Yes. They do. They make an inference from the data just like Lightfoot. Science can't directly answer the question of how old the earth is using the scientific method. It is ultimately an historical question. It's at best an inference. It's little more than an educated guess.

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.

Why is it dishonest to express degrees of error in absolutes? Those that are embarrassed by the size of the absolute number of the error seek to pacify others by expressing it in a percentage. I'm 36, give or take 1 year. Is that what you mean?

[Goose]

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?

I guess I should have used some smiles and LOL's. I didn't say they are falsifying their conclusions to be famous. That is a strawman. Francis said he favoured a later date. I guess I should ask why. Given the option between 3.8B and 4.3B why wouldn't he choose 4.3B if it made him famous? Considering careers, publishing, notoriety, grants and such things are potentially at stake, it would be naive to not take this into consideration when weighing the evidence. The scientists are most likely honest people and reporting what they believe to be true based on their world view and assumptions regarding the evidence. However, if dates are arbitrarily chosen at 3.8B or 4.3B based on what someone "favours" it casts doubt upon the objectivity of the entire process. In the end it doesn't sound very scientific.

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...

Significant changes to rates of radiometric decay of isotopes relevant to geological dating have never been observed under any conditions...

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...

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...

To summarize: both experimental evidence and theoretical considerations preclude significant changes to rates of radioactive decay...

I highlighted some excerpts from the talkorigins cut and paste which seems to be saying, in a nut shell, that current observations in the lab have yielded consistent results. And I'm sure it has. That wasn't my question though. My question was:

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

But now that we are cutting and pasting. I'll cut and paste from talkorigins antithesis.

The presupposition of long ages is an icon and foundational to the evolutionary model. Nearly every textbook and media journal teaches that the earth is billions of years old.

Using radioactive dating, scientists have determined that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, ancient enough for all species to have been formed through evolution.1
The earth is now regarded as between 4.5 and 4.6 billion years old.2
The primary dating method scientists use for determining the age of the earth is radioisotope dating. Proponents of evolution publicize radioisotope dating as a reliable and consistent method for obtaining absolute ages of rocks and the age of the earth. This apparent consistency in textbooks and the media has convinced many Christians to accept an old earth (4.6 billion years old).

What Is Radioisotope Dating?
Radioisotope dating (also referred to as radiometric dating) is the process of estimating the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements. There are certain kinds of atoms in nature that are unstable and spontaneously change (decay) into other kinds of atoms. For example, uranium will radioactively decay through a series of steps until it becomes the stable element lead. Likewise, potassium decays into the element argon. The original element is referred to as the parent element (in these cases uranium and potassium), and the end result is called the daughter element (lead and argon)...


Science and Assumptions
Scientists use observational science to measure the amount of a daughter element within a rock sample and to determine the present observable decay rate of the parent element. Dating methods must also rely on another kind of science called historical science. Historical science cannot be observed. Determining the conditions present when a rock first formed can only be studied through historical science. Determining how the environment might have affected a rock also falls under historical science. Neither condition is directly observable. Since radioisotope dating uses both types of science, we can’t directly measure the age of something. We can use scientific techniques in the present, combined with assumptions about historical events, to estimate the age. Therefore, there are several assumptions that must be made in radioisotope dating. Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating:

1. The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.
2. The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
3. The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.

The Hourglass Illustration
Radioisotope dating can be better understood using an illustration with an hourglass. If we walk into a room and observe an hourglass with sand at the top and sand at the bottom, we could calculate how long the hourglass has been running. By estimating how fast the sand is falling and measuring the amount of sand at the bottom, we could calculate how much time has elapsed since the hourglass was turned over. All our calculations could be correct (observational science), but the result could be wrong. This is because we failed to take into account some critical assumptions.

Was there any sand at the bottom when the hourglass was first turned over (initial conditions)?
Has any sand been added or taken out of the hourglass? (Unlike the open-system nature of a rock, this is not possible for a sealed hourglass.)
Has the sand always been falling at a constant rate?
Since we did not observe the initial conditions when the hourglass time started, we must make assumptions. All three of these assumptions can affect our time calculations. If scientists fail to consider each of these three critical assumptions, then radioisotope dating can give incorrect ages.

The Facts
We know that radioisotope dating does not always work because we can test it on rocks of known age. In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices (also referred to as single-sample radioisotope dating). Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years.

Steve Austin, PhD geology, and member of the RATE team, had a rock from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens dated. Using Potassium-Argon dating, the newly formed rocks gave ages between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.3 These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified (assumption 1 is false).

Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages� of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.4 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated.

Isochron Dating
There is another form of dating called isochron dating, which involves analyzing four or more samples from the same rock unit. This form of dating attempts to eliminate one of the assumptions in single-sample radioisotope dating by using ratios and graphs rather than counting atoms present. It does not depend on the initial concentration of the daughter element being zero. The isochron dating technique is thought to be infallible because it supposedly eliminates the assumptions about starting conditions. However, this method has different assumptions about starting conditions and can give incorrect dates.

If single-sample and isochron dating methods are objective and reliable they should agree. However, they frequently do not. When a rock is dated by more than one method it may yield very different ages. For example, the RATE group obtained radioisotope dates from ten different locations. To omit any potential bias, the rock samples were analyzed by several commercial laboratories. In each case, the isochron dates differed substantially from the single-sample radioisotope dates. In some cases the range was more than 500 million years.5 Two conclusions drawn by the RATE group include:

The single-sample potassium-argon dates showed a wide variation.
A marked variation in ages was found in the isochron method using different parent-daughter analyses.
If different methods yield different ages and there are variations with the same method, how can scientists know for sure the age of any rock or the age of the earth?

In one specific case, Dr. Steve Austin of the RATE group took samples from the Cardenas basalt, which is among the oldest strata in the eastern Grand Canyon. Next, samples from the western Canyon basalt lava flows, which are among the youngest formation in the canyon, were analyzed. Using isochron dating methods, an age of 1.07 billion years was assigned to the oldest rocks and a date of 1.34 billion years to the youngest lava flows. The youngest rocks gave an age 270 million years older than the oldest rocks!6 Are the dates given in textbooks and journals accurate and objective? When assumptions are taken into consideration and discordant (wide range or unacceptable) dates are not omitted, radioisotope dating often gives inconsistent and inflated ages.

Two Case Studies
The RATE team selected two locations to collect rock samples to conduct multiple radioisotope dating methods. Both sites are understood by geologists to date from the Precambrian time (543–4,600 million years ago). The two sites chosen were the Beartooth Mountains of northwest Wyoming near Yellowstone National Park and the Bass Rapids in the central portion of Arizona’s Grand Canyon. All rock samples (whole rock and separate minerals within the rock) were analyzed using four radioisotope methods. These included the isotopes potassium-argon (K-Ar), rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr), samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd), and lead-lead (Pb-Pb). In order to avoid any bias, the dating procedures were contracted out to commercial laboratories located in Colorado, Massachusetts, and Ontario, Canada.

In order to have a level of confidence in dating, different radioisotope methods used to date a rock sample should closely coincide in age. When this occurs, the sample ages are said to be concordant. In contrast, if multiple results for a rock disagree with each other in age they are said to be discordant.

Beartooth Mountains Sample Results
Geologists believe the Bearthooth Mountains rock unit to contain some of the oldest rocks in the United States, with an estimated age of 2,790 million years. The following table summarizes the RATE results.

Dating Isotopes Millions of Years Type of Data (whole rock or separate mineral within the rock)
Potassium-Argon 1,520
2,011
2,403
2,620
Quartz-plagioclase mineral
Whole rock
Biotite mineral
Hornblende mineral

Rubidium-Strontium 2,515
2,790
5 minerals
Previously published result based on 30 whole rock samples (1982)

Samarium-Neodymium 2,886 4 minerals
Lead-Lead 2,689 5 minerals

The results show a significant scatter in the ages for the various minerals and also between the isotope methods. In some cases, the whole rock age is greater than the age of the minerals, and for others, the reverse occurs. The potassium-argon mineral results vary between 1,520 and 2,620 million years (a difference of 1,100 million years).

Bass Rapids Sill Sample Results
The 11 Grand Canyon rock samples were also dated commercially using the most advanced radioisotope technology. The generally accepted age for this formation is 1,070 million years. The RATE results are summarized in the following table.

The RATE results differ considerably from the generally accepted age of 1,070 million years. Especially noteworthy is the whole rock potassiumargon age of 841.5 million years while samarium-neodymium gives 1,379 million years (a difference of 537.5 million years).

Dating Isotopes Millions of Years Type of data (whole rock or separate mineral within the rock)
Potassium-Argon 841.5
665 to 1,053
11 Whole rock samples
Model ages from single whole rocks

Rubidium-Strontium 1,007
1,055
1,060
1,070
1,075
Magnetite mineral grains from 7 rock samples
11 Whole rock
7 Minerals
Previously published age based on 5 whole rock samples (1982)
12 Minerals

Lead-Lead 1,250
1,327
11 Whole rock
6 Minerals

Samarium-Neodymium 1,330
1,336
1,379
8 minerals
Magnetite mineral grains from 7 rock samples
6 minerals


Possible Explanations for the Discordance
There are three possible explanations for the discordant isotope dates.

There may be a mixing of isotopes between the volcanic flow and the rock body into which the lava intrudes. There are ways to determine if this has occurred and can be eliminated as a possible explanation.
Some of the minerals may have solidified at different times. However, there is no evidence that lava cools and solidifies in the same place at such an incredibly slow pace. Therefore this explanation can be eliminated.
The decay rates have been different in the past than they are today. The following section will show that this provides the best explanation for the discordant ages.
New Studies
New studies by the RATE group have provided evidence that radioactive decay supports a young earth. One of their studies involved the amount of helium found in granite rocks. Granite contains tiny zircon crystals, which contain radioactive uranium (238U), which decays into lead (206Pb). During this process, for each atom of 238U decaying into 206Pb, eight helium atoms are formed and migrate out of the zircons and granite rapidly.

Within the zircon7 crystals, any helium atoms generated by nuclear decay in the distant past should have long ago migrated outward and escaped from these crystals. One would expect the helium gas to eventually diffuse upward out of the ground and then disappear into the atmosphere. To everyone’s surprise, however, large amounts of helium have been found trapped inside zircons.8

The decay of 238U into lead is a slow process (half-life of 4.5 billion years). Since helium migrates out of rocks rapidly, there should be very little to no helium remaining in the granite.

Why is so much helium still in the granite? One likely explanation is that sometime in the past the radioactive decay rate was greatly accelerated. The decay rate was accelerated so much that helium was being produced faster than it could have escaped, causing an abundant amount of helium to remain in the granite. The RATE group has gathered evidence that at some time in history nuclear decay was greatly accelerated.

The experiments the RATE project commissioned have clearly confirmed the numerical predictions of our Creation model.... The data and our analysis show that over a billion years worth of nuclear decay has occurred very recently, between 4000 and 8000 years ago.9
The RATE group suggested that this accelerated decay took place during the Creation Week or during the Flood. Accelerated decay of this magnitude would result in immense amounts of heat being generated in rocks. Determining how this heat was dissipated presents a new and exciting opportunity for creation research.

Conclusion
The best way to learn about history and the age of the earth is to consult the history book of the universe—the Bible. Many scientists and theologians accept a straightforward reading of Scripture and agree that the earth is about 6,000 years old. It is better to use the infallible Word of God for our scientific assumptions than to change His Word in order to compromise with “science� that is based upon man’s fallible assumptions. True science will always support God’s Word.

Based on the measured helium retention, a statistical analysis gives an estimated age for the zircons of 6,000 ± 2,000 years. This age agrees with literal biblical history and is about 250,000 times shorter than the conventional age of 1.5 billion years for zircons. The conclusion is that helium diffusion data strongly supports the young-earth view of history.10

Source

"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?

If we are taking best guesses, then I don't have a problem. If it's being hailed as scientifically accurate then I do have a problem. 500M of anything is a lot. That's my viewpoint.

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?

That's just it. If the world is really, really old like 4.6B years a discrepancy of 46M becomes nominal. However, the Cambrian Explosion apparently took place over 10M to 50M years. So a lot can happen in 46M years. But that is trivialized because, hey, the world is 4.6B and 46M expressed as 1% doesn't sound so bad.

Besides. As the article in the OP shows. It's not just 1% margin of error. That's just a number thrown around. The margin of error between 3.8B and 4.3B is much more than 1%.

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

How about we just say it is about 4.5 billion years.

How about we just say it's 6B.

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.

Now who's making accusations? You are ASSUMING I'm a YEC and making my decisions purely on the Bible. Not necessarily. In fact, it is something I'm working through for myself (the age of the earth) and trying to find what I believe to be the best explanation. You have a high degree of confidence in your data and seem to accept it uncritically. Presumably becasue it is scientific and supports your world view. I don't have that same confidence in your data. A 500M year discrepancy is not overly reassuring and hardly specific.

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.

If the criminal justice system tried to solve a crime 4.3B years ago using the same methods and assumptions, I'd have the same reservations.

At the end of the day, as I said to McCulloch, what we really have is an inference from the data. That data may or may not be accurate. We have no way of knowing with any great certainty. The age of the earth is really an historical question, not one that can be answered directly using the scientific method. I really see little difference in drawing an inference from scientific data that has questionable assumptions built into from drawing an inference from the Bible. Or, using both.

[McCulloch]

So are the laws the same or are they not? There's seems to be some confusion.

During the very early stages of the universe, the laws of physics worked different due to quantum level effects. There is no reason to believe that the particular physical laws were any different for the period of time that we are discussing. But if you feel that there is a good reason to believe that there was a change, feel free to present evidence.

An honest error is still an error. 20% no big problem? Really? You are quite forgiving.

Degrees of error are not about mistakes but about uncertainty and confidence. Scientists can be significantly more confident based on the evidence saying that the Earth is older than 10,000 years than they can in saying that the Earth is older than four billion. If all the available evidence so far could only prove that the earth is older than 2 billion and younger than 8 billion, then in all honesty we would have to live within those parameters, until further analysis and evidence could narrow it down.

It's at best an inference. It's little more than an educated guess.

Yes, they infer from the evidence. It is an educated approximation. Very educated.

However, if dates are arbitrarily chosen at 3.8B or 4.3B based on what someone "favours" it casts doubt upon the objectivity of the entire process. In the end it doesn't sound very scientific.

I suppose that taken out of context, it does sound unscientific. My strong suspicion is that this man has reasons for favouring one over the other that have not been captured in this sound bite and that those reasons are not vainglorious as you imply.

The best way to learn about history and the age of the earth is to consult the history book of the universe—the Bible. Many scientists and theologians accept a straightforward reading of Scripture and agree that the earth is about 6,000 years old. It is better to use the infallible Word of God for our scientific assumptions than to change His Word in order to compromise with “science� that is based upon man’s fallible assumptions. True science will always support God’s Word.

You are ASSUMING I'm a YEC and making my decisions purely on the Bible. Not necessarily. In fact, it is something I'm working through for myself (the age of the earth) and trying to find what I believe to be the best explanation.

Your citation and your quote seem to be at odds.

[Furrowed Brow]

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

There is always room for a gap in the argument, but the question is how meaningful is the gap (or how should the gap be assessed)? Check this Link. The point is made:

Each radionuclide has its own characteristic half-life. No operation or process of any kind (i.e., chemical or physical) has ever been shown to change the rate at which a radionuclide decays.

The point is that we only observe constancy - no variation is observed. Moreover some half lifes are very short, fractions of a second to a few seconds, and this gives the scientists plenty of opportunity to observe non constancy. They don't.

To presume that decay rates were different in the past requires assuming decay rates are not fixed, but all evidence and theory says otherwise.

To say that the rates are fixed now but not then requires the intervention of some new unknown physics. To discount this possbility is not a question of adressing the problem with a "world view" or bias towards a long lived universe, it is merely to admit that everthing points to constant rates of decay and nothing points away.....that's nothing.

To posit variable decay and a much younger universe than we think we see requires a degree of faith equal to a god of the gaps.

[C-Nub]

The best way to learn about history and the age of the earth is to consult the history book of the universe—the Bible. Many scientists and theologians accept a straightforward reading of Scripture and agree that the earth is about 6,000 years old. It is better to use the infallible Word of God for our scientific assumptions than to change His Word in order to compromise with “science� that is based upon man’s fallible assumptions. True science will always support God’s Word.

The Bible isn't a history book, half of what it says happened never did. I'll give you a nice, big one, and it's pretty central in Biblical 'lore'. There is no evidence to support that Ancient Egypt at any time kept (or lost) Jewish slaves.

There is also, and this one is even more telling because someone would surely have written it down, no evidence of all the first-born sons of Egypt dying on any given night, or to give God the benefit of the doubt, over any long weekend.

I'd like you to find me some credible scientists that believe the Earth is six thousand years old.

The Grand Canyon points to a minimum of 30,000,000 years.

Volcanolgy points to an age well over a billion.

Antarctic Ice Cores show 600,000 years worth of seasonal change.

Fossil Evidence points to several hundred million years of evolution.

Moon rocks have indicated an age over 3 billion.


Ignoring the word 'infallible' as it relates to the bible, as the only reason to believe that is the case is that the bible itself says so, there's absolutely no evidence that supports the earth is so young except that your 2000 year old History Text Book says so. Here's a newsflash; Textbooks are pretty inaccurate after only about fifty years of use.


I find this sort of viewpoint very discouraging. It's this 'cling-to-the-bible-in-the-face-of-proof' attitude that makes Religion in general so much of an obstacle for progress. People who are so fanatical that their little book not be proven wrong are the reason Galileo was punished for discovering the moons of Jupiter and realizing from that discovery that all things did not orbit the earth, which was asserted in the bible and later just interpreted as metaphor. He was branded a heretic for seeing something with his own two eyes and accepting it was true because people cannot accept that a book written a thousand plus years prior had been contradicted by undeniable evidence. The Church held Galileo's works to be heresy for over a hundred years.

Because of Biblical fanaticism, because people think the book cannot be wrong, cannot be questioned, cannot be contradicted, one of the greatest discoveries of Modern physics, one of the necessary stepping stones for the work of Newton and Einstein in the field of gravity and motion and the nature of our Universe, was suppressed for a century.

That level of faith is counter-humanist, it's something to be ashamed of, and should be the object of scorn and recrimination in society. I loath religion in all its forms, but the immovable faith that some people have in the Bible, a stupid book, is by far the most offensive to me. It hurts us, as a species, to let something written that long ago dictate how we proceed. Even today, scientists have to argue with creationists and biblical scholars about things like stem cell research and evolution, work that can help us and theories that are, simply put, true.

[Goose]

So are the laws the same or are they not? There's seems to be some confusion.

During the very early stages of the universe, the laws of physics worked different due to quantum level effects. There is no reason to believe that the particular physical laws were any different for the period of time that we are discussing. But if you feel that there is a good reason to believe that there was a change, feel free to present evidence.

I don't need to. You've already conceded that the laws can and have changed. You just believe they have remained constant since the beginning of the earth. You believe the laws of physics were different at the early stages of the universe(which implies the universe had a beginning). Then, the laws changed around the time the earth formed (or some other time prior) and have remained constant ever since. Then, you ask me to provide evidence to prove your assumption wrong.

An honest error is still an error. 20% no big problem? Really? You are quite forgiving.

Degrees of error are not about mistakes but about uncertainty and confidence. Scientists can be significantly more confident based on the evidence saying that the Earth is older than 10,000 years than they can in saying that the Earth is older than four billion. If all the available evidence so far could only prove that the earth is older than 2 billion and younger than 8 billion, then in all honesty we would have to live within those parameters, until further analysis and evidence could narrow it down.

This is getting more and more ridiculous. First, a 46M year margin of error is swept aside. Then, a 500M discrepancy is hand waived. Then, a 1B year range is proposed (4B to 5B). Now, a 6B year discrepancy would be acceptable for now. Where does it end? This whole line of reasoning here and that of the OP strikes me more as polemic against Biblical creation than a quest to find the truth regarding the age of the earth. It's almost as though you guys are saying I don't really care how old the earth is or how much discrepancy there is as long as the number suggested by scientists is big enough to cast doubt on a literal reading of Genesis and make Darwinism seem possible. In that light, you'll please forgive me and not take it personally if I find your answers on this subject less than credible.

However, if dates are arbitrarily chosen at 3.8B or 4.3B based on what someone "favours" it casts doubt upon the objectivity of the entire process. In the end it doesn't sound very scientific.

I suppose that taken out of context, it does sound unscientific. My strong suspicion is that this man has reasons for favouring one over the other that have not been captured in this sound bite and that those reasons are not vainglorious as you imply.

Perhaps you are right. I'm sure he is a stand up fellow. And I'm sure he has his reasons. Incidentally, you have great faith in human character. I'll remember that the next time we are debating whether or not the writers of the Bible were truthful.

The best way to learn about history and the age of the earth is to consult the history book of the universe—the Bible. Many scientists and theologians accept a straightforward reading of Scripture and agree that the earth is about 6,000 years old. It is better to use the infallible Word of God for our scientific assumptions than to change His Word in order to compromise with “science� that is based upon man’s fallible assumptions. True science will always support God’s Word.

You are ASSUMING I'm a YEC and making my decisions purely on the Bible. Not necessarily. In fact, it is something I'm working through for myself (the age of the earth) and trying to find what I believe to be the best explanation.

Your citation and your quote seem to be at odds.

Yes they are. Do you have a point to make?


-----------------------------------------

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

There is always room for a gap in the argument, but the question is how meaningful is the gap (or how should the gap be assessed)? Check this Link. The point is made:

Each radionuclide has its own characteristic half-life. No operation or process of any kind (i.e., chemical or physical) has ever been shown to change the rate at which a radionuclide decays.

That's the same point made by the talkorigins cut and paste from micatala. And I'm NOT disputing that under controlled experimental environments decay rates are constant. That is the main strength of radiometric dating (and probably the only one). You are still not answering the question satisfactorily however. You are ASSUMING decay rates have remained constant for 4.3B years. I want to know how you know this. Or is this only an assumption, based upon what we observe today, as I suspect it is.

Although radiometric dating is accurate in principle, the precision is very dependent on the care with which the procedure is performed. The possible confounding effects of initial contamination of parent and daughter isotopes have to be considered, as do the effects of any loss or gain of such isotopes since the sample was created

Wiki

To presume that decay rates were different in the past requires assuming decay rates are not fixed, but all evidence and theory says otherwise.

All current observable evidence and theory says this. McCulloch seems to think the laws of physics were different in the past than they are now. But conveniently he also believes these laws have remained consistent for the last 4.3B years.

If dating is such an accurate and reliable endeavour, why do we such wide discrepancies as your article shows (3.8B to 4.3B)?


Can you address the other assumptions in dating:
1. The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.
2. The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.

How do you determine with any degree of certainty that over a 4.3B year period that the assumptions made are correct and constant? How do you prove they are correct and have been constant?

Here's a thought. Perhaps the earth was formed using old matter. (I don't mean God created the earth to look old). The earth may have formed using old material which isn't out of the realm of possibility considering the universe is apparently 14B years old and obviously contains old material. If this is the case then wouldn't we get readings that show an old earth? Yet, the earth may actually be fairly young.

[FinalEnigma]

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

There is always room for a gap in the argument, but the question is how meaningful is the gap (or how should the gap be assessed)? Check this Link. The point is made:

Each radionuclide has its own characteristic half-life. No operation or process of any kind (i.e., chemical or physical) has ever been shown to change the rate at which a radionuclide decays.

That's the same point made by the talkorigins cut and paste from micatala. And I'm NOT disputing that under controlled experimental environments decay rates are constant. That is the main strength of radiometric dating (and probably the only one). You are still not answering the question satisfactorily however. You are ASSUMING decay rates have remained constant for 4.3B years. I want to know how you know this. Or is this only an assumption, based upon what we observe today, as I suspect it is.

It's based on the fact that nothing we have been able to dream up to do to the rocks has changed the half life.

and about the physics changing-the reason they changed was because, at the time they are speaking of, the universe was contained in a ball smaller than the head of a pin. that would tend to warp things a little bit. and at sizes that small it deals with quantum mechanics. but the incredible mass of the object makes it use normal physics. so we aren't entirely sure what was going on at t=0

Here's a thought. Perhaps the earth was formed using old matter. (I don't mean God created the earth to look old). The earth may have formed using old material which isn't out of the realm of possibility considering the universe is apparently 14B years old and obviously contains old material. If this is the case then wouldn't we get readings that show an old earth? Yet, the earth may actually be fairly young.

do you know how ludicrously unlikely that is without just claiming 'god did it'? that would require a bunch of meteors to strike one another at the exact perfect spot and with the exact correct momentum to begin orbiting a star. And fuse together at the same time in a manner that makes it impossible to tell the difference between the parts. and on top of that it would have to form a spherical shape.

[C-Nub]

I don't need to. You've already conceded that the laws can and have changed. You just believe they have remained constant since the beginning of the earth. You believe the laws of physics were different at the early stages of the universe(which implies the universe had a beginning). Then, the laws changed around the time the earth formed (or some other time prior) and have remained constant ever since. Then, you ask me to provide evidence to prove your assumption wrong.

Alright, this demands something of a quantifying explanation. The laws of physics, which is the say the reactions and interactions between the components of the early universe, we different, but the mathematical principles guiding the early universe are no different from today.

For example, the speed of light was drastically reduced, not because photons were slower, less energetic or heavier, they weren't, but because the early universe was so dense that there wasn't nearly as much room for the light to move, and a significantly higher concentration of galaxy.

Things like sound and gravity behaved differently because of the super-compressed state of the Universe. Matter couldn't form because the early universe was too hot.

The laws of physics themselves weren't different, that's a gross oversimplification to ease people into understanding the nature of the early universe, but it isn't accurate. The Universe was a very small, very hot, very quickly expanding place, and these conditions caused it to behave very different from how it currently does, thanks to the vastness of space and the reduction of temperature.

Another key difference is the possibility that the early universe had a single, united super-force, an amalgamation of Gravity, the Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces and Electro-Magnetism. Our current mathematical models aren't entirely sure how to explain that sort of force, but no one ever said we were done explaining the Universe in the first place.

There is absolutely no math of any kind that explains how God created energy from nothing, nor is there any that explains any step of the process he used. We lack a complete picture, but we have a very complete understanding of everything after the first few trillionths of a second.

This is getting more and more ridiculous. First, a 46M year margin of error is swept aside. Then, a 500M discrepancy is hand waived. Then, a 1B year range is proposed (4B to 5B). Now, a 6B year discrepancy would be acceptable for now.

Interesting way to spin it. If you see a plane in the sky, in the first instant, literally, you have no idea if its moving towards or away from you, towards the left or the right, or whether or not its going up or down. That doesn't mean you can't say 'there's a plane' it just means you don't have all the information about it. If it's heading either direction away or directly towards you, you will have to wait some time before you can truly approximate its position in the sky as well as its vector. As you continue to observe, its relative altitude, air-speed and course get clearer and clearer. Not being able to hammer down a specific, initially, does nothing to disprove that its a plane, it is simply proof you're not completely done gathering the necessary data for a more complete conclusion. Not being able to tell how fast it's going, where its going, or where exactly it is in relation to you doesn't mean that planes don't fly, and that's literally the argument you're making.

The fact that we don't know exactly how old the world is doesn't mean it doesn't fall within the current range. It just means we haven't narrowed it down any further than that. Just because you would prefer a definite answer does not make the most definite answer accurate. The fact that the bible states that its six thousand years old, or has been interpreted to state that, doesn't mean, just because it narrows it down so precisely, that it's a more valid source. Considering that assertion flies in the face of all the available evidence and data accumulated since the dawn of modern geology does nothing to discredit geology and everything to cast doubt over the accuracy of the bible as a 'history textbook.'

Where does it end? This whole line of reasoning here and that of the OP strikes me more as polemic against Biblical creation than a quest to find the truth regarding the age of the earth.

That's because there is already such a quest underway. It's called Geology. People go to very expensive schools and study for 6-8 years to attain a doctorate and commence research and experimentation to find this information. We are, generally, laymen. What we can do, however, to further the pursuit of knowledge, is support the credibility of the arguments our experts suggest, support the effectiveness of the scientific method, and use logic and our admittedly limited scientific expertise to demonstrate why the alternative theories are not only in error, but completely ridiculous. Geologists will establish the age of the earth, they are better at it than we and, no offense to you Goose, you are.

It's almost as though you guys are saying I don't really care how old the earth is or how much discrepancy there is as long as the number suggested by scientists is big enough to cast doubt on a literal reading of Genesis and make Darwinism seem possible.

If you really cared about the age of the earth, you wouldn't be so focused on establishing a link between it and the bible when fleets of experts and reasonable intelligent amateurs have demonstrated no such link exists. Really caring would involve really examining evidence, really understanding the science, and really understanding the credibility of sources. You're looking for people to accept that the Bible is a reliable text-book for this sort of thing, and that has to be rejected. It simply isn't, the young earth assertions are ridiculous, and its our collective duty, as supporters of real science, to dissuade you of that notion for fear that you might seek to teach it to someone and forever damage their ability to achieve a real, factual knowledge of the universe.

The problem isn't that we're trying to cast doubt over Genesis, which is a story that does nothing to further our ability to understand the world, its that you're trying to use Genesis to cast doubt over science, (and 'drawinism,' which doesn't exist. It isn't the worship of the man, it's like calling general relativity 'Einsteinism'). Denying genesis has never, ever hurt humanity. Denying science has.

In that light, you'll please forgive me and not take it personally if I find your answers on this subject less than credible.

We're not going to take it personally, I assure you, but at the same time, we're not going to stop making the point with those pesky little things like 'facts' and 'logic,' nor will we stop citing experts and evidence. You need to find real scientists, the people who have studied this, to see if any of them deny it. Surely, if the earth were truly as young as you want to believe it is, if Genesis were in any way valid as a theory, there would be some legitimately educated geologists trying to find, and by now succeeding, (they've had thousands of years, after all) to find some credible evidence in support of this.

The Old Earth hypothesis hasn't been around for nearly as long. Science has only in the last couple of centuries begun to suspect that the earth's years number in the billions. It seems very strange to me that, in that short time, they have found so much evidence to support that age while, with over two thousand years to prove Genesis, no one has anything. Where's the garden of eden with the sword wielding angel to guard its entrance? It's obviously on earth, otherwise there would be no need for an angel to bar humanity the chance to return.

Perhaps you are right. I'm sure he is a stand up fellow. And I'm sure he has his reasons. Incidentally, you have great faith in human character. I'll remember that the next time we are debating whether or not the writers of the Bible were truthful.

I would not call them liars, no more than I would call those who used to accept the myths of Hercules liars, or the oracles of ancient Greece, or the priests of Ancient Egypt. Believing something hard enough to think its true doesn't make it true.

The argument that those providing the evidence are liars fails not only when one realizes that all results will be independently tested and verified, but also on the realization that scientists caught fabricating evidence or results no longer have careers. Scientific frauds are pariahs in scientific communities.

That's the same point made by the talkorigins cut and paste from micatala. And I'm NOT disputing that under controlled experimental environments decay rates are constant. That is the main strength of radiometric dating (and probably the only one). You are still not answering the question satisfactorily however. You are ASSUMING decay rates have remained constant for 4.3B years. I want to know how you know this. Or is this only an assumption, based upon what we observe today, as I suspect it is.

A decay rate is set by the amount of energy required to fuse atoms into an isotope, in this case, a reasonably unstable isotope that degrades over time. While new rocks can be formed out of these materials, the elements themselves are forged inside stars. The energy that bleeds off in decay is relative to the energy that is put in. We know this energy input / output relationship is a constant because of starlight, and the way we can measure the spectrum to determine composition of a star. In order for the decay rate not to be constant, the formation-rate, ie, the energy required to create the elements in the first place would also be variable, and visibly different in the light of older stars. It isn't, allowing for the red-shifting relative to distance, the signatures of all the elements that are created inside of stars is constant, from the oldest, most distant stars to that from the nearest, younger stars.

Here's a thought. Perhaps the earth was formed using old matter. (I don't mean God created the earth to look old). The earth may have formed using old material which isn't out of the realm of possibility considering the universe is apparently 14B years old and obviously contains old material. If this is the case then wouldn't we get readings that show an old earth? Yet, the earth may actually be fairly young.

Well, for starters, the rate of hydrogen consumption of our star, as well as the current reserves of hydrogen it has, establishes its age pretty accurately. The sun's gravity was required for planets to form.

It helps that the age of the star corresponds nicely to the age of the planets and the age of the debris that's fallen to earth in recent history. (The Tagish Lake Meteor, for example, which I saw first hand as it came to earth a few hundred kilometers from me)

Then there's the nature of stars and planets in the first place, and where complex matter comes from. Ours is likely a third generation star, the smaller child of two progressively larger stars that exploded, collapsed and exploded again, creating the necessary variety of matter for the planets to form as they have. We have all knids of math to support this, but I'm not really smart enough to get it. I trust those mutli-PHD physicists though, because.. well.. that's why we have multi-PhD physicists.

[McCulloch]

During the very early stages of the universe, the laws of physics worked different due to quantum level effects. There is no reason to believe that the particular physical laws were any different for the period of time that we are discussing. But if you feel that there is a good reason to believe that there was a change, feel free to present evidence.

I don't need to. You've already conceded that the laws can and have changed. You just believe they have remained constant since the beginning of the earth. You believe the laws of physics were different at the early stages of the universe(which implies the universe had a beginning). Then, the laws changed around the time the earth formed (or some other time prior) and have remained constant ever since. Then, you ask me to provide evidence to prove your assumption wrong.

No I did not concede that the laws have changed. I said that the laws operate differently due to quantum effects during the very early formative stages of the universe. During the very early stages of the universe, the scale of things was such that quantum effects, which on a larger scale tend to average out, did not. This period of time is vastly different from the scale of time under discussion. There are no reasons to believe that the laws themselves have changed.

I'm sure he is a stand up fellow. And I'm sure he has his reasons. Incidentally, you have great faith in human character. I'll remember that the next time we are debating whether or not the writers of the Bible were truthful.

Peer review. Independent validation.

[Cathar1950]

During the very early stages of the universe, the laws of physics worked different due to quantum level effects. There is no reason to believe that the particular physical laws were any different for the period of time that we are discussing. But if you feel that there is a good reason to believe that there was a change, feel free to present evidence.

I don't need to. You've already conceded that the laws can and have changed. You just believe they have remained constant since the beginning of the earth. You believe the laws of physics were different at the early stages of the universe(which implies the universe had a beginning). Then, the laws changed around the time the earth formed (or some other time prior) and have remained constant ever since. Then, you ask me to provide evidence to prove your assumption wrong.

No I did not concede that the laws have changed. I said that the laws operate differently due to quantum effects during the very early formative stages of the universe. During the very early stages of the universe, the scale of things was such that quantum effects, which on a larger scale tend to average out, did not. This period of time is vastly different from the scale of time under discussion. There are no reasons to believe that the laws themselves have changed.

I'm sure he is a stand up fellow. And I'm sure he has his reasons. Incidentally, you have great faith in human character. I'll remember that the next time we are debating whether or not the writers of the Bible were truthful.

Peer review. Independent validation.

I didn't think that was what you were saying either.
There was more dark matter and many elements had not yet been created.
I have read that our star is a third generation star and that some seem to think there was the inflation of the universe early on.