Re: Time CHECK -- God, Genesis and the big bang

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 02:00:10 06/16/99 Wed
Author: David C. Wise
Subject: Re: Time CHECK
In reply to: daniel 's message, "Re: Time CHECK" on 15:16:22 06/13/99 Sun

> Here is one article I found on AIG.
>
> <a rel=nofollow target=_blank href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/382.htm">http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/382.htm</a>
> RadioCarbon Dating in Conflict
>
Non sequitur. The only bearing that red herring has here is that in it Snelling reiterates, "all the calculated 'ages' are mere interpretations based on unproven assumptions about constancy of radioactive decay rates", but nowhere does he state HOW MUCH those decay rates are supposed to have changed. Of course, that is not the subject of his article, but it is the subject of our exchange here.

> > Your umbrage at being asked this simple direct
> > question is most puzzling. Your support and
> > allegience to YEC is well known and I would be
> > surprised to see you deny it, no matter how many
> times
> > the cock crows. Why should you be so reluctant to
> > state whether and why you would think that a
> > particular claim supports YEC?
> >
>
> Again I believe YEC NOT because of science. Even if
> it substantiates the position.
>
Non sequitur. What you base your beliefs upon is well known and was never questioned, nor was it the subject of discussion. You have also made it well known that you will immediately and completely disregard any scientitic evidence that indicates an old earth.

Rather, the subject of discussion was your use of a particular creation science claim and what you expect it to accomplish for your position. By your postings and by your web site [<a rel=nofollow target=_blank href="http://www.youngearth.org/]">http://www.youngearth.org/]</a> it is quite clear that you do rely on creation science claims to proselytize and to convince others to adopt your YEC beliefs. It is quite appropriate to ask you about this use of creation science claims, which is what I have been doing.

As it is, you have yet again avoided the question. Why? What is it about this simple direct question that causes you to expend so much energy to avoid it? You should be able to answer that simple question immediately and without reservation.

Yet again: In repeating the claim that the rates of radioactive decay have be made to change, do you believe that the extent of that change is sufficient to make a 10,000-year-old rock falsely appear to be billions of years old? If not, then please explain why you use that claim.

Now, judging from your postings and your web site, we would have to assume that you believe that the earth is no older that 10,000 years, hence no terrestrial rock could be older than 10,000 years. Furthermore, we would have to assume that you believe that the rates of radioactive decay have changed and used to be greater. But how much greater? We would have to assume that you believe that the decay rates had to have been great enough to cause 10,000-year-old rock to appear to be billions of years old.

However, your postings have also made it quite clear that you do not approve of people making assumptions (though it appears you believe it to be quite appropriate for yourself to do so). Therefore, I am seeking to avoid making assumptions about what you believe and have been asking you directly for clarification.

>
> You are far more knowledgeable about this topic and
> are clearly laying up a straw man, ...
>

Come on, Daniel, surely you know what a strawman argument is, in which case you should be able to clearly see that I am attempting the exact opposite.

A strawman is an insubstantial dummy used on stage made up to look like a fearsome opponent, so that one can make a big show to the audience of demolishing the foe. Hence, a strawman argument is intended to do the same by misrepresenting the opponent's position or methodology and then making a big show of how flawed the opponent's position is as you tear it apart into little pieces, after which you claim victory. Several years ago in response to a letter in the newspaper, I turned the creationist's boxing allusion of creation KO'ing evolution to one in which creation science not only hasn't laid a glove on evolution, but it doesn't even get into the ring; rather, it spends all its time wowwing its fans with exhibitions of shadow-boxing.

One example of a strawman argument is to draw a caricature of uniformitarian geologists insisting that all the strata was laid down at a constant, uniform rate and that no instances of rapid burial ever occurred in the past. Then they trot out examples of rapid burial, proclaim them to be evidence of the Flood, and pronounce all geologists to be idiots. I've even seen creationists with doctorates in geology play this game.

Another common strawman is to define evolution in old Darwinian terms, as strictly gradualistic, and then quoting scientists who show that it is not strictly gradualistic, such as S.J. Gould, as being anti-evolutionists.

[A humorous aside, if I may. About 8 years ago, a local creationist teacher, John Peloza, stirred up some trouble by teaching creation science (in the stealthy "intelligent design" form) in a public high school biology class and by proselytizing to students between classes (albeit somewhat more subdued and less blatant than your own hard-sell, but one complaint that did surface was his telling two Jewish students that they were going to Hell for not being Christian). He filed a federal lawsuit against the school district. He and his lawyer called a meeting of his students' parents in order to rally grass-roots support, but found none there. In his opening speech, Peloza stated that several scientists, including S.J. Gould, supported his position, obviously through the logic of the preceding strawman example. When one of the parents asked him if they were going to have Gould testify on Peloza's behalf, Peloza's only response was to laugh while his lawyer very quickly back-pedalled muttering something about the difficulties of serving subpoenas out-of-state.]

Now, rather than trying to misrepresent you and your position, I am trying to get a statement of that position from the source, from you. If I were trying to construct a strawman argument here, I would not even bother to ask you these simple and direct questions; I would just go ahead and do it.

Though I've noticed that that hasn't stopped you from trying to do it to me, as you keep putting words in my mouth.
> Perhaps I should ask the simple question(s)
>
> Are there any assumptions one must make to date an
> object based on the decay of isotopes?
> Are there any known problems that daters need to be
> concerned about when estimating the age of any object?
>
> If you answer back:
> There are no assumptions
> and
> There are no problems
> then you are a liar and there is no truth in you.
>

Non sequitur. This question has nothing to do with the answering of your question and is designed to be a red herring through which you can change the subject and further avoid answering the question. And perhaps even get me to forget my question. Well, my question still stands unanswered!

Now, to lead by example, I will answer your question:

There are always assumptions made in everything we do. For example, you have made a series of assumptions about the Bible. The main question that needs to be asked is whether one's assumptions are warranted.

Radiodating an object using the generic method [age = halflife * log2( 1 + { D[now] / P[now] } )] depends on three measurements:
1. Amount of the parent isotope.
2. Amount of the daughter isotope.
3. The rate at which the parent isotope decays (AKA its halflife).

To use this generic method, we need to make certain assumptions about those measurements. If any of the following assumptions has been violated, then the simple computation above yields an incorrect age:

1. The rate of decay was constant.
2. The amount of daughter isotope at the time of formation of the sample is zero or known independently and can be compensated for.
3. No parent isotope nor daughter isotope has entered or left the sample since its time of formation.

Are these assumptions warranted?

1. The halflifes of isotopes have been measured directly and empirically in laboratories (just the kind of science that creationists insist upon) to within 2% to 5% accuracy. Several decades of experiments subjecting the isotopes used in dating to extreme conditions have shown empirically that their decay rates did not change. Dr. Roger C. Wiens writes [<A rel=nofollow target=_blank HREF="http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#doubters">"Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective"</A>] of "three quite technical instances where a half-life changes, and these do not affect the dating techniques we have discussed", with the first one:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
"1. According to theory, a certain type decay called electron-capture decay is most likely to show changes with pressure or chemical combination, and that should be most pronounced for very light elements. The synthetic isotope, beryllium-7, has indeed been shown by several people to change by up to a fraction of a percent. In one such experiment, beryllium-7 was subjected to 270,000 atmospheres of pressure, which would only occur at depths greater than 450 miles inside the earth. All known rocks, with the possible exception of diamonds, are from much shallower depths. In fact, beryllium-7 is not used for dating rocks, as it has a half-life of only 54 days, and heavier nuclei are even less subject to these minute changes, so that the dates of rocks made by electron-capture decays would only be off by at most a few hundredths of a percent."
</BLOCKQUOTE>

Therefore, assumption #1 is warranted.

2. Determining the amount of daughter isotope at the time of formation of the sample can be done in some cases, but for the most part is problematic. One way to test this assumption would be to use a number of different methods and compare their results for agreement; the probability of close agreement of several independent tests occurring by chance is very low and decreases with the number of tests.

Therefore, assumption #2 cannot usually be made with a high degree of confidence, rendering this assumption unwarranted in many cases.

3. Determining that no parent isotope nor daughter isotope has entered or left the sample since its time of formation can usually be done by examining the samples, but again not reliably so in all cases. Again, correlating multiple independent tests can increase confidence in the results.

Therefore, assumption #3 cannot usually be made with a high degree of confidence, rendering this assumption unwarranted in many cases.

Chris Stassen, the author of the <A rel=nofollow target=_blank HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html">Isochron Dating FAQ</A> at the Talk.Origins site, writes:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
"Note that the mere existence of these assumptions do not render the simpler dating methods entirely useless. In many cases, there are independent cues (such as geologic setting or the chemistry of the specimen) which can suggest that such assumptions are entirely reasonable. However, the methods must be used with care -- and one should be cautious about investing much confidence in the resulting age... especially in absence of cross-checks by different methods, or if presented without sufficient information to judge the context in which it was obtained."
</BLOCKQUOTE>

Therefore, the simple, generic dating method described above, while it can be useful, is not a reliable method in all cases.

From what I have read in the creation science literature, this is the only radio-metric method described and its low reliability, as the sole represented method, is then used to condemn all forms of radiometric dating. Daniel, please note that this is yet another example of a strawman argument commonly used by creationists. Indeed, you've been using it quite a bit yourself.

You see, this simple, generic dating method is not the one commonly used by geologists. Instead, they use the isochron method. If you had done the readings I have suggested to you almost a dozen times, you would know this already and you would have recognized that I researched much of this material from the <A rel=nofollow target=_blank HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html">Isochron Dating FAQ</A>. Your postings indicate to me that you still have not read them. I could ask whether you have, but that would be a simple, direct question and we both know how long it takes you to answer one of those.

OK. The isochron method requires you to make a fourth measurement, the amount of a different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay. It also requires you to take the measurements from several different objects that formed at the same time from a common pool of materials, such as several different minerals in the same rock.

In the following, I will use Stassen's notation:
<CODE>P</CODE> = Parent isotope
<CODE>D</CODE> = Daughter isotope
<CODE>Di</CODE> = Non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter

Each group of measurements is plotted as a data point on a graph.
The X-axis of the graph is the ratio of
<CODE>P</CODE> to <CODE>Di</CODE>.
The Y-axis of the graph is the ratio of
<CODE>D</CODE> to <CODE>Di</CODE>.

If the data points on the plot are colinear, and the line has a positive slope, it shows an extremely strong correlation between the amount of the parent and how much daughter has been added due to decay by the parent. Stassen notes:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
"This is a necessary and expected consequence, if the additional <CODE>D</CODE> is a product of the decay of <CODE>P</CODE> in a closed system over time. It is not easily explained, in the general case, in any other way.
</BLOCKQUOTE>

The isochron method's basic assumptions are:
1. Constancy of the rate of radioactive decay.
2. The samples are cogenetic, ie they all formed at about the same time from the same melt.
3. The melt is totally molten and the isotopes and elements were distributed within it in a reasonably homogeneous manner.
4. As the rock cools, minerals form. They "choose" atoms for inclusion by their chemical properties.
5. Since <CODE>D</CODE> and <CODE>Di</CODE> are isotopes of the same element, they have identical chemical properties. Minerals may include varying quantities of that element, but all will inherit the same <CODE>D/Di</CODE> ratio as the source material.
6. Since <CODE>P</CODE> is a different element with different chemical properties, it will be distributed unequally relative to <CODE>D</CODE> and <CODE>Di</CODE> as minerals form.
7. Initially, the data points of the samples have the same Y-value and a range of X-values, so they initially fall on a horizontal line.
8. As time passes and a significant amount of radioactive decay occurs, the quantity of <CODE>P</CODE> decreases by a noticeable amount in each sample, while the quantity of <CODE>D</CODE> increases by the same amount.
9. Decay occurs in a proportional manner (that is, when 20% of the <CODE>P</CODE> in one sample has decayed, 20% of the <CODE>P</CODE> in every sample will have decayed).

OK, what about these assumptions?

Assumption #1 is warranted, as we have already covered.

Assumption #2 is usually the case, but violation is easily detected. We should note here that some creationists, such as Dr. Austin, have used non-cogenetic samples in attempts to discredit isochron methodology.

Assumption #3 is reasonable, though there are some cases in which the melt is not completely molten or not completely homogeneous. Again, this is detectable by the method.

Assumptions #4 and #6 describe the real-world situation.

Assumption #5 is true for the most part. However, there are minor differences between isotopes of the same element, primarily in their atomic weight, which in relatively rare circumstances could possibly "prejudice" their incorporation into a crystal. This is known as isotope fractionation. The effect is almost always a very small departure from the homogeneous distribution of the isotopes -- perhaps enough to introduce an error of 0.002 half-lives in a non-isochron age. Ie, it can happen, but it is rare and the effect is not large enough to account for extremely old ages on supposedly young (in the thousands of years) formations.

Assumptions #7, #8, and #9 describe how an isochron behaves over time. If the previous assumptions hold, then all points would start out as a horizontal line. Then as <CODE>P</CODE> decays into <CODE>D</CODE>, the ratios in that sample would change, such that the point would move up the graph and to the left with a slope of -1 as the ratios change accordingly.

All instances of <CODE>P</CODE> would decay at the same rate, with one atom of <CODE>D</CODE> replacing each atom of <CODE>P</CODE> as it decays. The more <CODE>P</CODE> that there is, the more <CODE>D</CODE> will be produced in a given period of time, such that the data points with the most <CODE>P</CODE> (the right-most ones on the plot) move the greatest distance per unit time. The data points remain colinear as time passes, but the slope of the line increases. It is the slope of the line that is used to arrive at the samples' age.

Notice that the old assumption about knowing the amount of the daughter, <CODE>D</CODE>, isn't mentioned? We don't need to know that anymore, because that's been factored in through the ratios. And if you really want to know how much daughter isotope was present at first, then you can read it directly off the graph.

And what about the problem of determining whether any parent isotope nor daughter isotope has entered or left the sample since its time of formation? Well, as that happens, it shifts the data point left or right for changes in the amount of <CODE>P</CODE> or up or down for changes in <CODE>D</CODE>. The resultant scattering of the data points makes them non-colinear. From the plot, you can immediately see if contamination or loss (ie, loss or gain) had occured. The method tells you.

And if contamination or loss occurred, does that mean that the method will give you a false age? No! It gives you NO age! Non-colinear points mean no line, which means no slope, which means no age.

So, is isochon methodology perfect? No. Subsequent partial melting of metamorphic rock can cause problems. So can faulty sample gathering, especially from non-cogenetic rocks (Stassen refers us to his <A rel=nofollow target=_blank HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html">Critique of ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project</A>, a must-read for you, Daniel. Mixing can produce seamingly good graphs, but there is a simple test to catch those cases. Stassen covers a lot of those in the <A rel=nofollow target=_blank HREF="<a rel=nofollow target=_blank href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html#isoprobs>"So,">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html#isoprobs>"So,</a> are isochron methods foolproof?" section</A>of his FAQ.

OK, Daniel. I answered your question. Now will you answer mine?
>
>
> My only claim is that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that
> he desires that you repent of your wickedness, worship
> him, know forgiveness and know that you have eternal
> life through him.
>
That is a false statement. You have also claimed on more than one occasion that radio-metric dating techniques are flawed because, among other things, the Industrial Revolution has caused the decay rates to change. We have been requesting clarification on this claim.

> You are afraid of the reality that you are unforgiven,
> and you are afraid to defend your belief that God does
> not exist.
>
Ah, you poor little Partialist, always living in the secret fear that you might fall from grace. Our minister told of a miracle of healing he had performed in a hospital on a dying Partialist who was afraid that he might not still be forgiven; our minister read to him from Micah.

Daniel, I have already requested that you not put words in my mouth. Where here or in our emails did I ever state a "belief that God does not exist"? SHOW ME!

Your assumtive process ticking quite fervently....tick....tick 

> Please provide evidence to support your truth claim.
>
> You can't handle the truth as it relates to eternity.
> You foolishly claim expertize in the temporal and are
> not enough of a strategist to realize the importance
> of not neglecting the security of your own soul.
>
> It is simple...
>
> If you claim to desire scientific truth, how do you
> differentiate what "truth" is actually important?
> Surely you are not an expert at bio-nutrition, but I
> assume you eat on a regular basis. So you are not an
> expert in Christianity and could not tell me what the
> "Mystery of the Gospel of the Gentiles" is. But that
> does not negate the unique claims made by a
> historical, literal figure named Jesus of Nazareth.
>
> Jesus claimed "I am the truth..." Do you KNOW if
> this statement is true? By what method would we
> determine the authenticity of this claim? Why is the
> claim important to every individual that has ever
> lived? If not, why not?
>
> Your avoidance of this topic is dangerous.
>
> Please substantiate why Jesus' claim of divinity and
> claims of obeyance do not apply to you. What
> knowledge do you have to deny that Jesus is the
> Messiah? What information do you have to prove that
> God doesn't exist? What evidence do you have that
> provides sufficient proof that accountability to a
> higher power is not necessary for you?
>
> Jesus claimed "I am the truth..." Do you KNOW if
> this statement is true? By what method would we
> determine the authenticity of this claim?
>
> Do you believe that all truth is subjective? Do you
> believe that absolutely?
>
Daniel, I have seen you complain on more than one occasion that others are not sticking with the forum's topic. And yet here we see you engaging in outright proselytizing! I believe that even you can see that proselytizing does NOT form any part of this forum's topic. I had informed you already that any attempts at proselytizing me would fail and that I did not desire the consequences, ie that the ability to conduct a discussion would be hindered, if not rendered outright impossible, by your becoming increasingly frustrated and hostile. Besides, all it would accomplish would be to annoy the pig <grin>.

We are here to discuss the facts as we see them. We may want to try to convince the other of the veracity of our view, but we must understand that we will not likely change the other's mind. I have attacked your beliefs, nor do I have any wish to try to convert you t my beliefs, so why do you persist in attacking mine and in trying to convert me?

The <A rel=nofollow target=_blank HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-welcome.html">Welcome FAQ</A> of the Talk.Origins site contains some very good guidelines for conducting oneself in an on-line discussion. I would very much recommend that you read it, especially the part about the need to substantiate one's claims.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Time CHECK -- David C. Wise, 08:07:56 06/23/99 Wed

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums^(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.