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?

[micatala]

For now, let me address one small part of the previous page.

Goose wrote:

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

Furrowed Brow wrote:

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:

Quote:

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.

goose seems to think it is unreasonable to assume that processes which we observe today to show constancy also showed constancy in the past.

I would note that if he read the talkorigins cut and paste, he would see that they address his question.


I would ask goose if he is skeptical regarding the motion of the earth around the sun and its rotation on its axis. After all, we only have documented historical evidence of the relative constancy of this phenomenon over the last several thousand years. Why should we assume the rate of rotation was roughly constant past what we observe today or have historical records for?

Or consider the motions of Neptune or Uranus. These planets were unknown to humans until very recent history. We have been observing their motions for only a few handfuls of decades. Does goose doubt that the motions we now observe are similar to what they were in the past? Does he doubt that current observations can be extrapolated back in time to estimate the locations of these planets 500 years, or 5000 or 5 million years ago? Does goose have doubts that these planets existed prior to our observation of them?



I should also point out also that the observed constancy of decay rates can be explained by existing scientific theories of matter. These same theories also apply to other phenomenon and have been shown to be reliable. These same theories make certain predictions about the very early universe, which as McCulloch notes was a very different place, but as far as we know, still followed the same laws.

If goose is going to suggest the decay rates were different in the past, then he needs to explain how the laws under which matter operates and which govern these decay rates were different as well. Dismissing the constancy of decay rates as a mere 'assumptions' ignores the fact that we have a lot more than just current observations of decay rates that support these assumptions. We have very well-supported scientific theories and laws as well.

[Goose]

C-Nub,

Most of your post boils down to rhetoric and the typical Appeals to Authority most succinctly summarized as, "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...Geologists will establish the age of the earth, they are better at it than we and, no offense to you Goose, you are." And then later this gem, "I trust those mutli-PHD physicists though, because.. well.. that's why we have multi-PhD physicists." You seem to accept things uncritically because it comes from a person/people that went "to very expensive schools and study for 6-8 years to attain a doctorate..." I learned many years ago that letters after one's name doesn't make one infallible or preclude one from being influenced by one's world view. Obviously you haven't learned that important life lesson yet. You then contradict yourself when you say, "Really caring [about the age of the earth] would involve really examining evidence, really understanding the science, and really understanding the credibility of sources." Do you apply this same philosophy to the methods that support your world view or do you accept things uncritically and hold to them dogmatically?

Your real mission of course is quite clear.

"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."

Isn't real science observable? Speculation about the past (the unobservable) isn't real science in my opinion. One is a form of pseudo-science and one is truly scientific.

The laws of physics themselves weren't different[in the early universe], 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.

This doesn't make any sense. We determine the laws of the universe by observing its behaviour. If things behaved differently in the early universe it logically follows that the laws were different then. You may say they were behaving different, but I see no distinction. As we weren't there to observe it, we can only theorize. Also, if we continue to follow your line of reasoning the behaviours of things in the universe are directly impacted by the size of the universe. If the universe is expanding at an increasing rate then behaviours are changing, even though the rate of change may unperceivable to us in our limited scope of observations.

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...

You beg the question and are assuming it is a plane because you want to believe it is a plane. How do you know you are looking at a plane if its so far away? You might be looking at a bird. Further, your analogy is fallacious. You are describing a riddle that can be solved by physically getting closer to the object to observe it or by using equipment that can enhance the size of the object. The age of a rock is a question that has the problem of time-distance not physical-distance. We can't observe the distant past.

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.

You can hand wave the shortcomings of these methods all day. It doesn't make it more tenable. All you are really saying is we don't really know for sure yet. Just give us time and we'll figure it out one day. All we need is more time. How much more time do you need? I don't have forever.

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.

You mean like this guy? Let the ad homs begin.

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.

The argument is NOT that they are liars. That is a straw man argument. The argument is that the method is flawed. "Independently tested and verified" by who? Geologists trained to use the same flawed techniques and unprovable assumptions?

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.

The decay rate clock starts ticking when the rock has cooled and crystallized, not when the elements that make up the rock were formed in a star. So I don't really see how one can make the correlation you are trying to make with any certainty. It's another assumption. The constancy of starlight shows the constancy of decay is a non-sequitur. Further, the elements used for longer term dating are the heavier elements which are too heavy to be forged in a star. They are generally forged in supernovas which are only observable for short periods.


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

goose seems to think it is unreasonable to assume that processes which we observe today to show constancy also showed constancy in the past.

No it's not unreasonable. It just can't be used to establish the conclusion as a scientifically proven fact. As the past is strictly speaking unobservable. It is relegated to an inference. You may call it a strong inference. I call it a weak one.

I would note that if he read the talkorigins cut and paste, he would see that they address his question.

I read it twice and no it doesn't. But if you feel I'm missing it, cut and paste it and I'll look again.

I would ask goose if he is skeptical regarding the motion of the earth around the sun and its rotation on its axis. After all, we only have documented historical evidence of the relative constancy of this phenomenon over the last several thousand years. Why should we assume the rate of rotation was roughly constant past what we observe today or have historical records for?

Or consider the motions of Neptune or Uranus. These planets were unknown to humans until very recent history. We have been observing their motions for only a few handfuls of decades. Does goose doubt that the motions we now observe are similar to what they were in the past? Does he doubt that current observations can be extrapolated back in time to estimate the locations of these planets 500 years, or 5000 or 5 million years ago? Does goose have doubts that these planets existed prior to our observation of them?

Micatala is missing the point. I don't have a problem with a reasonable inference based on strong evidence and cogent arguments when that is our only option. That is generally how history is done. But then we are delving into the discipline of history and straying from observable science. The degrees of certainty drop. The degree of certainty is further clouded by the method itself. A method based on assumptions which I've already listed:
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.
A method that produces wide variances. A method that allows the geologist the freedom to choose the technique for dating that he prefers. A method that discards unfavourable results. A method that requires us to accept the verdict of someone else because they are an "expert." Then accept the final verdict of the "peers" that are trained to use the same flawed method and unprovable assumptions. I question this method. It would be foolish to uncritically accept as fact results from such a method.

I should also point out also that the observed constancy of decay rates can be explained by existing scientific theories of matter. These same theories also apply to other phenomenon and have been shown to be reliable. These same theories make certain predictions about the very early universe, which as McCulloch notes was a very different place, but as far as we know, still followed the same laws.

Theories serve a purpose. But theories aren't facts. There are also theories that show how to change decay rates.
How to Change Nuclear Decay Rates

If goose is going to suggest the decay rates were different in the past, then he needs to explain how the laws under which matter operates and which govern these decay rates were different as well. Dismissing the constancy of decay rates as a mere 'assumptions' ignores the fact that we have a lot more than just current observations of decay rates that support these assumptions. We have very well-supported scientific theories and laws as well.

There is also current evidence that decay rates do change. Despite FB's assertion to the contrary:

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.

This is not true.

Changes of decay rates of radioactive 111In and 32P induced by mechanic motion

Unexplained periodic fluctuations in the decay rates of 32Si and 226Ra have been reported
by groups at Brookhaven National Laboratory (32Si), and at the Physikalisch-Technische-
Bundesandstalt in Germany (226Ra). We show from an analysis of the raw data in these experiments
that the observed fluctuations are strongly correlated in time, not only with each other, but also with
the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Some implications of these results are also discussed,
including the suggestion that discrepancies in published half-life determinations for these and other
nuclides may be attributable in part to differences in solar activity during the course of the various
experiments, or to seasonal variations in fundamental constants.

Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance

The observed difference, by as much as 1.5%, clearly indicates that decay rates of nuclides undergoing electron capture decay are not necessarily constant as has always been assumed in geological, oceanographic, and environmental studies.

Dependence of the decay rate of 7Be on chemical forms

If decay rates can be shown to change now, possibly even as result of distance from the sun, why wouldn't we think they have changed over 4.3B years?

And then, how can you know the following with certainty?
1) The initial conditions of the rock sample.
2) The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.


I'll link you to a paper speaking about radiometric dating written by a Christian that holds to an old earth. It is responded to by a YEC. Once one gets past the theological rhetoric at the beginning it gets interesting. I think some valid criticisms of the methods used are pointed out. It's lengthy but worth the read.
A Christian Response to Radiometric dating

[micatala]

goose seems to think it is unreasonable to assume that processes which we observe today to show constancy also showed constancy in the past.

No it's not unreasonable. It just can't be used to establish the conclusion as a scientifically proven fact. As the past is strictly speaking unobservable. It is relegated to an inference. You may call it a strong inference. I call it a weak one.

I would humbly suggest your rationale for considering it a weak inference is faulty at best. I think the evidence shows with close to 100% probability that the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. The narrower you make the range of age, the lower the probability, as with all such estimates, but if we say 4 to 5 billion years, then we are so close to 100% as to make this a virtual fact.

I would note that if he read the talkorigins cut and paste, he would see that they address his question.

I read it twice and no it doesn't. But if you feel I'm missing it, cut and paste it and I'll look again.

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).

I would ask goose if he is skeptical regarding the motion of the earth around the sun and its rotation on its axis. After all, we only have documented historical evidence of the relative constancy of this phenomenon over the last several thousand years. Why should we assume the rate of rotation was roughly constant past what we observe today or have historical records for?

Or consider the motions of Neptune or Uranus. These planets were unknown to humans until very recent history. We have been observing their motions for only a few handfuls of decades. Does goose doubt that the motions we now observe are similar to what they were in the past? Does he doubt that current observations can be extrapolated back in time to estimate the locations of these planets 500 years, or 5000 or 5 million years ago? Does goose have doubts that these planets existed prior to our observation of them?

Micatala is missing the point. I don't have a problem with a reasonable inference based on strong evidence and cogent arguments when that is our only option.

Then you really shouldn't object to the dating inferences. You have provided no reason to doubt the science behind the dating, other than "we were not there to directly observe." Yes, the scientific principles behind planetary motion are different than for radiometric dating, but in both cases, they have been shown to be reliable and in both cases they can be used to make strong inferences about what happened in the past.

That is generally how history is done. But then we are delving into the discipline of history and straying from observable science. The degrees of certainty drop.

We are not straying from observable science any more than we stray from observable science when we measure light from distant stars, or infer the internal workings of the sun from what we see on its surface, or infer the inner workings of the earth from what we see on its surface, or infer past positions of planets.

The degree of certainty is further clouded by the method itself. A method based on assumptions which I've already listed:
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.

I'm sorry, but 3) has been dealt with. The other two objections are also dealt with in the same talkorigins page. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age ... #constant.

A method that produces wide variances.

The variances are less, on a percentage basis, than many variances that are obtained in other scientific measurements. The amount of the world's oil reserves would be but one example. I would bet if we delved into the details, we would probably have this amount of variance for temperature estimates for the inside of the sun.

A method that allows the geologist the freedom to choose the technique for dating that he prefers.

Oh c'mon. This is a ridiculous objection. Am I supposed to doubt the temperature because there is more than one way to measure it? Am I supposed to doubt criminal verdicts because some prosecutors use ballistic evidence and others don't? Really goose. You are reaching with this one.

A method that discards unfavourable results.

"Unfavorable" is a spin word. Anomalous would be better. Essentially this criticism suggests that if a method is not 100% perfect, it is worthless. If a prosecutor found that a particular eye-witness was not reliable, would you say they should not discard his testimony? Again, you are reaching far to make essentially groundless objections.

A method that requires us to accept the verdict of someone else because they are an "expert."

If it were one or two experts you might have grounds for doubt. Unfortunately, there are thousands of experts and they generally agree with one another. These experts (geologists) have been shown to be extremely reliable with respect to many different claims. For example, they have been pretty darn good at using their techniques to find oil and natural gas.

On one level, I can understand your objection here. However, I would suggest you are probably applying an extremely biased yardstick to experts. You think we should doubt the geologists, but I haven't seen any reasonable grounds offered for doubting them. Should I also doubt ballistics experts? Should I doubt chemists and engineers and every other professional when I can't or don't have the time to double-check their work personally?

Then accept the final verdict of the "peers" that are trained to use the same flawed method and unprovable assumptions.

You haven't shown the method to be flawed, only asserted your doubts.

In addtion, should we insist that trials include testimony on ballistics from people who are not trained in standard ballistics methods? Should we insist that DNA evidence be discarded until some other method of analyzing DNA is invented by some 'parallel group' of biologists? If a method or set of methods works, why would we insist on using other methods?

I question this method. It would be foolish to uncritically accept as fact results from such a method.

We know you question the method. We haven't seen any coherent and compelling reason why.

I should also point out also that the observed constancy of decay rates can be explained by existing scientific theories of matter. These same theories also apply to other phenomenon and have been shown to be reliable. These same theories make certain predictions about the very early universe, which as McCulloch notes was a very different place, but as far as we know, still followed the same laws.

Theories serve a purpose. But theories aren't facts. There are also theories that show how to change decay rates.
How to Change Nuclear Decay Rates

Yes, theories aren't facts. However, they are well-supported and fairly comprehensive explanations for scientific phenomenon. Would you say we should doubt Newton's theory of gravity because it is not a fact?

In addition, this theory of rate change that you cite supports the relative constancy of rates. Even when one TRIES to change the decay rate in the way described, one can only do so with certain elements (which may not even be among the ones used for dating) and can only change them by a very small percentage.

The source you cite says, for example:

However, there are exceptions, the most notable being the the astrophysically important isotope beryllium-7. Be-7 decays purely by electron capture (positron emission being impossible because of inadequate decay energy) with a half-life of somewhat over 50 days. It has been shown that differences in chemical environment result in half-life variations of the order of 0.2%, and high pressures produce somewhat similar changes. Also, a recent paper measures a 0.8% reduction in half-life for Be-7 atoms enclosed within C60 cages. Other cases where known changes in decay rate occur are Zr-89 and Sr-85, also electron capturers; Tc-99m ("m" implying an excited state), which decays by both beta and gamma emission; and various other "metastable" things that decay by gamma emission with internal conversion. With all of these other cases the magnitude of the effect is less than is typically the case with Be-7.

Less than a 1% change is definitely relatively constant. And keep in mind this is when someone is TRYING to change the decay rate. Can you provide ANY evidence that decay rates in the past for the elements used for dating purposes could possibly have more variability than 1%?

If goose is going to suggest the decay rates were different in the past, then he needs to explain how the laws under which matter operates and which govern these decay rates were different as well. Dismissing the constancy of decay rates as a mere 'assumptions' ignores the fact that we have a lot more than just current observations of decay rates that support these assumptions. We have very well-supported scientific theories and laws as well.

There is also current evidence that decay rates do change. Despite FB's assertion to the contrary:

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.

This is not true.

Changes of decay rates of radioactive 111In and 32P induced by mechanic motion

OK. This actually looks like some evidence we can debate.

The article you cite notes variations in decay rates produced by centrifugal motion. By spinning the substances at several thousand revolutions per minute over radii in the neighborhood of 8 centimeters, they were able to change decay rates by as much as 11.3%. This is certainly more significant than 1%.

But look at what you have to do to produce this change. Where on earth would you find substances rotating at 2000 to 4000 revolutions per minute in such a small radius? Is it reasonable to assume that such spinning was common place millions or billions of years in the past? I grant you that this shows decay rates can be changed to some extent. Unfortunately, the measures used to effect this change are pretty extreme and there is no reason to believe such conditions would have any effect on current estimates of the age of the earth or particular geologic layers.

Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance

Since you feel competent to criticize the experts, I would ask you to interpret the article and tell us what percentage change in decay rates were observed. From what I inferred from the graph on page 2, it looks to be less than .2%. Again, relatively constant.

The observed difference, by as much as 1.5%, clearly indicates that decay rates of nuclides undergoing electron capture decay are not necessarily constant as has always been assumed in geological, oceanographic, and environmental studies.

Dependence of the decay rate of 7Be on chemical forms

Is 7Be used in radiometric dating? Note again, 1.5% is within usual accepted errors for dating. It is relatively constant.

If decay rates can be shown to change now, possibly even as result of distance from the sun, why wouldn't we think they have changed over 4.3B years?

Well, so far we have only been provided evidence of changes in the neighborhood 1 to 2% except in very, very extreme circumstances which we have no reason to believe ever occurred on the earth except possibly very locally (you tell me what could produce a spin of 2000 revs per minute). Given this, we have every reason to think the decay rates have been constant enough to reliably infer that the earth is billions of years old.


Let me ask, since you seemed to object to the notion that I might have suggested you were a young earth creationist earlier, what is your position on the age of the earth and what is your rationale for that position?

[Goat]

C-Nub,

Most of your post boils down to rhetoric and the typical Appeals to Authority most succinctly summarized as, "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...Geologists will establish the age of the earth, they are better at it than we and, no offense to you Goose, you are." And then later this gem, "I trust those mutli-PHD physicists though, because.. well.. that's why we have multi-PhD physicists." You seem to accept things uncritically because it comes from a person/people that went "to very expensive schools and study for 6-8 years to attain a doctorate..." I learned many years ago that letters after one's name doesn't make one infallible or preclude one from being influenced by one's world view. Obviously you haven't learned that important life lesson yet. You then contradict yourself when you say, "Really caring [about the age of the earth] would involve really examining evidence, really understanding the science, and really understanding the credibility of sources." Do you apply this same philosophy to the methods that support your world view or do you accept things uncritically and hold to them dogmatically?

Now that is one of the biggest pieces of nonsense I have heard from you. While the geologists say that, there is a very strong basis for WHY they figured that out.
There is the geological column, there is radiometric dating. Geologists found out that the 'biblical' age of the earth was far greater than the YEC's well over 200 years ago. In 1510, for example Leondaro Di Vinci wrote about the sea fossils not being able to be laid down by a Noachian flood.

What your claims come across as is 'I don't understand the evidence, or how it was arrived at, and it contradicts my religious beliefs, therefore it is wrong'.

The part that you are forgetting is the mantra of 'testing, falsifiability and repeatability'.

Your real mission of course is quite clear.

"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."

Isn't real science observable? Speculation about the past (the unobservable) isn't real science in my opinion. One is a form of pseudo-science and one is truly scientific.

I would say that trying to promote facts is quite a good goal. Removal of superstition and ignorance is a wonderful goal. It isn;'t just 'speculation about the past'.. that is where your entire view point is incorrect. It is observing the evidence of the present, and constructing a model of how things got here. It has to be consistent with what we can test in the here and now. The reason you want to reject it is so that you can clutch on your ancient belief system.

Let's see, you want to sweep aside archeology (except when it confirms the bible), astronomy , physics, geology, chemistry, paleontology, all based on a rather limited interpretation of a book written by a bronze age nomads

[C-Nub]

Most of your post boils down to rhetoric and the typical Appeals to Authority most succinctly summarized as, "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...Geologists will establish the age of the earth, they are better at it than we and, no offense to you Goose, you are." And then later this gem, "I trust those mutli-PHD physicists though, because.. well.. that's why we have multi-PhD physicists." You seem to accept things uncritically because it comes from a person/people that went "to very expensive schools and study for 6-8 years to attain a doctorate..." I learned many years ago that letters after one's name doesn't make one infallible or preclude one from being influenced by one's world view. Obviously you haven't learned that important life lesson yet. You then contradict yourself when you say, "Really caring [about the age of the earth] would involve really examining evidence, really understanding the science, and really understanding the credibility of sources." Do you apply this same philosophy to the methods that support your world view or do you accept things uncritically and hold to them dogmatically?

Thanks for the condescension, first off. That feels nice.

Secondly, I trust physicistS, geologistS, biologistS, not 'a physicist' or 'a biologist'. A person, with some letters after their name, is highly fallible and subject to rhetoric and should be taken as an individual witness who's statements have to be verified.

What I say when I say I trust geologists is that I trust the conclusions of the entire field of science. I trust what the experts get together and agree is true. If you want to verify if and doubt them with any credibility, you have to perform an experiment that casts doubt over their combined findings and experiments.


We, as a society, have to draw lines that indicate where 'reasonable doubt' stops. When the people who society deems to be experts get together, propose theories, discuss it, perform experiments that confirm the theory, and then agree on those results, at some point, we, the laymen, have to sit back and say "alright."

You, on the other hand, are obtusely refusing their findings, which would require refuting years of work and experiments that validate that work, because a book suggests otherwise. You've backed off a bit from saying that the book is absolutely right and the geologists are wrong, but one of your principle arguments earlier was 'Scientists lie for fame' which is a totally bogus, piece of crap argument, and one for which you later panned me despite not understanding the point I was making and forcing me to re-articulate it for you, only after condescending to me.

If you think that you can't trust anything anyone with letters after their name says, that you have to verify it all for yourself, that's fine. That's going to include Newton and Einstein on gravity, Curie on Radiation, Oppenheimer on fission, and literally thousands of others who's names have since been forgotten and who's work shapes our world to this day. Good luck with that.

Lecturing me on adherence to Dogma is downright offensive. I think it's pretty obvious by now I have a reasonable working knowledge of geology, and if you read my other posts, almost all scientific disciplines, but I focus most heavily on astrophysics. I have down huge amounts of research and reading across the boards, and understand more or less what I'm speaking about. I do not, however, have access to the grant money or lab equipment, nor do I have the expertise to operate or understand it, that I would require to actually test the assertions of science. The best I can do is follow the trail of discovery, what lead to what, how it was proved, what did that lead to, how was it proved, what came after that, and how was it then also proved. That's the nature of science. Going back and examining each step and trying to determine for myself what's valid and what isn't would require several lifetimes and millions of dollars. You can go ahead, I'm going to go ahead and believe that the dozens, if not hundreds, of independent schools and laboratories, with students coming and going, performing new as well as old experiments over and over and over again with the same results, establish the science as valid. You, reading in a book written two thousand years ago (or longer, even) that the earth is six thousand years old, does absolutely nothing to invalidate that science.

Isn't real science observable? Speculation about the past (the unobservable) isn't real science in my opinion. One is a form of pseudo-science and one is truly scientific.

To answer your first question, no. Observable doesn't mean you watch every step of the process. Much of science involves recreating that which happened, or postulating that which happened, based on evidence. Otherwise, much of our history would be completely blank. We recreate aspects of our origin in experiments, we recreate sandstone and volcanic activity in a controlled environment to figure out how they behave, and then we apply what we observe to the evidence we have from whatever occurred before we could observe at try to figure it out. It isn't exact, it isn't flawless, but it is NECESSARY because we cannot yet travel back in time. It is, however, not a 'pseudo-science.'' It is a very exacting science, a very demanding and careful science that builds and builds and builds upon itself until the evidence is so complete that we can say with the same confidence that we use while talking about electricity or making toast that that which happened did so in the manner we believe. We use what we're able to prove from other disciplines, Chemistry, geology and physics, to properly classify and decrypt the fossil record, and we use that same gross-genre applied knowledge to figure out geology and the ancient history of the earth.

This doesn't make any sense. We determine the laws of the universe by observing its behaviour. If things behaved differently in the early universe it logically follows that the laws were different then. You may say they were behaving different, but I see no distinction. As we weren't there to observe it, we can only theorize. Also, if we continue to follow your line of reasoning the behaviours of things in the universe are directly impacted by the size of the universe. If the universe is expanding at an increasing rate then behaviours are changing, even though the rate of change may unperceivable to us in our limited scope of observations.

Um, no again. It makes perfect sense. The laws of physics are not what we observe, they're what guide all we observe. They define the constants of the universe, the rates and which particles interact, the speed at which reactions occur and many other things. The universe will behave very differently, under the same laws, using the same equations, if you fill it up or compress it or raise it's temperature by a few millions of degrees.

As for your inability to see a distinction, that has absolutely no bearing on what's actually happening, and is totally irrelevent.

You beg the question and are assuming it is a plane because you want to believe it is a plane. How do you know you are looking at a plane if its so far away? You might be looking at a bird. Further, your analogy is fallacious. You are describing a riddle that can be solved by physically getting closer to the object to observe it or by using equipment that can enhance the size of the object. The age of a rock is a question that has the problem of time-distance not physical-distance. We can't observe the distant past.

Alright, if you can't tell the difference between a bird and a plane, that's your problem. As for the analogy being fallacious, it's an analogy, not a direct explanation of the exact same experiment. Of course it doesn't completely apply, it's an explanation about how time improves our ability to reason discover, not how one goes about discovering the nature of a rock.

We can, however, see into the distant past, on that I must correct you. Unfortunately, it requires great distances. However, it has been very helpful in determining how planets and stars form, as we can see it happening in the galaxy and outside of it, in stellar nurseries and nebulae.

You can hand wave the shortcomings of these methods all day. It doesn't make it more tenable. All you are really saying is we don't really know for sure yet. Just give us time and we'll figure it out one day. All we need is more time. How much more time do you need? I don't have forever.

Science, modern science, is less than a thousand years old. I'm still waiting for some evidence, any evidence, of God's power, love, or existence, and your camp has had over four times as long to find them. Those rock's look awful dangerous from your glass house there.

Science doesn't know everything, and probably never will. Whether or not you like it, whether or not it 'works for you' is completely immaterial. Science knows what it has thus-far discovered, and will strive to learn what it hasn't. If they only have it narrowed down to the nearest couple hundred years, than that's where they have it. The fact that they aren't more certain doesn't cast doubt over anything other than where in that hundred million years the age of the earth falls. They're working on it, I'm sure, but what do you want? Science, unlike God, doesn't do magic tricks.

As for you having forever, you're right, you don't. Learn to live with the knowledge that you'll die without knowing some things. We all will. I don't know what about this whole concept is so difficult for you to grasp? Why would you expect them to know how old the earth is to the year. You yourself have pointed out, they weren't there. They're working backwards with the evidence they have today, and they don't have all that yet either, nor do they have the tools to make optimal use out of that evidence. It's just not how it works.

The argument is NOT that they are liars. That is a straw man argument. The argument is that the method is flawed. "Independently tested and verified" by who? Geologists trained to use the same flawed techniques and unprovable assumptions?

Tested by all known methods of testing. If you have a new one, please, suggest it. Until then, we'll use every means we have to test all the evidence we have. So far, it all shows pretty much the same thing. I suppose we could put a rock on the bible and ask it how old it is, or ask a priest to commune with God and convey the message to us, but that's not a 'test'. What do you want here? We use every method we have, we date the rocks its found in, we chart the movement of the plates and calculate how long it would have traveled based on what we know about how debris travels through the earth, we match it with similar samples and look for evidence, we date whatever isotopes are present in any given sample multiple times with multiple methods, what else can be done? That's the best we have.

We have to trust the best that we can do until we can do better, we can't just take all the evidence we have, which points one way, and say 'we're not certain, yet, so the bible must be considered.' That doesn't make sense. Even if we are wrong, there's nothing that indicates that the bible is right. Nothing at all that stands up to peer review and experimentation. It isn't one or the other, it's whatever theory can provide the most evidence. There's no default position. If, for whatever reason, all of science tomorrow was found to in error, if all that we knew had to be rejected because the laws of physics were all of sudden discovered to be flexible, that wouldn't make the bible right. It would just make science and the bible the same kind of wrong, in that neither side had the support it needed to be claimed as fact.

Right now, science has that. The weight of the evidence supports everything science claims, and there's a lot of evidence. Geology is one of the most stable and reliable of sciences.


You've demonstrated very clearly that you don't understand the fundamental nature of how science functions, what the method is, or how decisions and conclusions are made. We, those of us that follow scientific findings over godly ones, accept that we can be wrong, errors can be made, and that corrections to what we currently believe can and will be made. that's how progress works. Faith allows for none of this, and proclaims the bible to be infallible despite it being wrong on a great number of assertions already, not the least of which is the position of the earth in the solar system / universe. There's no argument to be made that the bible somehow invalidates science, only contradicts it, using itself as the source of its credibility. People who hold that up as 'evidence' are both not only wrong, but massively mistaken and completely without the necessary deductive skills to effectively 'know' anything. They have only the option of 'believing' it, and no trustworthy judgment at all.

[Furrowed Brow]

This is not true.

Very well done Goose. You hit a target there. Point to you.

Doing a bit more research myself it seems that there are instances of decay variation for electron capture and beta decay. This apparently is the decay discussed in the paper you linked. A comment can be found here

However as has been pointed out the conditions for the variance seen in electron capture and beta decay are particularly artificial. Nonetheless it’s a good point you make. Though not one that as yet jeopardize our understanding and reliance on samarium 146 –neodymium- 142 dating. Unless you can dig up another paper.

1) The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.

Why? What help is stalling point to YEC? The research is based on the quantity of found neodymium-142. The half life of samarium 146 being 50 million years. It is high levels if neodymium 142 that flag the rock as being around when there was still samarium 146 around. There are some very big question regarding the measurements, and whether the group have just managed to measure the age of the magma from which the rock was formed. But in either case we are still talking about geological processes occurring some 4.28 billion years ago, and thus a very old earth. Whilst these latest findings are still controversial the rest of science converges on a cooled earth around 3.8 billion years ago. And apparently alternative dating techniques on the same rock age it at around 3.8 billion years.

2) The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.

What other process have been observed and tested?

3) The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.

You’ve found that spinning isotopes at 2000/4000 rpm can affect decay rates. What realistic earth environment conditions would affect decay? While it seems we have to give you ground on the question of constancy, the known conditions that may affect decay rates seem to be very special indeed and not applicable.

[lolhalol]

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?

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

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. Methuselah lived one hundred and eighty-seven years, and became the father of Lamech. Does that mean that Lamech was born on Methuselah's 187th birthday? Probably not. Lamech could have been born as late as a day before his father's 188th birthday. When you take into account all of these margins of error, the Bible teaches that Adam still could not have been created earlier than 8,000 years ago. This still is orders of magnitude different from the conclusions of science.

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

lol if science can get it to within 500 million years (don't forget we have only a limited samples and we are dating almost as far back as when the entire earh was cooling lava and we are dealing with rocks!!!) this is not too bad.

Creationists are out by 4.3 ot 4.5 billion years. Who is laughing now!!!

Dumas' - and i am not referring to the artist (completely irrelevant!)