Dating methods in doubt

[Ekstasis]

All dating methods used today to determine the age of rocks and earth itself are based on the decaying rate of certain radioactive isotopes. In order to calculate the age of a speciment scientists have to assume and rely on the following (there's just no other way obviously because they haven't been there from the beginning)

1. Other than radioactive decay there can be no gain or loss of the isotopes
2. A constant decay rate

The following article claims new evidence with regard to point 2 above which, if valid, should make these dating methods obsolete 'cause it would be utter lies

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/bre...ase-of-solar-flares-and-radioactive-elements/

If this is the case , why is all so quiet in the news and nobody saying anything about it? The impact on all the assumptions of the past and what is taught would be huge.

 

[undesign]

Is this an argument for YEC? Some dating methods have been calibrated (against trees etc). On larger time scale dating we may be out with a few million, hell even a few hundred million years, on some datings, but that doesn't get us close to 6000 years.

Wiki -

The raw radiocarbon dates, in BP years, are calibrated to give calendar dates. Standard calibration curves are available, based on comparison of radiocarbon dates of samples that can be dated independently by other methods such as examination of tree growth rings (dendrochronology), deep ocean sediment cores, lake sediment varves, coral samples, and speleothems (cave deposits).

The calibration curves can vary significantly from a straight line, so comparison of uncalibrated radiocarbon dates (e.g., plotting them on a graph or subtracting dates to give elapsed time) is likely to give misleading results. There are also significant plateaus in the curves, such as the one from 11,000 to 10,000 radiocarbon years BP, which is believed to be associated with changing ocean circulation during the Younger Dryas period. Over the historical period from 0 to 10,000 years BP, the average width of the uncertainty of calibrated dates was found to be 335 years, although in well-behaved regions of the calibration curve the width decreased to about 113 years while in ill-behaved regions it increased to a maximum of 801 years. Significantly, in the ill-behaved regions of the calibration curve, increasing the precision of the measurements does not have a significant effect on increasing the accuracy of the dates.[14]

The 2004 version of the calibration curve extends back quite accurately to 26,000 years BP. Any errors in the calibration curve do not contribute more than ±16 years to the measurement error during the historic and late prehistoric periods (0–6,000 yrs BP) and no more than ±163 years over the entire 26,000 years of the curve, although its shape can reduce the accuracy as mentioned above.[15]

I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the subject though.

 

[tom110584]

i thought this post was about 'dating' in the romantic sense lol

 

[Techne]

I don't think this is an argument for YEC. It merely states that one of the assumptions associated with radiometric dating, e.g. constant decay rate, is being challenged by certain observations and that the causes are in need of understanding and explanation... IE, further research needs to be conducted. Solar-neutrinos are suggested to play a role, it would be interesting to see what comes from this.

 

[copacetic]

It's a variation of around 0.3 percent, so no, it's not going to make a practical difference in a method that generally has a bit of a margin of error in any case.

 

[alloytoo]

All dating methods used today to determine the age of rocks and earth itself are based on the decaying rate of certain radioactive isotopes. In order to calculate the age of a speciment scientists have to assume and rely on the following (there's just no other way obviously because they haven't been there from the beginning)

1. Other than radioactive decay there can be no gain or loss of the isotopes
2. A constant decay rate

The following article claims new evidence with regard to point 2 above which, if valid, should make these dating methods obsolete 'cause it would be utter lies

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/bre...ase-of-solar-flares-and-radioactive-elements/

If this is the case , why is all so quiet in the news and nobody saying anything about it? The impact on all the assumptions of the past and what is taught would be huge.

Is it so quiet?

 

[Wyzak]

Not exactly anything earthshattering in that article. So they change from time to time in a periodic fashion. Those types of changes tend to balance themselves out over time. Besides I am sure that the uncertainty of measurement on carbon dating is quite large. It won't be 0.001% but rather 10 or 20%. I doubt it will make a large difference if its 10 billion years ago, or 12 billion years ago, the point is it wasn't 5000 years ago.

 

[undesign]

I don't think this is an argument for YEC. It merely states that one of the assumptions associated with radiometric dating, e.g. constant decay rate, is being challenged by certain observations and that the causes are in need of understanding and explanation... IE, further research needs to be conducted. Solar-neutrinos are suggested to play a role, it would be interesting to see what comes from this.

Might be true for the OP, but I bet you this will soon populate the YEC websites, albeit in a slightly twisted and dishonest way.

 

[Ekstasis]

To rely on a constant decay rate (and I'm not a scientist) seem to be a huge risk to take when using these methods and then claiming the results to be fact.

Fact: dating methods are based on the assumption that the rate of decay is constant

If we worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true really is true, then there would be little hope for advance

 

[Ekstasis]

Not exactly anything earthshattering in that article. So they change from time to time in a periodic fashion. Those types of changes tend to balance themselves out over time. Besides I am sure that the uncertainty of measurement on carbon dating is quite large. It won't be 0.001% but rather 10 or 20%. I doubt it will make a large difference if its 10 billion years ago, or 12 billion years ago, the point is it wasn't 5000 years ago.

How do you know what or how big the changes might be?

Question: when did these methods first come in to use? Was the time of observing enough to suggest that the deviance will not make a big difference?

 

[copacetic]

To rely on a constant decay rate (and I'm not a scientist) seem to be a huge risk to take when using these methods and then claiming the results to be fact.

Fact: dating methods are based on the assumption that the rate of decay is constant

If we worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true really is true, then there would be little hope for advance

And the detected difference here is negligible, considering the time scales these methods work with. Regardless, the scientific community will of course examine the ramifications, why on earth would they not?

As has been pointed out earlier, I believe it's carbon-14 (?) dating that has been verified through comparison with tree-ring dating, which can be accurate to within the year, over several thousand years...

...if this is correct, and it is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, then it should be clear, as I keep trying to say, that the difference this is making is negligible.

You seem to be searching for some sort of conspiracy here.

 

[Ekstasis]

And the detected difference here is negligible, considering the time scales these methods work with. Regardless, the scientific community will of course examine the ramifications, why on earth would they not?

As has been pointed out earlier, I believe it's carbon-14 (?) dating that has been verified through comparison with tree-ring dating, which can be accurate to within the year, over several thousand years...

...if this is correct, and it is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, then it should be clear, as I keep trying to say, that the difference this is making is negligible.

You seem to be searching for some sort of conspiracy here.

No not really Copa I can live (barely) with the possibility of a 15000 yr old earth which is the max carbon dating allows for. The millions/billions....that must still be proven (emphasis on the "proven")

 

[copacetic]

No not really Copa I can live (barely) with the possibility of a 15000 yr old earth which is the max carbon dating allows for. The millions/billions....that must still be proven (emphasis on the "proven")

The age of the earth is very well established.

There is absolutely no dispute about this in any of the vast, vast body of a myriad of scientific disciplines.

About this, I must draw a line in the sand.

 

[undesign]

I don't think this is an argument for YEC.

No not really Copa I can live (barely) with the possibility of a 15000 yr old earth which is the max carbon dating allows for. The millions/billions....that must still be proven (emphasis on the "proven")

 

[BLo_0p]

The age of the earth is very well established.

There is absolutely no dispute about this in any of the vast, vast body of a myriad of scientific disciplines.

About this, I must draw a line in the sand.

I seriously did not want to get into a debate about c v e, but it seems this thread is turning into exactly that. The funny thing is, evolutionists seem to think 99% of scientists believe in their fairytale, when there are brilliant minds, who think the theory of evolution is rather silly. This includes people from all fields, from biology to mathematicians to physicists. So, by no means is your theory "fact" since many brilliant scientists refute it.

Ps. I also thought this was about dating in a romantic sense, Ekstasis

For interests sake, one of the atheists on mybb -cannpt remember who- said that they are smarter than anyone who believes in God. The thing is, Isaac Newton and Einstein believed in intelligent design, and according to many, Newton was one of the most brilliant minds of all time. Atheism was ripe in their time, yet they chose to believe in intelligent design.

Sent from my HTC Desire using MyBroadband Android App

 

[copacetic]

I seriously did not want to get into a debate about c v e, but it seems this thread is turning into exactly that. The funny thing is, evolutionists seem to think 99% of scientists believe in their fairytale, when there are brilliant minds, who think the theory of evolution is rather silly. This includes people from all fields, from biology to mathematicians to physicists. So, by no means is your theory "fact" since many brilliant scientists refute it.

Ps. I also thought this was about dating in a romantic sense, Ekstasis

For interests sake, one of the atheists on mybb -cannpt remember who- said that they are smarter than anyone who believes in God. The thing is, Isaac Newton and Einstein believed in intelligent design, and according to many, Newton was one of the most brilliant minds of all time. Atheism was ripe in their time, yet they chose to believe in intelligent design.

Sent from my HTC Desire using MyBroadband Android App

From the bottom of my heart, I am trying to find a good way to say what I am about to say. Yourself and Ekstasis have honestly been a pleasure to talk to, your attitudes have been good and I haven't picked up a lot of the annoyance from you guys that I might expect, given the responses you are almost guaranteed to receive when you speak your minds on an internet forum.

You say let's not get into a debate, and I agree - There is simply no debate to be had - If a person decides that evolution does not take place or that the earth is not several billion years old, nothing I say or do is going to change their mind. This is something to think about now: Could your mind ever be changed about this?

If the answer is 'no', then all I ask is that you very, very seriously ponder the ramification of making decisions about reality in the face of deciding before the evidence is presented and understood by you, that the evidence must be incorrect - This is absolutely guaranteed to cause you errors in your knowledge. Guaranteed.

If the answer is 'yes' then it is a simple matter of you making a real effort to examine the evidence, as the evidence is utterly irrefutable. Simple as pie.

With tears in my eyes, I ask you really make an effort to understand what I am trying to convey here.

 

[alloytoo]

From the bottom of my heart, I am trying to find a good way to say what I am about to say. Yourself and Ekstasis have honestly been a pleasure to talk to, your attitudes have been good and I haven't picked up a lot of the annoyance from you guys that I might expect, given the responses you are almost guaranteed to receive when you speak your minds on an internet forum.

You say let's not get into a debate, and I agree - There is simply no debate to be had - If a person decides that evolution does not take place or that the earth is not several billion years old, nothing I say or do is going to change their mind. This is something to think about now: Could your mind ever be changed about this?

If the answer is 'no', then all I ask is that you very, very seriously ponder the ramification of making decisions about reality in the face of deciding before the evidence is presented and understood by you, that the evidence must be incorrect - This is absolutely guaranteed to cause you errors in your knowledge. Guaranteed.

If the answer is 'yes' then it is a simple matter of you making a real effort to examine the evidence, as the evidence is utterly irrefutable. Simple as pie.

With tears in my eyes, I ask you really make an effort to understand what I am trying to convey here.

Well said.

I'd also like to add this:

There are many claims on creationist websites that many brilliant scientists refute or don't believe in evolution, these claims are often supported by a list of said persons.

Analysis of these lists in the past have revealed the following:

Persons who have been placed on the list have:

a) Have no idea they're on the list.

a) Repudiated their inclusion and requested removal which has been denied.

c) Been deceased before being the lists creation denying them the opportunity to authorise/repudiate their inclusion.

d) Hold qualifications in disciplines unrelated to Geology and biology (IE their opinion carries no more weight than you or I in regards Evolution), hold honoury qualifications or theological qualifications.

Finally Project Steve Pawns all the lists:

Project Steve is a list of scientists with the given name Stephen or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution". It was originally created by the National Center for Science Education as a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of creationist attempts to collect a list of scientists who "doubt evolution," such as the Answers in Genesis' list of scientists who accept the biblical account of the Genesis creation myth[1] or the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. The list pokes fun at such endeavors in a "light-hearted" manner to make it clear that, "We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!"[2]

However, at the same time the project is a genuine collection of scientists. Despite the list's restriction to only scientists with names like "Steve", which in the United States limits the list to roughly 1 percent of the total population,[3] Project Steve is longer and contains many more eminent scientists than any creationist list. In particular, Project Steve contains many more biologists than the creationist lists, since about 51% of the listed Steves are biologists.[4]

The "Steve-o-meter" webpage provides an updated total of scientist "Steves" that have signed the list. As of 28 December 2010 (2010 -12-28)[update], the Steve-o-meter registered 1,151 Steves

 

[Techne]

For the Young Earth Creationists:
God is not a scientific question and cannot be answered with science. Even if there is scientific evidence that the earth is only 6000 years old, it will have zero impact on proving the existence of God or the truth of Christianity.
People that want science to settle the answer with regards to the question of whether God exists are either philosophically, metaphysically and theologically misinformed or uninformed or mistaken or dishonest. I.E. it is bad theology, philosophy and metaphysics. Science is about as relevant to proving or disproving the existence of God and Christianity as it is to disproving or proving that the interior angles of a triangle on an Euclidean plane add to to two right angles.
Evolution can be true along with speciation, extinction and whatever, the universe can stretch back to infinity and an infinite amount of multiverses can exist and be confirmed with science and it will still have zero impact on the existence of God or classical theism or Christianity. Read up on the Scholastics and scholasticism and Thomas Aquinas, especially the Thomistic proofs to understand why. Young Earth Creationism is irrelevant with regards to God or classical theism or Christianity and it is not science.

For those who like to know more about Christianity, the flat earth and Gallileo:
Here
Here
Here

 

[ShaunSA]

This belongs in the PD section...

Yep. I had initially wondered about the intention of the OP but any doubts went at at Post 12.

 

[BLo_0p]

I think in the end copa is correct about debating. It's pointless to debate, since it has been done a billion times over the world. In the end I'm not going to change my mind and neither are the atheists. How old the earth is does not really bug me. I have to say that like copa, I too have had many interesting, fun discussions. I am thankful to the atheists who have not shown any disrespect, and in fact respected Christians choice to believe in God. Most of the Christians also respect any other view a person might have. So we might as well be the one forum where atheists and christians can actually speak to one another as equals, and not force anything down upon the other. So I for one am cutting myself from the debate team and leave it up to those who want to debate. This thread has no gone totally of topic if this gets moved to pd, ekstasis, you will once again not be able to post in your own thread

Sent from my HTC Desire using MyBroadband Android App