Why Does Evolutionary Science Only Believe In Things In Which There Is No Evidence?

[james bond]

The decay rate for isotopes is a known value.

Yes, but the radiometric believers of long time make wrong assumptions of parent-daughter isotopes and their ratios leading to erroneous results.

Your " because I say so" claims are not convincing. I'm sure you can find some silly conspiracy theory on Creation.com to cut and paste, but those quacks are not a part of the relevant science community.

It's garbage in, garbage out. It happens with thought processes, science, computer programs, and the like.

 

[Hollie]

The decay rate for isotopes is a known value.

Yes, but the radiometric believers of long time make wrong assumptions of parent-daughter isotopes and their ratios leading to erroneous results.

Your " because I say so" claims are not convincing. I'm sure you can find some silly conspiracy theory on Creation.com to cut and paste, but those quacks are not a part of the relevant science community.

It's garbage in, garbage out. It happens with thought processes, science, computer programs, and the like.

Nothing in your screeching refutes the validity of established dating methods.

 

[Wuwei]

Yes, but the radiometric believers of long time make wrong assumptions of parent-daughter isotopes and their ratios leading to erroneous results.

I heard this before. What wrong assumptions do you think they make?

.

 

[james bond]

Yes, but the radiometric believers of long time make wrong assumptions of parent-daughter isotopes and their ratios leading to erroneous results.

I heard this before. What wrong assumptions do you think they make?

.

The biggest one is that assuming that on average decay rates have been constant. This is based on the radioactive materials having exponential decay. The exponential decay is an universal law of radioactive decay, so that is not in question; this is observed in experiments and in nature.

Where the error occurs is in the assumptions of initial amounts that somehow we know how much uranium was there at the beginning (when no one was there to measure) for uranium-lead dating. If all was considered uranium and no lead when no one could possibly measure it, the the samples would be too old. The scientists who recognized the problem used rocks that contained zircon or baddeleyite which contain uranium and strongly reject lead. Unfortunately, this was not the case for uranium-lead dating.

Another assumption was that the rate of decay was the same for long-time, i.e. hundreds of millions or billions of years. No one can observe this, but is based on exponential decay. The controversy is over how energy levels changed enormously over such long time. If energy levels changed drastically, then exponential decay would not hold. The secular scientists who believe in the big bang theory claim that there was infinite temperature and infinite density at the beginning. This defies the laws of physics. Then microseconds after there was cosmic expansion (also defies laws of physics), so how could the energy be the same over long-time? The creation scientists do not believe in a big bang occurring, so they make a similar argument, but for different reasons.

Then there are outside influences. For uranium-lead dating of the crystallization of magma, it remains a closed system until the uranium decays. Then it allows the lead to move. If the rock became heated, then that would affect the uranium-lead ratios. The assumption is that there was no outside influences such as large temperature changes or contamination.

 

[Wuwei]

...Where the error occurs is in the assumptions of initial amounts that somehow we know how much uranium was there at the beginning ....
...Another assumption was that the rate of decay was the same for long-time, i.e. hundreds of millions or billions of years. No one can observe this, but is based on exponential decay....

There are a number of other radiometric dating methods that are all quite different. You would have to find fault with all of them. Here are a few:

Alpha decay of samarium-147 to neodymium-143 with a half-life of 1.06 x 10^11 years

Electron capture or positron decay of potassium-40 to argon-40. Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.3 billion years​

Beta decay of rubidium-87 to strontium-87, with a half-life of 50 billion years

Decay of uranium-234 into thorium-230, which has a half-life of about 80,000 years.​

Electron capture and beta decay rates involve the "fine structure constant", alpha. The constant was measured by examining the spectral lines of distant stars and found to be no different than it is today.

If the physical constants involved in nuclear or atomic phenomena were to vary over the millennia, it would be quite obvious from the observation of distant galaxies. It doesn't take much of a change in the physical constants to radically change the nature or stability of stars or everyday substances. So it's not possible that radiometric methods are wrong because the physics was confirmed at galactic scales.

.

 

[james bond]

...Where the error occurs is in the assumptions of initial amounts that somehow we know how much uranium was there at the beginning ....
...Another assumption was that the rate of decay was the same for long-time, i.e. hundreds of millions or billions of years. No one can observe this, but is based on exponential decay....

There are a number of other radiometric dating methods that are all quite different. You would have to find fault with all of them. Here are a few:

Alpha decay of samarium-147 to neodymium-143 with a half-life of 1.06 x 10^11 years

Electron capture or positron decay of potassium-40 to argon-40. Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.3 billion years​

Beta decay of rubidium-87 to strontium-87, with a half-life of 50 billion years

Decay of uranium-234 into thorium-230, which has a half-life of about 80,000 years.​

Electron capture and beta decay rates involve the "fine structure constant", alpha. The constant was measured by examining the spectral lines of distant stars and found to be no different than it is today.

If the physical constants involved in nuclear or atomic phenomena were to vary over the millennia, it would be quite obvious from the observation of distant galaxies. It doesn't take much of a change in the physical constants to radically change the nature or stability of stars or everyday substances. So it's not possible that radiometric methods are wrong because the physics was confirmed at galactic scales.

.

I thought you were going for the others, but it has the same type of problems. Face it, the Earth and universe are not billions of years old. It means that secular/atheist scientists are wrong about their conclusions based on it being billions of year old like with magnetic field being a dynamo on Earth and other planets. The magnetic field is decaying like the battery in your phone and is observable to creation scientists, but the atheist ones are not convinced like you. Can it be recharged or kick started? We don't know, but we'll never try if you believe in dynamo.

 

[Wuwei]

I thought you were going for the others, but it has the same type of problems. Face it, the Earth and universe are not billions of years old. It means that secular/atheist scientists are wrong about their conclusions based on it being billions of year old like with magnetic field being a dynamo on Earth and other planets. The magnetic field is decaying like the battery in your phone and is observable to creation scientists, but the atheist ones are not convinced like you. Can it be recharged or kick started? We don't know, but we'll never try if you believe in dynamo.

All I was saying is that if you want to disbelieve one aspect of physics, there are consequences that permeate the entire field. You have to re-invent the entire field of physics and astronomy. There are too many physical observations that you would have to deny. Physics has nothing to do with religion. It is a mathematical model, or codification of observations.

.