Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...

You should know it can't be done that way. The decay rate for an isotope with a million year half life would not have changed in any perceptible way in only one year. Long half lifes have to be measured by first quantifying the number of atoms in a sample, and then measuring the decay rate. The quantification or purification takes the longest time. Measurement of the decay rate can be done in minutes, not years.

Of course decay and degeneration means losing of characteristics. And decay of U 238 means is losing atoms/particles/elements.

You can manipulate the decay of the sample to make it decay faster and slower.

However, the only way, no other chance, to know what is the decay of the sample "per year" is by counting the atoms today, and doing the same in a year and check the difference.

After this process, you obtain a rate of decay, and then you can make tests manipulating the decay and calculating the results with the rate obtained of the decay observed without manipulation.

NO NO! If you had an entry level course in nuclear physics you would know that is not true at all. Are you confusing that with the Zeeman effect?

The decay of the U 238 can be performed, it has been made several times. Just adding neutrons to a sample to make it U-239 and will decay faster. It will become Plutonium 239 with half life 24,110 years.

Lets go to the point right below.


For gods sake! The gravitational time dilation deviation is around 10⁻¹⁰ different from earth to outer space!! That would change a four billion year half life by just a few hours.

Time dilatation? What the heck is that?

Show here how time dilates. Show the mechanism of such a phenomenon.

Are you trying to be funny here?

Look, we are discussing science, OK? so if you come here with stupid arguments, then whatever you say is considered as lunacies.

You can talk about different gravity level, but "dilatation of time"? ha ha ha ha

Nice try, but you should talk about that imagination of "dilatation of time" in Conspiracy Theories topics. Not here.

Let go to the topic as it should be.

A different environment will cause U 238 to have a different rate of decay.

Then, the current measures of U 238 decay are based solely on our current earth status, with our current atmosphere and etc. But, when earth didn't have atmosphere, when earth was located at a different orbit or just traveling as a rogue planet, with a past earth with different conditions, the decay of U 238 was different.

The change of behavior of ALL matter has been proved hundreds, thousands of times at the space station. And U 238 is not the exclusive one which will be exempt of those changes.

Your billions of years of age for earth have been DEBUNKED right here and right now. Your measurements are not valid.

You can go and cry somewhere else, but the fact I am giving you right here, nobody, read clearly, nobody can proved it false.

Troubleshooting is my expertise.

I, Luchito.
 
Last edited:
I gave you lots of links but you don't believe the science. All the links you gave me are biased creationist sites. My degrees in physics can run rings around your degree, I simply don't want to publicize it here. I don't understand your obsession with my background.

What degrees in physics? Nobody knows who you are. Name your highest degree. Besides, you don't sound credible not knowing who Clair Patterson was :icon_lol:. Who found AMS? Who found radiometric dating? I would think the last question most people know. It matches the people here like Fort Fun Indiana. I think I'm the only one who pointed Patterson out earlier. It goes to show I did my homework on evolution and used a good website to learn it. In their survey, I told them I took computer science courses there and that people use other devices today to read websites, especially the cell phone. It means change the website to make it mobile friendly :rolleyes:, but they're doing their due diligence. I'll give them much credit for that.

The science of what exactly? Radiometric dating? We find that it's not accurate because of the assumptions it makes. You won't believe Gale and his 1972 report. I tried to point that out to you, but you won't believe it. Instead, you criticized RATE who has shown their credentials while you have none. RATE did their due diligence. What seems to be happening is RATE is being cast aside just like Gale and his partners. Long time is so important for the Darwinism theory. The only creation science we have today is creationists' websites, conservapedia, and some Britannica. Wikipedia is firmly atheist and pro-evolution and founded by a porn entrepreneur.

Moreover radiocarbon dating is valid if much C14 is left. Why does secular science not write articles on this? It's valid radiometric dating.

"Carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) is a radioactive form of carbon that scientists use to date fossils. But it decays so quickly—with a half-life of only 5,730 years—that none is expected to remain in fossils after only a few hundred thousand years. Yet carbon-14 has been detected in “ancient” fossils—supposedly up to hundreds of millions of years old—ever since the earliest days of radiocarbon dating.1

1 Robert L. Whitelaw, “Time, Life, and History in the Light of 15,000 Radiocarbon Dates,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 7, no. 1 (1970): 56–71.

#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds

Much of what you provided was Shirey and my answer for that was to give RATE a chance at those included diamonds. RATE took those diamonds that secular scientists had already tested as comparison. The same with the fossils that there were found soft tissue. So, do you not believe the long time needed for evolution of 4.5 B years old Earth? Are you buying into evolution?

Look at the radiometric dating of the moon rocks. They only accepted the readings that fell into the long time they estimated as. If one batch was contaminated, then don't you think the readings from the whole batch should've been tossed out?

With long Earth you still have to explain the water on the surface of the Earth, the recession of the moon, bent rocks, mixed sedimentary layers, layer names that match location and not time (etymology), very little sediment on the seafloor, rapidly decaying magnetic field, and more.

What we find is you have no other evidence. That is strange if the Earth is indeed 4.5 B years old. What about soft tissue in dinosaur bones if not C14 remaining?



9. Soft Tissue in Dinosaurs - Is Genesis History?

On the whole it doesn't look like the creationists analysed the problem in detail.

Here is more against diffusion in my previous post #277. It's by Dr. Andrew Snelling. He provides his name and credentials. OTOH, you took two classes in solid state physics from where? High school? Online? Did you receive college credits?

https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/arj/v12/u-pb_radioisotope_dating.pdf
 
I was talking about a general principle. When you focus on a specific example, you certainly do know what the daughter products are.

There is a definite miscommunication. You aren't reading my words the way I meant them and I don't seem to be reading your words the way you mean them because your responses just don't make sense to me.

Isn't what you argue just backing up what I stated is wrong with using radiometric dating except for radiocarbon dating? I don't think there is any miscommunication because you do not provide any examples to discuss. All you are doing is discussing methodology and still have not provided whatever credentials you have. So far, it's two physics classes. What were the titles and names of these classes?

Of course my methodology is for an old earth. It's billions of years old. You must use long half-life isotopes and they show very old ages.

Carbon 14 is just fine when you think the event is less than 50,000 years, like a middle age relic. But you can't use it on old rocks or diamonds. It simply gives you no information at all.

Why shouldn't we think it is less than 50,000 years. We should both be using radiocarbon dating as C14 remains. Instead, the radiometric dating and long time advocates continue to use radiometric dating. Didn't you just admit they do not know what the parent-daughter ratios were or the daughter ratios would be nil?

You must be really thick because RATE just proved it using radiocarbon dating with "billions" years old rocks or diamonds. They have their papers. It goes to show one of us is really, really, really wrong.

As usual you are using the bible to try to prove the bible. You were wrong about AMS limitations. Many science sites refer to the limits but you and your creationist friends totally ignore it because it doesn't agree with their preordained creationism. You didn't understand my point about in situ contamination. I know there can be in situ contamination. I was trying to explain what the ramifications are but you didn't understand it and got bent out of shape.

You had no rational reason to believe contamination when Dr. Schweitzer's three different assays all agree to 65 million years ± 4%, or that Dr. Shirey's diamond inclusions could possibly have Osmium contamination. Yes, some sites are contaminated but most published ones are not; especially the two I cited. Apparently creationists think they all are contaminated.

The real hypocrisy of creationists is that they vigorously claim contamination in long decay isotopes, but vigorously claim no contamination in C14. Bias, yes?

Much of your “science” is focused on Noah's flood. That did not happen, certainly within the last 6000 years. There are lots of on-line criticisms about how phony the flood is. I don't want to cover it because it is not science. It's religion. Today's scientists make mincemeat out of all the creationists who think the earth age is only thousands of years.

No, creation scientists and I use the Bible as an autobiography and the testimony of the only person who was there during creation. It is the Bible theory. The only supernatural is in the Book of Genesis. The rest is the Bible is not a science book. How can a book written in ancient time be a science book? No on would understand it. Instead, we treat it as an autobiography and use it as we find science backs up the Bible. For example, the eternal universe and steady state theory was wrong. Today, we have the universe had a beginning with the discovery of the CMB and its radiation.

So, you are wrong in saying I am "using the bible to try to prove the bible." I am using science to back up the Bible. Atheist and evo thinkers are usually wrong.

It wasn't RATE who did the AMS, but one of the top AMS labs. Why can't you get this through your thick head haha? A secular or atheist group of scientists could use them for AMS testing. Do you think any of these scientists will put up the money to buy AMS equipment for one or few tests?

Thus, how could creationists and I ignore what you claim.

Again, you present topics that were dismissed already with soft tissue remaining and C14 remaining. With Dr. Shirey, you have not given his samples to RATE. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Instead, I suggested doing the apples vs apples testing of those included diamonds by giving the samples to RATE.

Again, you do not understand the creation scientists complaints with radiometric dating. It's not just contamination, but not knowing what the original ratios of parent-daughter elements were, what the atmosphere was like in the past, not acknowledging how a global flood would affect the results, how decay rate has changed; it isn't as constant as assumed, and more.

If you do not know what the daughter products are, then you cannot do your radiometric dating. Where is what you measured? Since you want to just discuss methodology and nothing concrete, you have not provided
  1. The initial conditions of the rock sample or material to be dated 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 or material was formed.
 
There is not any graviton.

Much of what you state are assertions. What do you have to back up no graviton or no fourth dimension? The graviton is one thesis for why gravity is the weakest force on Earth. Show us your facts, historical truths, and reasoning.
 
There is not any graviton.

Much of what you state are assertions. What do you have to back up no graviton or no fourth dimension? The graviton is one thesis for why gravity is the weakest force on Earth. Show us your facts, historical truths, and reasoning.
Simple.

In science you don't need to prove a negative.

It is from your side proving it.

You see, the idea of graviton was born in order to justify two failed theories: Theory of relativity and String theory.

Those theories can't work without such imaginary existence of graviton. Of course, the characteristics of graviton will be imperceptible, with "no mass", and with a propagation of speed same as light. Such are "their conditions", they want the assumed graviton to have such characteristics. This is what they want, but it is not what it is.

The universe is what it is.

You see, all that fantasy is invented because they try to reinforce the validity of theories made in base of imaginations.

Gravity is nothing but motion in action. That's all. The rest is garbage.

With simple home made experiments I can prove more than the several experiments with unnecessary complicated instruments to see "gravitational waves formed by an imaginary black hole"... and this to happen at the end of the cosmos, so no one can "prove them wrong". Lol

Can't you see it? they pull the legs of people with discoveries made solely at far away distances. I demand from them to show gravitational waves right here in our solar system, right here on earth. yes, do it here, "I'm from Missouri, you'll have to show me".

No excuses accepted.
 
What degrees in physics? Nobody knows who you are. Name your highest degree. Besides, you don't sound credible not knowing who Clair Patterson was . Who found AMS? Who found radiometric dating? I would think the last question most people know.

The science of what exactly? Radiometric dating? We find that it's not accurate because of the assumptions it makes. You won't believe Gale and his 1972 report. I tried to point that out to you, but you won't believe it. Instead, you criticized RATE who has shown their credentials while you have none.
I was largely into fundamental particle physics. I never took a course on geology so I had no idea of the names behind radiological dating. You will have to remind me what Gale did. I don't have enough key words for a search.

A large part of your post covers properties of C14. You can assume I know everything about that.
What we find is you have no other evidence. That is strange if the Earth is indeed 4.5 B years old. What about soft tissue in dinosaur bones if not C14 remaining?
Don't be thrown by the phrase “soft tissue”. There was just one type, collagen. All the other cells deteriorated. Here are some facts about collagen:
Collagen: What is it and what are its uses?
  • Collagen is a hard, insoluble, and fibrous protein that makes up one-third of the protein in the human body.
  • In most collagens, the molecules are packed together to form long, thin fibrils.
  • These act as supporting structures and anchor cells to each other. They give the skin strength and elasticity.
  • There are at least 16 different types of collagen, but 80 to 90 percent of them belong to types 1, 2, and 3. These different types have different structures and functions.
  • The collagens in the human body are strong and flexible.
  • Type 1 collagen fibrils are particularly capable of being stretched. Gram-for-gram, they are stronger than steel.
Collagen is pretty sturdy stuff. Switzer was as surprised as anyone that the collagen survived and was flexible and elastic. They looked at it highly magnified and found that what was ordinarily unlocked fibrils became cross connected. That blocked deterioration. They found that the cross connections were formed with iron as a sort of catalyst. I gave you a reference to that a few pages back.
Much of what you provided was Shirey and my answer for that was to give RATE a chance at those included diamonds. RATE took those diamonds that secular scientists had already tested as comparison. The same with the fossils that there were found soft tissue.
Sure. I have no objection as long as they do it fairly.
Here is more against diffusion in my previous post #277. It's by Dr. Andrew Snelling. He provides his name and credentials.
The paper is more about Mass Fractionation did you read it?
https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/arj/v12/u-pb_radioisotope_dating.pdf
Paper by Dr. Andrew Snelling. 38 pages
This is from that link under the title
Defining Errors and Uncertainties
“However, it could be argued that measurement precision ... reflects the sensitivity of the measuring apparatus used. In a sense precision is a function of current instrument technology.”

“International Vocabulary of Metrology guidelines ... defined “measurement error” as a “measured quantity value minus a reference quantity value”. This definition depends on the accuracy of the reference quantity value and automatically introduces bias into the whole process because the reference value also must be previously measured with its own measurement error.”

Conclusions
“However, all these uncertainties are overshadowed by the underlying unprovable assumptions on which the radioisotope dating methods are based, known starting conditions, no contamination, and especially the assumption of time-invariant decay rates, built on the foundation of an assumed deep time history.”
Snelling's paper is a criticism of U/Pb dating using AMS. The first quote says that the precision is a function of technology. The second paragraph gives a measure of the efficacy of that technology. It refers to subtracting a reference quantity value. the third paragraph runs through a number of problems, such as starting conditions, contamination, and he questions decay rates.

Doesn't that sound familiar. Those arguments about AMS machine accuracy also must apply to all elements used on an AMS machine including C14. It is really biased to criticize a U/Pb process they don't like, but not use the same criteria on C14.

I have been essentially saying all along the second paragraph applies to C14, therefore dates over 50,000 years are meaningless. I was surprised to see my objection of the limitation of C14 assays were verified by a creationist site! Snelling just shot his own creation science in the foot.

In short, Snelling refers to a reference value that should be subtracted from the measured value. But nobody has said that a reference value should be applied to C14. That way they end up with what they wanted - “proof” of a young earth. That sort of science is intellectually bankrupt.

.
 
If you do not know what the daughter products are, then you cannot do your radiometric dating. Where is what you measured? Since you want to just discuss methodology and nothing concrete, you have not provided
  1. The initial conditions of the rock sample or material to be dated 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 or material was formed.
My last post already covered most of this post. I referenced your last paragraphs as a summary showing that Snelling's criteria for U/Pb, should also apply to C14 since the same AMS technology should be applied to both.

I forgot to reply to your previous post that solid state physics is not taught in high school. Not online for me. I took the courses 20 years before the internet was accessible to the public.

.
 
In science you don't need to prove a negative.

It is from your side proving it.

You can sit on your arse, do nothing, and say that. Your negative is weak.

That's what CERN is doing. Again, your negative is weak.

Einstein's ToR has been demonstrated so far as the best theory. Your negative is weakest here.

As for the rest, it's all simpleton stuff.

>>Gravity is nothing but motion in action. That's all. The rest is garbage.<<

What do you have to back this claim up? Show us how this motion works. Einstein did.
 
I was largely into fundamental particle physics. I never took a course on geology so I had no idea of the names behind radiological dating. You will have to remind me what Gale did. I don't have enough key words for a search.

A large part of your post covers properties of C14. You can assume I know everything about that.

And yet you have no degree. No credentials. Maybe all you did was read papers on it and are going from it like ding. He can't provide his sources and has made up stuff of his own on religion and ethics. He read cathechism papers, but not much of the Bible. He, too, thinks Genesis is metaphor. He mixes cathechism with Chinese philosophy (doesn't know much about Catholicism). Are you from China, as well?

Here is Gale and 1972:
"This is accepted in spite of the 1972 research by a scientist named Gale,2 showing that Patterson’s beliefs about where the lead in meteorites came from, was provably wrong. Gale showed that there was simply too much lead in meteorites to claim that it formed from uranium. Much of the lead had originally been in the meteorite. Therefore, despite the claims in school books, university lectures, and in the media, meteorites and the earth are not “proven” to be 4.5 billion years old."

In Brief—Summary of Technical Article for the Layman

Gale, N.H., Arden, J. and Hutchison, R. Nature Phys. Science 240 57 (1972)
Uranium-Lead Chronology of Chrondritic Meteorites

Uranium-Lead Chronology of Chrondritic Meteorites

Don't be thrown by the phrase “soft tissue”. There was just one type, collagen. All the other cells deteriorated. Here are some facts about collagen:
Collagen: What is it and what are its uses?
  • Collagen is a hard, insoluble, and fibrous protein that makes up one-third of the protein in the human body.
  • In most collagens, the molecules are packed together to form long, thin fibrils.
  • These act as supporting structures and anchor cells to each other. They give the skin strength and elasticity.
  • There are at least 16 different types of collagen, but 80 to 90 percent of them belong to types 1, 2, and 3. These different types have different structures and functions.
  • The collagens in the human body are strong and flexible.
  • Type 1 collagen fibrils are particularly capable of being stretched. Gram-for-gram, they are stronger than steel.
Collagen is pretty sturdy stuff. Switzer was as surprised as anyone that the collagen survived and was flexible and elastic. They looked at it highly magnified and found that what was ordinarily unlocked fibrils became cross connected. That blocked deterioration. They found that the cross connections were formed with iron as a sort of catalyst. I gave you a reference to that a few pages back.

It's Mary Schweitzer. There is Jack Horner, paleontologist, in the video below, too. Today's paleontologists rely so much on evolutionary theory that I consider them nutballers. Anthropologists are more reliable.




Look around 9:00

First thing other atheist scientists claimed to debunk was contamination. They are just wrong haha. Then the excavation people had to wear gloves.


Your screed just goes to show your bias towards evolution.



Look at this nutgoober today. He reflects the science of people like Fort Fun Indiana.

Sure. I have no objection as long as they do it fairly.

So, do you have any pull to get Shirey to provide the sample included diamonds or included diamonds he knows are old? I can talk with RATE if Shirey is willing to provide it; I got some weight.

The paper is more about Mass Fractionation did you read it?
https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/arj/v12/u-pb_radioisotope_dating.pdf
Paper by Dr. Andrew Snelling. 38 pages
This is from that link under the title
Defining Errors and Uncertainties
“However, it could be argued that measurement precision ... reflects the sensitivity of the measuring apparatus used. In a sense precision is a function of current instrument technology.”

“International Vocabulary of Metrology guidelines ... defined “measurement error” as a “measured quantity value minus a reference quantity value”. This definition depends on the accuracy of the reference quantity value and automatically introduces bias into the whole process because the reference value also must be previously measured with its own measurement error.”

Conclusions
“However, all these uncertainties are overshadowed by the underlying unprovable assumptions on which the radioisotope dating methods are based, known starting conditions, no contamination, and especially the assumption of time-invariant decay rates, built on the foundation of an assumed deep time history.”
Snelling's paper is a criticism of U/Pb dating using AMS. The first quote says that the precision is a function of technology. The second paragraph gives a measure of the efficacy of that technology. It refers to subtracting a reference quantity value. the third paragraph runs through a number of problems, such as starting conditions, contamination, and he questions decay rates.

Doesn't that sound familiar. Those arguments about AMS machine accuracy also must apply to all elements used on an AMS machine including C14. It is really biased to criticize a U/Pb process they don't like, but not use the same criteria on C14.

I have been essentially saying all along the second paragraph applies to C14, therefore dates over 50,000 years are meaningless. I was surprised to see my objection of the limitation of C14 assays were verified by a creationist site! Snelling just shot his own creation science in the foot.

In short, Snelling refers to a reference value that should be subtracted from the measured value. But nobody has said that a reference value should be applied to C14. That way they end up with what they wanted - “proof” of a young earth. That sort of science is intellectually bankrupt.

Snelling states in his abstract that "It is then documented from the conventional literature that both U and Pb isotopes naturally mass fractionate due to the nuclear-field shift effect and differential mass diffusion."

You conveniently leave out Snelling's, "accurate radioisotopic age determinations require that the decay constants or half-lives of the respective parent radionuclides be accurately known and constant in time."

...

"From a creationist perspective, the 1997–2005 RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project successfully made progress in documenting some of the pitfalls in the radioisotope dating methods, and especially in demonstrating that radioisotope decay rates may not have always been constant at today’s measured rates (Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin 2000, 2005). Yet much research effort remains to be done to make further in-roads into not only uncovering the flaws intrinsic to these long-age dating methods, but towards a thorough understanding of radioisotopes and their decay during the earth’s history within a biblical creationist framework."

As for you complaints about Snelling and AMS, he is referring to the diffusion. GIGO. He discusses the accuracy of AMS.
 
"This is accepted in spite of the 1972 research by a scientist named Gale … etc.
Ah, yes. I remember. He criticized Patterson, but Patterson got rid of lab contamination and got consistent results that are now accepted.

It's Mary Schweitzer. There is Jack Horner, paleontologist, in the video below, too. Today's paleontologists rely so much on evolutionary theory that I consider them nutballers. Anthropologists are more reliable.
The first video was short but agonizingly slow with music accompanying long dramatic animations of blood cells. That was very deceptive because Schweitzer's team discovered that what looked like cells were not. Only collagen was found intact.

I didn't watch the other two longer videos. I prefer written word so I can skim over the parts that I know.

So, do you have any pull to get Shirey to provide the sample included diamonds or included diamonds he knows are old? I can talk with RATE if Shirey is willing to provide it; I got some weight.
I am not a geologist in the field. I would have no pull with him.

Snelling states in his abstract that "It is then documented from the conventional literature that both U and Pb isotopes naturally mass fractionate due to the nuclear-field shift effect and differential mass diffusion.
I skipped it because both are just conjectures. No quantitative analyses were made nor offered. I largely agree with his paper in principle, but in practice the effects would be small. If Snelling thinks it is important, he should arrange a test.

If you don't understand what fractionation is, you won't understand this: A fractionation test would be very easy, There are four stable isotopes of Pb with natural occurrences of 1.4%, 24.1%, 22.1%, and 52.4%. All you have to do is run a pure natural lead sample and measure the percentages on the AMS. They should be the percentages given above. If so, then no calibration is needed. If they are not, then the resulting measured data can be used as a calibration for runs with unknown percentages.

Diffusion would be harder to measure because it is so slow in solids if it is at all possible. I already told you that in situ, diffusion out of a sample is the same as diffusion in. With such huge molecules as uranium, a solid case would have to be made by Snelling for diffusion. He did not have any quantitative numbers.

A paper based on speculation about a technical problem very seldom makes it into professional journals.

demonstrating that radioisotope decay rates may not have always been constant at today’s measured rates
If that were to happen, it would affect the entire body of well validated basic physics. That level of speculation does not hold water at all. He justifies it only by referring to the bible, and that is not science, nor creation science.

Snelling's paper is a criticism of U/Pb dating using AMS. The first quote says that the precision is a function of technology. The second paragraph gives a measure of the efficacy of that technology. It refers to subtracting a reference quantity value. the third paragraph runs through a number of problems, such as starting conditions, contamination, and he questions decay rates.
Do you understand the ramifications of subtracting a reference quantity? It means that no sample has statistical validity for C14 if the age is around 50 or 60 thousand years.

I designed a series of four detectors for an accelerated particle beam and a magnet acting to bend the beam to find the momentum of the particles in the beam. With such a strong ionized beam, stray particles are all over the place. I was told to compute how much data should be used in the reference (very much like the reference value mentioned by Snelling.) I was surprised that valid statistics for the reference, required about 60% experiment time compared to the actual measurements.

I can't emphasize enough that Snelling is correct that the reference value must be found and found accurately. Then unfortunately to him, the diamonds would be forever, so to speak, or maybe just a few billion years.

Edit:
09.16.2004 - Uranium/lead dating provides most accurate date yet for Earth's largest extinction
"The beauty of this new technique is that we now can analyze samples we previously could not get an accurate date for," Mundil said. "This will have a big impact on radio-isotopic dating in general."

“Berkeley, used this improved U/Pb technique to establish a more accurate date for the end of the Permian period and the beginning of the Triassic period - 252.6 million years ago, plus or minus 200,000 years.”​

That is about 1% accuracy in U/Pb dating.

“Whereas the U/Pb method yields ages which are more accurate, "Ar/Ar is still king in dating rocks younger than 100 million years and is about as precise as U/Pb methods"​


.

.
 
Last edited:
Ah, yes. I remember. He criticized Patterson, but Patterson got rid of lab contamination and got consistent results that are now accepted.

Gale's paper has nothing to do with contamination lol.

'Most meteorites have lead isotope ratios similar to those of present day common lead. Up until 1972 these could be explained as being contaminated with radiogenic lead from uranium and thorium decay. In 1972, however, Gale et al.Nature Phys. Science 240:57, 1972.&nbsp;Return to text.">22 showed unequivocally that there is by no means sufficient uranium and thorium to account for what could previously have been called radiogenic lead. Since the lead in meteorites can no longer be ascribed to uranium/thorium decay, it may also be taken to represent primordial lead.

Therefore, since the lead isotope ratios for the majority of meteorites are the same as present day common lead ratios and may also be assumed to represent primordial lead, the billion year age chronology disappears.

In case the significance of these results is ignored, a few sentences from the Gale et al.Nature Phys. Science 240:57, 1972.&nbsp;Return to text.">22 should reveal their importance:

“ … it is not widely appreciated, outside the ranks of those who work directly in geochronology or meteoritics that, judged by modern standards, the meteoritic lead-lead isochron is very poorly established. “This (work) shows unequivocally for the first time that there is indeed a real problem in the uranium/lead evolution in meteorites, in that in each of these meteorites there is now insufficient uranium to support the lead isotope composition. “It therefore follows that the whole of the classical interpretation of the meteorite lead isotope data is in doubt, and that the radiometric estimates of the age of the Earth are placed in jeopardy.”'

Radiometric dating age of earth - creation.com

The first video was short but agonizingly slow with music accompanying long dramatic animations of blood cells. That was very deceptive because Schweitzer's team discovered that what looked like cells were not. Only collagen was found intact.

I didn't watch the other two longer videos. I prefer written word so I can skim over the parts that I know.

No, it was not just collagen and I just showed you. What do you have to back up your claim?

I am not a geologist in the field. I would have no pull with him.

I didn't think so. You have no credentials and have lost credibility with me.

I skipped it because both are just conjectures. No quantitative analyses were made nor offered. I largely agree with his paper in principle, but in practice the effects would be small. If Snelling thinks it is important, he should arrange a test.

If you don't understand what fractionation is, you won't understand this: A fractionation test would be very easy, There are four stable isotopes of Pb with natural occurrences of 1.4%, 24.1%, 22.1%, and 52.4%. All you have to do is run a pure natural lead sample and measure the percentages on the AMS. They should be the percentages given above. If so, then no calibration is needed. If they are not, then the resulting measured data can be used as a calibration for runs with unknown percentages.

Diffusion would be harder to measure because it is so slow in solids if it is at all possible. I already told you that in situ, diffusion out of a sample is the same as diffusion in. With such huge molecules as uranium, a solid case would have to be made by Snelling for diffusion. He did not have any quantitative numbers.

A paper based on speculation about a technical problem very seldom makes it into professional journals.

Again, what do you have to back up your opinion?

I am the only one backing up my statements.

Do you understand the ramifications of subtracting a reference quantity? It means that no sample has statistical validity for C14 if the age is around 50 or 60 thousand years.

I designed a series of four detectors for an accelerated particle beam and a magnet acting to bend the beam to find the momentum of the particles in the beam. With such a strong ionized beam, stray particles are all over the place. I was told to compute how much data should be used in the reference (very much like the reference value mentioned by Snelling.) I was surprised that valid statistics for the reference, required about 60% experiment time compared to the actual measurements.

I can't emphasize enough that Snelling is correct that the reference value must be found and found accurately. Then unfortunately to him, the diamonds would be forever, so to speak, or maybe just a few billion years.

Edit:
09.16.2004 - Uranium/lead dating provides most accurate date yet for Earth's largest extinction
"The beauty of this new technique is that we now can analyze samples we previously could not get an accurate date for," Mundil said. "This will have a big impact on radio-isotopic dating in general."

“Berkeley, used this improved U/Pb technique to establish a more accurate date for the end of the Permian period and the beginning of the Triassic period - 252.6 million years ago, plus or minus 200,000 years.”
That is about 1% accuracy in U/Pb dating.

“Whereas the U/Pb method yields ages which are more accurate, "Ar/Ar is still king in dating rocks younger than 100 million years and is about as precise as U/Pb methods"

"For Uranium-Lead dating to work, scientists have to make three assumptions. These assumptions are that the system being dated is a closed system; at the beginning of the time period, there are no daughter isotopes present; and the rate of radioactive decay stays the same through the whole time period. Once all these assumptions are taken, the equation above simplifies to
65a0b1952974e62f1947986bd2a8f16a.png
[4]."

I've already gone over why it doesn't work such as not a closed system, daughter isotopes are present, and the rate of decay changed over time. You even went to included diamonds.
 
Gale's paper has nothing to do with contamination lol.
I know that he was concerned that the ratios of isotopes were the ones found in nature. I already told you that the problem was contamination and gave a reference a few pages back. You must have forgotten. I'm to lazy to find that same reference, so here is another. According to this site the real problem was contamination

Clair Cameron Patterson and the exact Age of the Earth

Contaminated Samples
Patterson quickly became aware that his lead samples were being contaminated. After six years together with his colleague George Tilton he did publish a paper on methods of determining the ages of zircon crystals and Patterson did achieve his Ph.D., but they did not succeed to determine the age of the Earth.

Correctly Dating the Earth
With a grant from the United States Atomic Energy Commission Brown was able to continue work on dating the Earth as well as to commission a new mass spectrometer at Caltech. In 1953, Patterson joined Brown at Caltech, where he was able to build his own lab from scratch. In it he secured all points of entry for air and other contaminants. Patterson also acid cleaned all apparatuses and even distilled all of his chemicals shipped to him. In essence, he created one of the first clean rooms ever, in order to prevent lead contamination of his data. He then was able to finish his work with the Canyon Diablo meteorite and collected data of the contained lead isotopes, which in 1956 resulted in “Age of Meteorites and the Earth”, the first paper containing the true age of the solar system’s accretion, which was 4,550 million years (give or take 70 million years). At the time of this writing, this number still stands.

No, it was not just collagen and I just showed you. What do you have to back up your claim?
I already gave you a link pages ago. You must have forgotten. Here is another reference. My other reference did not mention skin cells, which are now being looked at among other speculations on preservation.

https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
Then, in 2007, Schweitzer and her colleagues analyzed the chemistry of the T. rex proteins. They found the proteins really did come from dinosaur soft tissue. The tissue was collagen, they reported in the journal Science, and it shared similarities with bird collagen

The obvious question, though, was how soft, pliable tissue could survive for millions of years. In a new study published today (Nov. 26) in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Schweitzer thinks she has the answer: Iron.

After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.

"The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots," Schweitzer said. "They basically act like formaldehyde."

Formaldehyde, of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay.

That's what I told you; iron causes cross-linking. Read the site there is other information.

I didn't think so. You have no credentials and have lost credibility with me.
I already told you I'm in physics not geology. You must have forgotten. Are you a geologist with credentials?


Again, what do you have to back up your opinion?
I am the only one backing up my statements.
Read Snelling's paper again. His statements on fractionation and diffusion are opinion. He did not back up his opinion. He suggests that experiments should be done, to back up his opinion, and I agree. I even suggested one on fractionation.


Diffusion in a homogeneous system doesn't change the homogeneity. (No I'm not going to find a reference on that. It's just common sense.)

I'm sorry. You are weak on physics and I should back up every statement that can otherwise be inferred from common physics knowledge. Much of the sites you reference are conjecture that is not backed up. For example your reference to Dr. Jason Lisle was full of weird ideas prefaced by "maybe" and "perhaps". All creationist opinion. I didn't give references to back up my critique of Lisle, I said how they they are self contradictory with the rest of physics, and Lisle, a physicist, did not provide any justification for his ponderings.

"For Uranium-Lead dating to work, scientists have to make three assumptions. These assumptions are that the system being dated is a closed system; at the beginning of the time period, there are no daughter isotopes present; and the rate of radioactive decay stays the same through the whole time period."...
.... I've already gone over why it doesn't work such as not a closed system, daughter isotopes are present, and the rate of decay changed over time. You even went to included diamonds.
I agree that all systems U/Pb, Ar/Ar, Rh/Os, etc should be examined to make sure they are closed and uncontaminated. That is obvious. They try. You keep on harping on it. But creationists drop those criteria that we all agree on when it comes to diamonds and coal dating using C14. Why? It's obvious why. I have said that several times. They are biased and dearly want C14 dating to prove a young earth.

The one thing I really object to is their supposition that the decay rate of any isotope may change over time. There is absolutely no physical reason for the half life to change. No reason was given by any creationist. A real creation “scientist” would form a hypothesis or theory of exactly how the rate changes over time. They would have the mathematics to show what their presumed decay rate was 6000 years ago and how it gradually or suddenly changed to today's value of millions of years. They didn't; so it's not science. You keep getting your ideas from creationist sites. Try to branch out. I have read practically all the creation sites you referenced and I'm not impressed with how they work their bias.

If there are other statements I made that you think need references, let me know.

.


 
Last edited:
I know that he was concerned that the ratios of isotopes were the ones found in nature. I already told you that the problem was contamination and gave a reference a few pages back. You must have forgotten. I'm to lazy to find that same reference, so here is another. According to this site the real problem was contamination

No, I didn't forget. I just don't believe you as you are not credible. Don't forget, it's I who have the post-grad degree and BS in computer science. I can read and understand science papers just fine except for Hawking's scientific jargon gibberish A Brief History in Time. It's not contamination, and Gale proved it. He stated there was too much lead in the Patterson's meteorites to claim that it came from uranium. The lead was already there as primordial lead.

I already gave you a link pages ago. You must have forgotten. Here is another reference. My other reference did not mention skin cells, which are now being looked at among other speculations on preservation.

More of the same. All of it to preserve the hundreds of millions of years. Look, you won't be able to tell a fossil that is hundreds of millions of years old because you admitted that there wouldn't be any daughter isotopes formed in a 6000 year old Earth. Isn't that what we are arguing about with the meteorite? Conveniently, you ignore the radiocarbon dating that was able to be done. We know that can be done on fossils only thousands of years old.

Again, you lack credibility. First, you admitted you didn't trust the meteorite as it does not relate to age of the Earth. You didn't have qualms with contamination, but did state there would be no daugther isotopes present with a young Earth. However, we are finding there was primordial daughter isotopes present and this is provable because of the great amount of daughter isotopes found. That would give an inaccurate reading. OTOH, I presented RATE scientists. They found C14 still remaining as it would with a young Earth. You know very well that they would not have been able to do their testing without the C14.

It's similar with the radiocarbon dating of the dinosaur fossils. It follows there would be soft tissue remaining with 6000 year old fossils. The creation scientists also showed that fossilization can happen rapidly. It does not take millions of years for it to happen. It does not take millions of years to form a diamond either.

To summarize, we are looking at the same facts, but coming to different conclusions from the assumptions we make. If one thinks the Earth is young and changes to the Earth happened by catastrophism and rapid changes, then the scientific evidence backs it up. We are able to show fossilization and diamonds and coal can be created in short time. OTOH, you cannot show fossilization and diamonds and coal takes millions of years for it to form. There are no experiments that one can do over millions of years. Thus, the scientific method favors creation science and never atheist science.

I already told you I'm in physics not geology.

It doesn't matter anymore. You are not forthright person, so I'm assuming you didn't go to college and have maybe a HS diploma. Who cares if you took physics when you do not back your credentials or claims when asked. I already said you might be like ding who makes up his own religious philosophy. What you make up is your own physics philosophy. I said several times that we are not going to be able to find the exact age of the Earth and universe using science. I think I got closer than you did and can back up what I stated using the scientific method by creating diamonds and coal in short time. I can also show fossilization happens in short time. We also have the soft tissue in dinosaur fossils which you do not believe or have convinced yourself that there is an explanation for it even if they are hundreds of millions of years old. You are way off and have no experiment which you can do for millions of years. Even a million years. 100,000 years is not possible either haha. Thus, what other evidence do you have besides radiometric dating? I suppose radiometric dating including radiocarbon dating relates to physics.

As for the other evidence, shouldn't you be able to explain the Earth being 3/4 water? What about bent rock? That's chemistry, but I can explain it. Or too little sediment on the seafloor for long time? That's geology, but I can explain it. So aside from anything to do with physics, you do not have any other evidence to show your old Earth theory? I'm assuming you do not believe in evolution completely, but do agree some of it is true.

I agree that all systems U/Pb, Ar/Ar, Rh/Os, etc should be examined to make sure they are closed and uncontaminated. That is obvious. They try. You keep on harping on it. But creationists drop those criteria that we all agree on when it comes to diamonds and coal dating using C14. Why? It's obvious why. I have said that several times. They are biased and dearly want C14 dating to prove a young earth.

The one thing I really object to is their supposition that the decay rate of any isotope may change over time. There is absolutely no physical reason for the half life to change. No reason was given by any creationist. A real creation “scientist” would form a hypothesis or theory of exactly how the rate changes over time. They would have the mathematics to show what their presumed decay rate was 6000 years ago and how it gradually or suddenly changed to today's value of millions of years. They didn't; so it's not science. You keep getting your ideas from creationist sites. Try to branch out. I have read practically all the creation sites you referenced and I'm not impressed with how they work their bias.

If there are other statements I made that you think need references, let me know.

Listen, creationist sites are science sites. We do not have other resources because of being excluded from peer reviews and secular science. Otherwise, I would have articles from the science publications.

Isn't it convenient so the atheist scientists can finally practice evolution without anyone contradicting them? What I have found is evolutionists and secular/atheist scientists have created fake science since the 1850s. If it was true, then the scientific method would back it up. However, the scientific method can be applied to little except for natural selection. That was discovered by the creation scientists first and not Darwin.

You have some really bizarre thinking in order to consider that your radiometric dating is accurate when my radiocarbon dating is more accurate. It's like day and night. Thus, only one of us can be right as I stated from the beginning. I think creation scientists and I are right because we have other evidence besides radiometric dating and C14 dating while you don't. I would think you end up on the evolutionist side even though you may not believe all of it. From my viewpoint, nothing about evolution is true and I tried to show you, but you just won't believe.

It's like verifying the Bible. We find there did exist those places mentioned in it. We do find the warnings about what foods to eat and what to avoid are understandable by ancient peoples as well as various peoples today. We find the Bible is still the best selling book every year and of all time as historical and non-fiction book. Thus, you are wrong to state that it is just a religious book. I didn't discuss religion at all except God being the witness and I am going by God's word and the supernatural part of creation science is just in Genesis. I even said life itself is supernatural. Once we die, then we cannot resurrect ourselves. We also cannot create life outside the cell which is different from procreation. In physics terms, we can create at the molecular level, but not the atomic level.
 
I just thought of something we can discuss further dealing with what a physicist wrote -- A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. You said you have the first edition and I assume you real it all. I'll start since I have the pdf version and can copy and paste parts of it. Sorry, if the formatting and spacing may be off or words missing a space, but the copy and paste doesn't keep its formatting from the pdf page. I just want to get your views on it. My questions and comments will be italicized.

"Chapter 1

...

"Most people would find the picture of our universe as an infinite tower of tortoises rather ridiculous, but why do we think we know better? What do we know about the universe, and how do we know it? Where did the universe come from, and where is it going? Did the universe have a beginning, and if so, what happened before then? What is the nature of time? Will it ever come to an end? Can we go back in time? Recent breakthroughs in physics, made possible in part by fantastic new technologies, suggest answers to some of these long standing questions. Someday these answers may seem as obvious to us as the earth orbiting the sun – or perhaps as ridiculous as a tower of tortoises. Only time (whatever that may be) will tell."

Where is the universe going? What happened before the universe's beginning? What is the nature of time? Will time come to an end? Can we go back in time?

upload_2019-12-6_23-43-34.png


"The planets themselves moved on smaller circles attached to their respective spheres in order to account for their rather complicated observed paths in the sky. The outermost sphere carried the so-called fixed stars,which always stay in the same positions relative to each other but which rotate together across the sky. What lay beyond the last sphere was never made very clear, but it certainly was not part of mankind’s observable universe.Ptolemy’s model provided a reasonably accurate system for predicting the positions of heavenly bodies in the sky. But in order to predict these positions correctly, Ptolemy had to make an assumption that the moon followed a path that sometimes brought it twice as close to the earth as at other times. And that meant that the moon ought sometimes to appear twice as big as at other times! Ptolemy recognized this flaw, but nevertheless his model was generally, although not universally, accepted. It was adopted by the Christian church as the picture of the universe that was in accordance with Scripture, for it had the great advantage that it left lots of room outside the sphere of fixed stars for heaven and hell."

I'm skipping some paragraphs, but the above paragraph is wrong. It's based on Aristotle and Ptolemy's thinking in their day. However, it was the Catholic church that may have adopted it. It's not what the Bible states.

What I'm getting at is what Hawking wrote isn't very clear nor correct as with science and not just with Christians, Catholics, and the Bible. However, the general public accepted it I suppose because it was Stephen Hawking.
 
... I just don't believe you as you are not credible. Don't forget, it's I who have the post-grad degree and BS in computer science. . …..

It's not contamination, and Gale proved it. He stated there was too much lead in the Patterson's meteorites to claim that it came from uranium. The lead was already there as primordial lead.
Why does my background which is somewhere between elementary school drop out to Nobel Prize winner have any effect on the credibility of a passage I quoted? The two paragraphs cited are:
Contaminated Samples
Correctly Dating the Earth

Yes, we agree on the first paragraph. But why do you dismiss the second paragraph? Do you deny that around 4 years later Patterson made a clean room and finally got good results simply because you don't know my credentials? Why don't you believe the article on Patterson?

More of the same. All of it to preserve the hundreds of millions of years. Look, you won't be able to tell a fossil that is hundreds of millions of years old because you admitted that there wouldn't be any daughter isotopes formed in a 6000 year old Earth. Isn't that what we are arguing about with the meteorite? Etc.
You misunderstood. Again, my credentials are totally irrelevant. To clarify my point, this is a specific example of radiological dating with a simple parent daughter sample. Let's assume nuclear decay rates are constant and there is no contamination in a rock with a billion year half life.
  1. Next assume a 4.7 billion year earth.
    Suppose the parent/daughter isotopes are 50 : 50. The age of the sample would be 1 billion yrs.

  2. Now assume 6,000 years is the maximum age of anything.
    For a billion year half life, there would be very little decay and the parent/daughter ratio would be 0.99999584 : 0.00000416. (Decay Time of Radioactive Isotope Calculator)
That means in your world any long lived isotope should have infinitesimal daughter products compared to the parent. In your world the issue is NOT contamination, Your issue is why isn't there a lack of both daughter products and contaminants when field samples show they abound. Yes initial conditions are important, but in a young earth how do you explain that all the initial conditions would have to coincidentally include the specific daughter products for every isotope. That is an outlandish coincidence. If you disagree, don't criticize me, answer the point.

The only way left for creationists to explain why the daughter products exist when they shouldn't is to say the half life is time dependent in a big way. That is radically changing the laws of physics and creating contradictions. For example the weak interaction in the very successful Standard Model would have to be trashed. Don't take my word for it if you don't trust me. Read about it.

They found C14 still remaining as it would with a young Earth. You know very well that they would not have been able to do their testing without the C14.
They found either contamination or the limits of the machine. The disingenuous thing is that you don't believe contamination in C14 but do believe it in about everything else. Also you don't believe an instrument has limitations. That is quite outlandish and self serving.

As far as soft tissue, it is compatible with an old earth. Don't take my word for it. My references went over that.

You have some really bizarre thinking in order to consider that your radiometric dating is accurate when my radiocarbon dating is more accurate. It's like day and night. Thus, only on
They are not my ideas. I gave references. I asked you why you deny that an AMS machine has a limitation. I gave a solid reference from a creationist publication about AMS needing a quantitative reference value. I asked you many times about carbon but you always repeat the same thing -- that it is accurate without any further comment. Your own reference and creationists say that radiological dating has a limitation in AMS measurement, but you both gloss over the fact that it should also occur with carbon.
.
 
Last edited:
The formatting is about the same as the book.
Where is the universe going? What happened before the universe's beginning? What is the nature of time? Will time come to an end? Can we go back in time?
Are these rhetorical questions? Hawking has his answers in a paragraph starting at the bottom of page 8. If you don't have page numbers, search for "Hubble's observations...."

I'm skipping some paragraphs, but the above paragraph is wrong. It's based on Aristotle and Ptolemy's thinking in their day. However, it was the Catholic church that may have adopted it. It's not what the Bible states.

What I'm getting at is what Hawking wrote isn't very clear nor correct as with science and not just with Christians, Catholics, and the Bible. However, the general public accepted it I suppose because it was Stephen Hawking.
You are saying the Catholic church disagrees with the Bible? You would be better at answering that than I.

It seems that the public elevates Hawking to among history's greatest -- at the same level as Newton and Einstein. Physicists think he certainly is great, but there are many more contemporaries that are better. I remember hearing about one lecture a number of years ago that had some of the audience (all top physicists) rolling their eyes.

If you want to continue this it should be on a new thread. OTOH this thread is already hijacked and I doubt if anyone is still following it.

.


.
 
Why does my background which is somewhere between elementary school drop out to Nobel Prize winner have any effect on the credibility of a passage I quoted? The two paragraphs cited are:
Contaminated Samples
Correctly Dating the Earth

Yes, we agree on the first paragraph. But why do you dismiss the second paragraph? Do you deny that around 4 years later Patterson made a clean room and finally got good results simply because you don't know my credentials? Why don't you believe the article on Patterson?

I knew Patterson created the clean room, but he did not know about the primordial lead. The lead that was already present in the meteorite. It was shown by Gale that one cannot do U-Pb testing on the meteorites because of too much daughter elements. How did it get there? The Pb was already part of the meteorite. Thus, one would get ages that are wrong or too old. Gale's work was not publicized. I'm glad he got it published in Science. OTOH, you and the evos can easily find a Scientific American or other article to back up your point. I also pointed this out with the fine tuning facts which the evo scientists discovered. To hide findings is not real science.

For example, here is a good slice of life story of Patterson and what lead to his work. I do not have similar papers and documents to describe Gale's work and what happened. It's only in the creation science websites AFAIK.

Personally, if I had pursued a chemistry, science, or engineering career, I would've gone to CalTech. It was only after my junior year that I found out about CalTech. Originally, I wanted to be a math teacher and found out that wasn't what I really wanted to do.

http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/3906/1/DuckSoup.pdf

You misunderstood. Again, my credentials are totally irrelevant. To clarify my point, this is a specific example of radiological dating with a simple parent daughter sample. Let's assume nuclear decay rates are constant and there is no contamination in a rock with a billion year half life.
  1. Next assume a 4.7 billion year earth.
    Suppose the parent/daughter isotopes are 50 : 50. The age of the sample would be 1 billion yrs.

  2. Now assume 6,000 years is the maximum age of anything.
    For a billion year half life, there would be very little decay and the parent/daughter ratio would be 0.99999584 : 0.00000416. (Decay Time of Radioactive Isotope Calculator)
That means in your world any long lived isotope should have infinitesimal daughter products compared to the parent. In your world the issue is NOT contamination, Your issue is why isn't there a lack of both daughter products and contaminants when field samples show they abound. Yes initial conditions are important, but in a young earth how do you explain that all the initial conditions would have to coincidentally include the specific daughter products for every isotope. That is an outlandish coincidence. If you disagree, don't criticize me, answer the point.

The only way left for creationists to explain why the daughter products exist when they shouldn't is to say the half life is time dependent in a big way. That is radically changing the laws of physics and creating contradictions. For example the weak interaction in the very successful Standard Model would have to be trashed. Don't take my word for it if you don't trust me. Read about it.

Not if there were too many daughter isotopes from the beginning as the composition of the meteorites. Sorry, but I cannot find any papers besides the ones I linked already from Snelling, Baumgardner (RATE), and Gael. However, I did find an article that backs up what I came up with such as the age of the Earth cannot be scientifically measured -- God science age - creation.com.

"The age of the earth is also vital to the biblical worldview. Yes, a supernatural god could have taken billions of years to create the universe. But this is not the God of the Bible. The Bible tells us that God created the world and all that is in it in six days about 6,000 years ago. To accept an earth that is billions of years old is to undermine virtually every major Christian doctrine.

To start with, it undermines the authority of the Bible. The 6,000 years (repeatedly quoted on the DVD) come from a plain reading of the Bible.Genesis 5 and 11. There is general agreement that this approach leads to creation taking place about 6,000 years ago (see Appendix B-The Forgotten Archbishop).">2 If the Bible can’t be trusted on this issue why should it be trusted in other places?

It undermines the authority of the Bible
Billions of years destroy the connection between sin and death. The Bible says that death came into the world as a consequence of man’s sin, which is why Jesus Christ physically died on our behalf. But in a world billions of years old we have fossils, disease and death stretching millions of years before Adam and Eve’s sin.

Further, it reflects badly on the nature of God. In a world where disease, suffering and death have been around for millions of years these evils become the fault of the Maker. Skeptics like to mock that death, extinction and disease mean that God is incompetent or weak or malevolent.Contact, Pocket Books (Simon &amp; Schuster, Inc.), New York, 1985.">3 Not so, the God of the Bible.

An old earth undermines the uniqueness of man. Evolution over millions of years has man emerging from a population of ape-like ancestors a million (or so) years ago. We are just modified animals without any intrinsic reason to protect the weak and vulnerable. But the Bible says we have no genetic connection with the animals; we are a separate creation made in the image of God.

Without Genesis we cannot say what marriage is. In the beginning God made a man and a woman, not a man and a man, or a man and a harem. If there is no factual basis for “a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife” then marriage is just a subjective opinion.

We could go on. Genesis explains the nature of sin, our need for salvation, the origin of the seven-day week, man’s relationship with the environment, the relationship between people all over the world, the holiness of God, the reason for death, who should be evangelized,Darwin’s quisling (Charles Kingsley)).">4 the warning of judgment, etc. Those who relegate Genesis to the rank of metaphor or human invention have effectively undermined the whole of the Christian faith."

When I read the Bible to compare what it said and Darwinism, ToE, and evolutionary thinking and history as linked from UC Berkeley, I did not know of such undermining of God's word. I compared what each side said and then used what science I knew, including the scientific method, to find which side was more credible. The religion parts just confused me such as longevity of ancient peoples and what Jesus taught. Thus, I read Genesis. That was the meat and potatoes of the science in the Bible. Other parts of the Bible many people read are the Psalms. Those are easy and less controversial to read the religious part of the Bible..

"John Shelby Spong describes how the Christian view is undermined:

“Charles Darwin … destroyed the primary myth by which we had told the Jesus story for centuries … That myth suggested that there was a finished creation from which we human beings had fallen into sin, and therefore needed a rescuing divine presence to lift us back to what God had originally created us to be. But Charles Darwin says that there was no perfect creation because it is not yet finished. … there was rather a single cell that emerged slowly over 4½ to 5 billion years, into increasing complexity, into increasing consciousness. And so the story of Jesus who comes to rescue us from the Fall becomes a nonsensical story. So how can we tell the Jesus story with integrity and with power, against the background of a humanity that is not fallen but is simply unfinished?”5
My fellow evangelicals sometimes act offended when I use that Spong quote, “How dare you put us in the same category as Bishop Spong.” I’m not saying they don’t have a love for the Gospel or Scripture. I’m simply showing the logical consequences of accepting evolution and billions of years. No matter how my friends may try to uphold the Gospel they cannot avoid Spong’s conclusion. Once we accept the earth is billions of years old, “the story of Jesus who comes to rescue us from the Fall becomes a nonsensical story”."

The age of the Earth is important to secular atheist science as well because without long time, then the ToE and how evolution works theory falls apart. Thus, after removing God, creation, and the supernatural in Genesis, there can only be age of the Earth and universe and how life originated and evolved based on long time. Fossilization, mountain ranges being formed, great waterways being dug, and so on can only happen by nature and long time. However, no evidence or observation can back this up. No one can observe a glacier cut through a canyon and create it. This is what I learned in school, but it's wrong.

That means in your world any long lived isotope should have infinitesimal daughter products compared to the parent. In your world the issue is NOT contamination, Your issue is why isn't there a lack of both daughter products and contaminants when field samples show they abound. Yes initial conditions are important, but in a young earth how do you explain that all the initial conditions would have to coincidentally include the specific daughter products for every isotope. That is an outlandish coincidence. If you disagree, don't criticize me, answer the point.

For your point 2, I keep saying we use a different radiometric dating using C14 because we find C14 is still present in the sample. If the sample was billions of years old, then the C14 would have all escaped. Thus, using radiometric dating is the wrong method when nothing is more than 6000 years old.

Again, read what the article I linked above says about science cannot show the age of the Earth.


"The age of the earth cannot be scientifically measured
wikipedia.org
7941isotope-ratio-ms.jpg

Mass spectrometers used for radio-isotope dating do not measure age. They measure isotope concentrations in the present. An ‘age’ can only be calculated after making a host of unprovable assumptions.
If the young age for the earth is so a vital for the Christian worldview, what evidence did David Cohen give for accepting billions of years? John Dickson asked him that, “How do we know that it is that old?”

Cohen replied that the age of the earth is not a matter of opinion. “What we rely on are objective age dating methods mostly using radioactive isotopes for which there are a series of independent radioactive clocks which are sitting there ticking away in the rocks that we date.”

But the dating methods are not objective. Sure the measurements are objective but they are not measuring age. They are measuring the present composition of rock samples. David Cohen describes the equipment as “fairly-expensive bits of scientific devices”, which is true. With this equipment we are able to make highly precise measurements of isotopic abundances. But that is not an age. Before an age can be calculated the scientist must make a number of assumptions about the past—assumptions that cannot be checked.

John Dickson and David Cohen discussed one of these and dismissed it—the assumption that the radioactive decay rate has remained constant. Yet, there is evidence that the decay rate may have been different in the past.Radioactivity and the Age of the Earth, Volume 2, ICR and CRS, 2009.">6

However, there are lots of other assumptions that need to be made before a date can be calculated, and these have proven to be far more problematical. We have to assume further 1) the condition when the sample became a closed system, 2) the concentration of isotopes in the sample at that time, and 3) the sample has not gained or lost any daughter or parent isotope in all that time. How, for example, can we know the isotopic composition of a rock sample in the past?

No one can ever know if all those assumptions are valid
So, dating a rock is not straightforward as David Cohen implies. He says, “We go and collect a sample and we measure the amount of parent and daughter material” and “with a series of fairly simple calculations determine the age date of the rock.” The only problem is that no one can ever know if all those assumptions are valid for that sample.

What really happens is that when a geologist collects the sample of rock, he is very careful to record the exact place he collected it from. He maps the location of all the other rocks in the area as well as details such as faults, intrusions, folding, metamorphism, etc. He does this so he can place his sample in context, that is, so he can understand the geological history of the area and where his sample fits into that history.

He is also careful to collect a sample that is fresh, without sign of alteration or disturbance at some later time. He also checks the condition of his sample later under the microscope to try to ensure that his sample has not been affected by later geological events. If all is OK he has the sample analyzed.

Then, after he receives the analysis from the radio-isotope laboratory he will calculate the age with the “series of fairly simple calculations” (although these are not so simple for many methods).

But there is one problem that won’t go away. How can he be sure that the assumptions he used for his calculations are correct? So the process does not stop there. He moves onto what is called the interpretation phase. He must interpret his result, which means changing his assumptions about the past to make his result consistent with other information.

In the interpretation phase he compares the age he calculated with the ages of the other rocks in the area. There are a number of standard explanations that he can use to explain his result. So, no matter what the calculated age turns out to be, he can invent a story that explains it within the big picture worldview of evolution over billions of years. (See How dating methods work and The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating.) In other words, radioactive dating is not objective but subjective—subject to the secular long-age worldview. Radioactive dates always fit into what is already believed.

It turns out that discrepancies are common and dating methods are not self checking. Geologists often disagree on which dates are ‘good’. Advancements in the technology used for measuring radio-isotopes have not improved the accuracy of the dates but expanded the list of rationalizations for unwelcome dates. See The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods for an incisive critique of the dating enterprise, or Once upon a time … for a review.

The only way that we can reliably know the age of anything is by the historical method. I know my age to the nearest day by this method. My birth certificate has my date of birth as recorded by eyewitnesses. We know when Napoleon lived by the same method. And the Bible uses the historical method too. The genealogies, such as in Genesis 5 and 11 and believed by New Testament writers, record the ages of people in history such as Abraham, Terah, Noah, Seth and Adam. From these we can derive the true age of the earth.

A billion-year earth comes from non-biblical assumptions
The idea of an old earth was not a discovery of radioactive dating. An old earth was popular in the early 1800s, long before the phenomenon of radioactivity was even known. The need for billions of years is a consequence of assuming that past geological processes were always similar to what is happening today—the assumption of uniformitarianism. It’s an assumption that denies the global Flood recorded in the Bible. With this assumption we need an earth billions-of-years old, one that has no vestige of a beginning, no sign of an end. In other words, a non biblical assumption leads to a non-biblical conclusion. All the radio-isotope dates have been interpreted such that they are consistent with this philosophy.

It is worth clarifying that the secular age for the earth of 4.6 billion years was not determined by radioactive dating earth rocks, as viewers may have imagined from watching the interview. The age of 4.55 billion years was first published by Clair Patterson in the mid 1950s after analyzing the isotopes in certain meteorites. Meteorites! What have meteorites to do with the age of the earth?

Patterson assumed that the meteorites he selected were left-over fragments from the solar nebula that condensed to form the sun, the earth and the planets. How did he know that? He didn’t. That is the standard secular creation story and he just assumed it to be true. So the age he published was not an objective measurement but required a host of assumptions, none of which can be independently verified, including the nebula hypothesis for the formation of the solar system which has insurmountable problems (see Another puzzle in the evolutionary story for the origin of the solar system).

A.A. Holmes, one of the pioneers of radio-isotope dating methods, was not enthusiastic about Patterson’s method:

“ … to use the isotopic composition of lead from iron meteorites as part of the basic data for calculating the age of the earth or its crust, is unsound in principle … the correct procedure is to use terrestrial materials.”The Dating Game: One Man’s Search for the Age of the Earth, Cambridge University Press, p. 227, 2000.">7
The problem that Holmes had with the method was obvious, as spelled out by a biographer:

“If there was no genetic relationship and the Earth and meteorites had not formed at the same time from the same material, then the primeval lead of meteorites would not be that of the Earth; thus there would be no point of trying to determine the age of Earth from meteorites, and everyone would be back to square one.”8
So, although the 4.6-billion-year age for the earth is widely quoted it is not an objective measurement. Furthermore, there is no unequivocal support for the age as John Woodmorappe shows in The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, pp. 24–26.

Another evidence David Cohen gave for the age of the earth was the movement of the continents—plate tectonics. He said that the rate at which continents are moving can be measured precisely today. That may be so, but have the continents always moved at these rates? What did Noah’s Flood, as described in the Bible (Genesis 6–9), do to the movement of the earth’s crust? The strength properties of the rock comprising the earth’s mantle have characteristics that could, under certain conditions, lead to a runaway subduction of the oceanic crust.Probing Earth’s deep places.">9 This means the earth’s plates would have moved very quickly. The rates measured today are the left-over movement from the much faster event in the past.

Many scientists believe the earth is young
Before Christians accept that the earth is billions of years old instead of the biblical 6,000 they would need to be confident the scientists are correct. That might have been why John Dickson asked David Cohen whether there was any dispute in the peer-reviewed literature. Dickson asked, “Are people still arguing that the earth is about 6,000 to 10,000 years old?”

David Cohen’s replied, “I would say there are no professional scientists now for whom that is an issue which is being debated. Many of the people I speak to, Christian, non-Christian, atheist, agnostic or don’t-care-anyway. There is 100% agreement on things like the plate tectonic model, rates of movement, and the use of these age dating techniques indicative of an earth that is 6 billion [sic] rather than 6,000 years old.”

This statement is wrong. There are many scientists who do not agree with the billion-year age of the earth. Perhaps Cohen has not spoken to any or read any of their work. It could be that his experience has been confined to the secular-university environment and the mainstream scientific journals, and that he is not aware of them.

However, many professional scientists reject evolution over millions of years. The book In Six Days features fifty Ph.D. scientists who each wrote a chapter, without collaboration, telling why they hold to literal creation.In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, Master Books, Green Forest, AZ, 2001. (Available on-line: In Six Days)">10 Every issue of Creation magazine (four every year) features an interview with a professional Ph.D. scientist who believes the earth is young.The Genesis Files, Master Books, Green Forest, AZ, 2004.">11 Many creationist scientists are researching the biblical worldview and publishing in creationist peer-reviewed literature such as Journal of Creation (published since 1984), the Creation Research Society Quarterly (published since 1964) and the International Conference on Creationism (meeting every 4 years since 1986).

Some may object that these do not count because they are creationist publications. So, do any scientists who believe in a young earth ever publish in the mainstream scientific literature? Yes, lots. But they are not free to discuss their findings from a biblical perspective or make mention of the fact that they are creationist. This is because of strident censorship and discrimination within secular circles. The DVD Expelled reveals something of this alarming situation in the west where the theistic worldview has been forcibly shut down. Slaughter of the Dissidents by Jerry Bergman presents case histories of scientists whose careers were terminated because of their belief in creation. These are just the tip of the iceberg.

The theological cost of accepting long ages is too great
Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world, states the issue plainly in a blog entry of 1 February 2011.

“The debate over Darwinism rages on, with almost every week bringing a new salvo in the Great Controversy. The reason for this is simple and straightforward—naturalistic evolution is the great intellectual rival to Christianity in the Western world. It is the creation myth of the secular elites and their intellectual weapon of choice in public debate.”
What is most lacking in the evangelical movement today is a consideration of the theological cost of holding to an old-earth position.
Rather than seeing evolution over millions of years as a scientific fact that the church needs to embrace, Mohler sees it for what it is: a philosophy opposed to the biblical creator God and the Gospel (2 Corinthians 10:5). And he sees that the church is yet to mount an adequate response to the challenge, saying that what is most lacking in the evangelical movement today is a consideration of the theological cost of holding to an old-earth position. He rightly recognizes that position is on an insoluble collision with the redemptive historical narrative of the Gospel.

Mohler issued a warning: “The cost to the Christian church, in terms of ignoring this question or abandoning the discussion, is just too high. The cost of confronting this question is also costly … because it can create intensity and conflict and controversy, but I would suggest that the avoidance of this will be at the cost of our own credibility.”

The producers of God Science have made an impressive DVD with an array of world-class interviews. But why tell Christians that we must surrender to evolution and millions of years? Why tell people that when the Bible speaks of six-days 6,000 years ago it does not really mean what it plainly says? To accept the words of scientists when they so plainly contradict Scripture is an approach that will bring disaster upon the church. Where do you suggest we should stand when we depart from our biblical foundation? It is time to question the ‘science’. Let’s talk about this issue.

Transcript from ‘God Science’
Interview with Dr David Cohen: The Age of the Earth

[John Dickson] Dr David Cohen is the Head of the School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. He’s a geochemist with years of experience working in Australia, Asia and North America. He knows a lot about rocks and soil and the makeup of the planet generally, so I began by asking him, “How old is the earth?”

[David Cohen] The earth is about 6 [sic] billion years old and in Australia we’ve got some of the oldest rocks, just over 4 billion years.

[John Dickson] These are big numbers now. How do we know that it is that old?

[David Cohen] Let’s just say, looking at it, it is hard to get a feel but we don’t have to rely on that. What we rely on are objective age dating methods mostly using radioactive isotopes for which there are a series of independent radioactive clocks which are sitting there ticking away in the rocks that we date.

[John Dickson] Can you explain that for me?

[David Cohen] Yes.

[John Dickson] Are there actually little clocks that I can find if I look close enough?

[David Cohen] If you’ve got certain fairly-expensive bits of scientific device to make the measurements. There are some elements which are radioactive. Some of the more famous ones, uranium, which we know from the rise of the nuclear issues in the middle part of the last century. Every now and then these atoms undergo a spontaneous decay and the rate at which they decay as a group follows a very predictable mathematical form. So the parent radioactive isotope is decaying and producing stable daughters. So we go and collect a sample and we measure the amount of parent and daughter material. We can go back with a series of fairly simple calculations and determine the age date of the rock.

[John Dickson] Yes, but some of my friends who would insist on a much younger earth would say, “That assumes that the rate of decay is the same and we don’t know that because we have only been here for a little blip of that time.” How does a scientist respond to that?

[David Cohen] Yes, I agree that this is one of the assumptions that we make with observations in the modern era that things like radioactive decay have not changed significantly over time. And that goes for a number of other physical constants, things like the speed of light. So we use that assumption and there is no evidence that there has been any change in decay rates. So we might look at packages of rocks going from the bottom to the top. You get a fairly constant change in age date which would indicate that the rates have not changed significantly.

[John Dickson] Does the movement of the continents help us to understand the age of the earth as well, the rate at which they are moving?

[David Cohen] Oh, very much so. And if we look at some of that data such as the rate at which Australia has been moving away from Antarctica, the rate at which India has been moving north, the rate at which South America and Africa have been pulling apart from each other. If we look at those rates, and they can be determined very accurately with things like imagery from space or surveying places where the continents are coming together, pulling apart or sliding past each other. Of course at places like San Andreas they are quite interested to know the rate at which bits of crust are going past each other because of the danger which that poses for people living there. If we look at those rates; we compare the modern era of measurement; it would indicate that we are moving away from the Antarctic at the rate of about 7cm per year. If we then go and join Australia back up with the Antarctic it would indicate that the breakup occurred about 56 million years ago. If you look at the age of the oceanic crust which is created using the various age dating techniques you get roughly the same number so you’ve got two independent bits of information which agree on roughly the same date within the normal bounds of scientific estimation and uncertainty.

[John Dickson] Is there any dispute about this in the literature, in the peer-reviewed literature? I mean some people are still arguing that the earth is about 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

[David Cohen] I would say there are no professional scientists now for whom that is an issue which is being debated. Many of the people I speak to, Christian, non-Christian, atheist, agnostic or don’t-care-anyway. There is 100% agreement on things like the plate tectonic model, rates of movement, and the use of these age dating techniques indicative of an earth that is 6 billion [sic] rather than 6,000 years old.

[John Dickson] So do you see any connection between the rigorous science and your Christian faith at all?

[David Cohen] Yes. In the development of scientific models and you can look at the evolutionary models based on observations that Darwin kicked off and have now been progressed with modern DNA techniques, genomics and the like, or in geology the plate tectonic model which underpins just about all our understanding of the evolution of the earth. These models are complicated but they are beautifully interlinked. The mass of evidence from both of these models is overwhelming. There are some linkages in these models that are not so well developed or on which we are not happy with the explanation.

[John Dickson] There are gaps in the theory then?

[David Cohen] There are gaps as well. And as a scientist that is good otherwise we would be unemployed. I look at Christianity and by similar argument I see a way of thinking a series of events interpretation closely interlinked with a very coherent structure for which there are still gaps in the model. We are still trying to understand aspects of what the Bible is trying to say to us or how we should respond to it. There are certain gaps in our understanding that we are still trying to fill. Trying to understand the nature of the Trinity is a very complicated thing for Christians. However these models hang together. It would be very difficult at this stage to say, “Oh, by removing one little link in the theory of evolution or in our understanding of the Christian gospels that the entire model of the Gospel collapses.” That is not the case.

[John Dickson] Thank you very much.

Related Articles
Further Reading
References
  1. Letter to James Croll, 31 January 1869, The correspondence of Charles Darwin, volume 17: 1869, edited by Frederick Burkhardt, James A. Secord, Sheila Ann Dean, Samantha Evans, Shelley Innes, Alison M. Pearn, Paul White, Cambridge University Press, 2009, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/correspondence-volume-17. Return to text.
  2. The Bible does not state the age of the earth in a single verse but it is a simple matter to calculate it from the genealogies detailed in places like Genesis 5 and 11. There is general agreement that this approach leads to creation taking place about 6,000 years ago (see Appendix B-The Forgotten Archbishop). Return to text.
  3. Carl Sagan, Contact, Pocket Books (Simon & Schuster, Inc.), New York, 1985. Return to text.
  4. Rev Charles Kingsley, Anglican clergyman and supporter of Darwin wrote: ‘The Black People of Australia, exactly the same race as the African Negro, cannot take in the Gospel … All attempts to bring them to a knowledge of the true God have as yet failed utterly … Poor brutes in human shape … they must perish off the face of the earth like brute beasts.’ (Darwin’s quisling (Charles Kingsley)). Return to text.
  5. ABC TV Compass interview with Bishop John Shelby Spong, by Geraldine Doogue, in front of a live audience at the Eugene Groosen Hall, ABC Studios, Ultimo, Sydney, Australia, 8 July 2000. Copied from transcript at <www.abc.net.au/compass/intervs/spong2001.htm>, 6 August 2001. Return to text.
  6. Snelling, A.A.(ed), Radioactivity and the Age of the Earth, Volume 2, ICR and CRS, 2009. Return to text.
  7. Lewis, C., The Dating Game: One Man’s Search for the Age of the Earth, Cambridge University Press, p. 227, 2000. Return to text.
  8. Lewis, ref. 5, p. 225. Return to text.
  9. Baumgardner, J., Runaway subduction, ICC, 1994. See also: Probing Earth’s deep places. Return to text.
  10. Ashton, J.F., In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, Master Books, Green Forest, AZ, 2001. (Available on-line: In Six Days) Return to text.
  11. 22 of these interviews have been reproduced in, Wieland, C., The Genesis Files, Master Books, Green Forest, AZ, 2004. Return to text."
Again, I was not aware of the above article until now. It makes me feel good that what I have been saying is acknowledged somewhere in the creation science world. These are statements I came to realize after comparing the two sides. Thus, I can say with 100% certainty that we will not find any aliens, not even a microbe because evolution does not happen, did not happen, and that its science is wrong. I'm 66% certain that we will not become multi-planetary. We will not be able to live anywhere else besides Earth. This is why I wanted to discuss with you Stephen Hawking's book A Brief History of Time. He says things that are just wrong from what the Bible theory states such as being able to go back in time. That is impossible. He discusses things like infinite density and infinite temperature like it can exist. It can't. Mathematics will not allow it. Creation scientists know this, so why this book is able to get published as a science book is a mystery.
 
Last edited:
james bond , well you had your say. A lot of it is biblical based which is not creation science. It seems that this discussion has stagnated and is now replete with repetition. I will summarize my position here. I focus on radiological dating and astronomical observations because they are more quantitative than most things YEC likes to focus on. Some of these points you have already attempted to counter. Some you have completely ignored.

Radiocarbon dating of the earth
RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination?
The measurements were affected by contamination in situ, contamination in chemistry prep, and instrument background.
Unanswered questions: why do some anthracite and diamonds have no measurable radiocarbon?
Why is C14 presence so variable than other materials?
Why is C14 found in bone carbonates but not in collagen from the same bone?
Why does unprocessed diamond have less intrinsic radiocarbon than processed diamond?
The evidence falsifies the RATE claim that “all carbon in the earth contains a detectable and reproducible ... level of 14C

Long half life isotopes
U/Pb
Source: wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium–lead_dating
This shows why lead contamination is a non issue.
The method is usually applied to zircon. This mineral incorporates uranium and thorium atoms into its crystal structure, but strongly rejects lead when forming. As a result, newly-formed zircon deposits will contain no lead, meaning that any lead found in the mineral is radiogenic.

Rh/Os
Source: Tiny Inclusions Reveal Diamond Age and Earth’s History: Research at the Carnegie Institution | Research & News
Dr. Steven Shirey tested diamonds world wide. All diamonds had dates in the millions to billions of years. There is little chance that there is contamination of the very rare Osmium daughter in all diamond inclusions for every diamond at every one of the widespread sites.

Meteorites
Patterson found the age of a meteorite using uranium embedded in zircon crystals. There was controversy that at first there was too much lead. Patterson realized that and built a clean room and was successful. There is controversy that the age, 4.54±0.05 billion years, is the age of the earth, but at least it is the age at some time during the formation of the solar system. Creationists neglect referring to the revised meteor dating.

YEC means no daughter products
If the age of the earth were 6000 years old, there would be absolutely no measurable daughter products in any of the long life time isotopes.

This site gives 33 reasons against a young earth.
Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki
There are many different variations of the radiometric dating technique such as radiocarbon, argon-argon, iodine-xenon, lanthanum-barium, lead-lead, lutetium-hafnium, neon-neon, potassium-argon, rhenium-osmium, rubidium-strontium, samarium-neodymium, uranium-lead, uranium-lead-helium, uranium-thorium, and uranium-uranium, of which every single one will date objects far older than 10,000 years.

Age of universe
The red shift of galaxies indicates an expanding universe. The speeds along with the distance can be combined and result in the Hubble constant. The Hubble constant can be extrapolated and results in the age of the universe to be many billions of years old.

The distance of the galaxies alone are measured in millions to billions of light years and indicates an old universe. There is no creationist theory that can squeeze this to 6000 years.

To attempt to justify a 6000 year life, creationists want to change things like the speed of light or theorize a nonlinear concept of time itself. This creates contradictions with observations and destroys all basic physics as it stands. Creationists have offered no replacement for the physics.

Bottom line
If people want to believe YEC so be it. But it simply can't be justified by well validated basic physics. Creationists have yet to develop their alternate science. At this point creation science is not science.

.
 
Gale's paper has nothing to do with contamination lol.
I know that he was concerned that the ratios of isotopes were the ones found in nature. I already told you that the problem was contamination and gave a reference a few pages back. You must have forgotten. I'm to lazy to find that same reference, so here is another. According to this site the real problem was contamination

Clair Cameron Patterson and the exact Age of the Earth

Contaminated Samples
Patterson quickly became aware that his lead samples were being contaminated. After six years together with his colleague George Tilton he did publish a paper on methods of determining the ages of zircon crystals and Patterson did achieve his Ph.D., but they did not succeed to determine the age of the Earth.

Correctly Dating the Earth
With a grant from the United States Atomic Energy Commission Brown was able to continue work on dating the Earth as well as to commission a new mass spectrometer at Caltech. In 1953, Patterson joined Brown at Caltech, where he was able to build his own lab from scratch. In it he secured all points of entry for air and other contaminants. Patterson also acid cleaned all apparatuses and even distilled all of his chemicals shipped to him. In essence, he created one of the first clean rooms ever, in order to prevent lead contamination of his data. He then was able to finish his work with the Canyon Diablo meteorite and collected data of the contained lead isotopes, which in 1956 resulted in “Age of Meteorites and the Earth”, the first paper containing the true age of the solar system’s accretion, which was 4,550 million years (give or take 70 million years). At the time of this writing, this number still stands.

No, it was not just collagen and I just showed you. What do you have to back up your claim?
I already gave you a link pages ago. You must have forgotten. Here is another reference. My other reference did not mention skin cells, which are now being looked at among other speculations on preservation.

https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
Then, in 2007, Schweitzer and her colleagues analyzed the chemistry of the T. rex proteins. They found the proteins really did come from dinosaur soft tissue. The tissue was collagen, they reported in the journal Science, and it shared similarities with bird collagen

The obvious question, though, was how soft, pliable tissue could survive for millions of years. In a new study published today (Nov. 26) in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Schweitzer thinks she has the answer: Iron.

After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.

"The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots," Schweitzer said. "They basically act like formaldehyde."

Formaldehyde, of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay.

That's what I told you; iron causes cross-linking. Read the site there is other information.

I didn't think so. You have no credentials and have lost credibility with me.
I already told you I'm in physics not geology. You must have forgotten. Are you a geologist with credentials?


Again, what do you have to back up your opinion?
I am the only one backing up my statements.
Read Snelling's paper again. His statements on fractionation and diffusion are opinion. He did not back up his opinion. He suggests that experiments should be done, to back up his opinion, and I agree. I even suggested one on fractionation.


Diffusion in a homogeneous system doesn't change the homogeneity. (No I'm not going to find a reference on that. It's just common sense.)

I'm sorry. You are weak on physics and I should back up every statement that can otherwise be inferred from common physics knowledge. Much of the sites you reference are conjecture that is not backed up. For example your reference to Dr. Jason Lisle was full of weird ideas prefaced by "maybe" and "perhaps". All creationist opinion. I didn't give references to back up my critique of Lisle, I said how they they are self contradictory with the rest of physics, and Lisle, a physicist, did not provide any justification for his ponderings.

"For Uranium-Lead dating to work, scientists have to make three assumptions. These assumptions are that the system being dated is a closed system; at the beginning of the time period, there are no daughter isotopes present; and the rate of radioactive decay stays the same through the whole time period."...
.... I've already gone over why it doesn't work such as not a closed system, daughter isotopes are present, and the rate of decay changed over time. You even went to included diamonds.
I agree that all systems U/Pb, Ar/Ar, Rh/Os, etc should be examined to make sure they are closed and uncontaminated. That is obvious. They try. You keep on harping on it. But creationists drop those criteria that we all agree on when it comes to diamonds and coal dating using C14. Why? It's obvious why. I have said that several times. They are biased and dearly want C14 dating to prove a young earth.

The one thing I really object to is their supposition that the decay rate of any isotope may change over time. There is absolutely no physical reason for the half life to change. No reason was given by any creationist. A real creation “scientist” would form a hypothesis or theory of exactly how the rate changes over time. They would have the mathematics to show what their presumed decay rate was 6000 years ago and how it gradually or suddenly changed to today's value of millions of years. They didn't; so it's not science. You keep getting your ideas from creationist sites. Try to branch out. I have read practically all the creation sites you referenced and I'm not impressed with how they work their bias.

If there are other statements I made that you think need references, let me know.

.


super triggered
 
Too much babbling and no one of these guys can even respond why the age of a meteor is different than the age of earth using their good for nothing radiometric toy.

So many "experts" in copy and paste but unfortunately these experts can't think.

It was a TV show where participants were to sing, make magic tricks, and etc in order to wing a prize. In one of these shows, a little 8 years old boy was capable to respond any question taken from any encyclopedia, books at the level of household owners, of course.

The boy was winning the contests every week. His name started to appear in the local news. It was exactly the same than the pages used in this thread talking of isotopes which no one here have ever observed in their miserable lives, but that were the center of attraction in here.

But one day, a smart guy rose up his hand to ask a question to the boy.

What it could happen if the river XXXXX comes out of its course and floods the southern area of the city?

A question just to give some probabilities or estimate of the damage.

The boy stop smiling and stayed quiet for more than a minute. After that his face turned into sadness and he started to cry like a three years old boy after his balloon went lose to the air. The program passed to commercials and no one knew about that boy anymore.

Same as well, giving me the right answer to my question in bold letters from above will make you to threw by yourselves all of your former pages full of nonsense to the trash.

Because if you were to think before writing, actually your messages should be empty.

The Nobel Prize was rightly given to the one who managed to perceive assumed planets in other solar systems. The whole rest is just garbage.
 

Forum List

Back
Top