Flaws in dating the earth as ancient

etienne_marais

etienne_marais

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
16,561
Reaction score
20,087
Location
Centurion
Flaws in dating the earth as ancient

In 1986 the world’s leading science journal, Nature, announced that the most ancient rock crystals on earth, according to isotope dating methods, are 4.3 billion years old and come from Jack Hills in Western Australia.

W. Compston and R.T. Pidgeon (Nature321:766–769, 1986) obtained 140 zircon crystals from a single rock unit and subjected them to uranium/uranium concordia (U/U)1 and uranium/thorium concordia (U/Th)2 dating methods. One crystal showed a U/U date of 4.3 billion years, and the authors therefore claimed it to be the oldest rock crystal yet discovered.

A serious problem here is that all 140 crystals from the same rock unit gave statistically valid information about that rock unit.3 No statistician could ever condone a method which selected one value and discarded all the other 139. In fact, the other 139 crystals show such a confusion of information that a statistician could only conclude that no sensible dates could be extracted from the data.

Full Article
 
Last edited:
TL;DR Didn't read the link.

My brother is emeritus professor of geochemistry at UCT. He has dated mineral inclusions in diamonds older than 3 billion years, and had several papers published in Nature and other journals. Not specific to the ultimate age of the earth, but a lot more credible than the thread title.

Reference:

Origin of diamonds in old enriched mantle - Nature

Sub-calcic garnets encapsulated by diamonds from relatively young (90 Myr) kimberlites in southern Africa, yield ancient Sm–Nd and Rb–Sr model ages (3,200–3,300 Myr). The chemistry and distribution of these and associated sub-calcic garnets from kimberlite concentrate, indicate diamonds formed...
www.nature.com www.nature.com
 
If you remove religion as a motivation for belief in a young earth, all that is left is untrammeled ignorance. And while it's perfectly fine to believe whatever you wish, trying to inject science into a faith-based version of reality that is in direct opposition to what is actually observed strikes me as an exercise in futility.

That said, don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting there's harm in trying to do so, just that... Be willing to acknowledge the process for what it is, and be as open to the possibility of being incorrect as you'd like your intended audience to be (which is a tall order, I am aware).
 
Lol.

The article presents a specific reason for why it's claiming certain dating methods have issues, but everyone's just doing the 'lulz creationist morons' thing instead of actually responding to the issue raised.
 
saor said:
Lol.

The article presents a specific reason for why it's claiming certain dating methods have issues, but everyone's just doing the 'lulz creationist morons' thing instead of actually responding to the issue raised.
Click to expand...
This moronic idiocy is not worth it
 
saor said:
Lol.

The article presents a specific reason for why it's claiming certain dating methods have issues, but everyone's just doing the 'lulz creationist morons' thing instead of actually responding to the issue raised.
Click to expand...

Its like climate change denialists: Create a straw-man argument, and obfuscate with pseudo-scientific babble...

All papers published in Nature are peer reviewed, a process which can take up to 18 months to do a thorough scrutiny.
 
themba990 said:
1986?! Lol.
Click to expand...

All groundbreaking papers are subject to periodic review. This study was confirmed in 2014 using techniques not available at the time:
www.bbc.com

Crystal is 'oldest scrap of Earth crust'

A tiny 4.4-billion-year-old crystal from the Jack Hills region of Western Australia is confirmed as the oldest fragment of Earth's crust.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
saor said:
Lol.

The article presents a specific reason for why it's claiming certain dating methods have issues, but everyone's just doing the 'lulz creationist morons' thing instead of actually responding to the issue raised.
Click to expand...

I spent many years talking to people about this sort of thing. The problem is that the goalposts will always move if a coherent counter-argument is made wrt a specific claim and supporting evidence for it, or the discussion inevitably reaches a point where they believe I have a faith-based motive for my position, and I the same of them, and thusly are we stuck.

It is pointless, and incredibly frustrating. I don't think calling people morons helps at all, but I have also come to the conclusion that engaging in the discussion is ultimately detrimental, as long experience has shown that while it is presented as an opportunity for debate, I cannot recall a single instance where I engaged and minds were changed (either mine, or the other party).

Faith is a mutually exclusive language to that of science, as far as I am concerned. I'm certainly open to being corrected though.
 
Gordon_R said:
All papers published in Nature are peer reviewed, a process which can take up to 18 months to do a thorough scrutiny. because the reviewer agreed but then other things came up and he got lazy and then went through a whole emotional journey where he felt victimised by large publishing houses who just use our free labour before realising that just submitting the review is the easiest thing to do.
Click to expand...
 
copacetic said:
I spent many years talking to people about this sort of thing. The problem is that the goalposts will always move if a coherent counter-argument is made wrt a specific claim and supporting evidence for it, or the discussion inevitably reaches a point where they believe I have a faith-based motive for my position, and I the same of them, and thusly are we stuck.

It is pointless, and incredibly frustrating. I don't think calling people morons helps at all, but I have also come to the conclusion that engaging in the discussion is ultimately detrimental, as long experience has shown that while it is presented as an opportunity for debate, I cannot recall a single instance where I engaged and minds were changed (either mine, or the other party).

Faith is a mutually exclusive language to that of science, as far as I am concerned. I'm certainly open to being corrected though.
Click to expand...

So, without all the blather, what exactly is it that you support?

I've read through the above couple of posts from you, and I have no idea what it is you are saying.
 
Splinter said:
So, without all the blather, what exactly is it that you support?
Click to expand...

I'm not really clear on what you are asking, as I've tried to articulate my position carefully (that would be the blathering). That said, to be perfectly clear - I am a straight up stone cold materialist. I think religion is a scourge, and dogmatic belief is incredibly dangerous. Still, people have a right to believe whatever they wish, and after spending years talking to people about these sorts of topics, I've come to conclusion it's simply not worth the trouble, since we are essentially speaking different languages with mutually exclusive motives. Finally, I don't either see any worth in treating people badly because they believe in things I see as silly and probably incorrect.

I've read through the above couple of posts from you, and I have no idea what it is you are saying.
Click to expand...

That's because you are on a constant search for motives that are more often than not as imaginary as religion. I trust the above paragraph clarifies my position.
 
copacetic said:
I'm not really clear on what you are asking, as I've tried to articulate my position carefully (that would be the blathering). That said, to be perfectly clear - I am a straight up stone cold materialist. I think religion is a scourge, and dogmatic belief is incredibly dangerous. Still, people have a right to believe whatever they wish, and after spending years talking to people about these sorts of topics, I've come to conclusion it's simply not worth the trouble, since we are essentially speaking different languages with mutually exclusive motives. Finally, I don't either see any worth in treating people badly because they believe in things I see as silly and probably incorrect.
Click to expand...

You were obviously very clear on what I was asking.

But these years of talking to folks about these sort of topics - where be they?

And who be treating people badly? I am assuming this was you talking about atheists? As in atheists treating silly people badly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X