Replies

Decay dating is a flawed system.

Not nearly as flawed as the idiotic anti-evolution arguments which are made against it... Such as:

First it is assumed that as the magma is mixed in the chamber before it is erupted out it is an equal mix all the materials are equal within the batch, every time it erupts.

No it isn't. Where did you "learn" this bit of stupidity?

Second there is not one that can prove that the dying magnetic field has an effect upon the decay rates of these radioactive elements.

ROFL! No one said that it does. Just how confused are you?

It has been said that the magnetic field fluctuates and is not dying,

...because there is massive and overwhelming evidence of that, plus it occurs according to the laws of physics, unlike the bizarre anti-evolution handwaving which tries to dream up fantasies to the contrary.

well if there is a mysterious energy source recharging the magnetic field

It doesn't take any "mysterious energy source", nor does the Earth's magnetic field fluctuate due to any kind of "recharging". We'll add basic physics and electromagnetism to the subjects which anti-evolutionists are entirely ignorant about.

then it must also recharge or slow the process or even speed the process.

Try again. No "recharging" is involved.

Not enough data to assume the age of the earth at billions of years

Uh huh. Sure. Keep believing that falsehood if it helps you cling to your cherished false beliefs about the age of the Earth. Meanwhile:

The Age of the Earth
The Earth is accepted by scientists to be around 4.5 billion years old. But how do they know the Earth is this old? Some of the lines of evidence for an ancient Earth are presented.

The Geological Time Scale
Few discussions in geology or evolution can occur without reference to geologic time. In this article, the standard time scale used by geologists is depicted and described. See also Niel Brandt's Evolutionary and Geological Timelines.

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale
Radiometric dating and stratigraphic principles are combined to establish the conventional geological time scale. Scientists apply these principles to date rocks, which can then be used to assign ages to fossils.

Changing Views of the History of the Earth
How did we go from thinking Earth was a young planet to the realization that it is ancient, with a four and a half billion year history?

Isochron Dating Methods
The isochron radiometric dating technique (and related ones) is widely used in isotope geology, and does not fall prey to many common creationist criticisms of radiometric dating. This essay introduces the technique and shows why it is so reliable.

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

Radiometeric Dating Does Work!
Are Radioactive Dating Methods Consistent With Each Other?
Consistent Radiometric dates
Breakthrough Made in Dating of the Geological Record
Formation of the Hawaiian Islands
How Old is the Earth: A Response to “Scientific” Creationism

when there is data the suggests a young universe.

No, there isn't, but there are a lot of creationist fallacies and misrepresentations along that line, such as some of the nonsense you try to pull here:

Saturn's rings are still unstable after billions of years.

Nope, sorry: Creationist Claim CE240: Saturn's Rings

Saturn and Jupiter still have enough heat left to measure that they lose heat faster than they gain it from the sun.

Yawn: Young-earth "proof" #10: Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly.

The sun is shrinking at a measurable rate.

So is the average IQ of young-Earthers: Young-earth "proof" #1: The sun is shrinking

The Shara grows at a measurable rate that suggests an age of approximately 4000 years.

Yeah, so? What does that prove about the age of the Earth itself? Oh, right, nothing -- there's a young desert on the old Earth. Young-earth "proof" #23: The Sahara desert is expanding

They studied the great coral reef after major destruction during WWII and learned it grew at a measurable rate that put it's age about 4000 years old.

Yeah, so? First, even a creationist should be able to see the fallacy of trying to use a growth rate which was measured "after major destruction" (i.e., at a time when the reef was repairing itself) in an attempt to guess what rate it might or might not grow at during times of equilibrium.

Second, the Earth is coming out of an ice age, obviously tropical creatures like corals are going to be springing up in areas that a few thousand years ago were too cold for them to have thrived in.

Finally, the same question applies here as to the Sahara item: Okay, so you've got a relatively young coral reef, what does this prove about the age of the Earth itself? Oh, right, nothing. So you've got a "young" coral on an old Earth. So? Big woop-de-doo. Corals don't live forever. Of COURSE they're going to be younger than the Earth they live on. Duh.

Say, just how simple-minded does someone have to be to be a young-Earther, and swallow these goofy "arguments"?

The oldest living tree is about 4000 years old.

See above. I can't believe how dumb these things are, and why you can't see their flaws yourself.

Hey, Einstein, the oldest living cat is about 20 years old -- does that mean the Earth can't be older than 20 years old?

The Niagara could only be approx 10000 years,

Yet again, you're trying, in an idiotic and obviously flawed manner, to figure the total age of the Earth by looking at ephemeral features on it which come and go, as the Earth and the things on it change due to erosion, climate change, limited lifespans, etc. Nice try. Hey, I have a gully in my back yard that's only about 2 years old -- quick, how old does that make the Earth?

less when you factor in the water receding from the Great Flood of Noah's day.

What flood would that be?

Problems with a Global Flood
"Polystrate" Fossils
Review of John Woodmorappe's "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study"
Dinosaur Prints in Coal
The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood
Is the Devonian Chattanooga Shale Really a Volcanic Ash-Fall Deposit?
Geology in Error?: The Lewis Thrust
Thrust Faults and the Lewis Overthrust
What Would We Expect to Find if the World had Flooded?
Problems with Walter Brown's Hydroplate Theory
Burrows in the Orkney Islands contradict the Global Flood
Why The Flood Can't Be Global
The Fish is Served With a Delicate Creamy Mercury Sauce
The Letter The Creation Research Society Quarterly Didn't Want You to See
Microfossil Stratigraphy Presents Problems for the Flood
Why Would the Flood Sort Animals by Cell Type?
Fleeing from the Flood
Isotopic Sorting and the Noah's Flood Model
Evidence from the Orkney Islands Against a Global Flood
While the Flood Rages, Termites Dig, Dinosaurs Dance and Cicadas Sing
More Nonsense on "TRUE.ORIGINS": Jonathan Sarfati's Support Of Flood Geology
Why Geology Shows Sedimentation to Be too Slow for a Global Flood
Creationist "Flood Geology" Versus Common Sense -- Or Reasons why "Flood Geology" was abandoned in the mid-1800s by Christian men of science

You'd really benefit from reading these, too, and actually learning something for a change:

Young Earth Index
Young Earth Book Reviews
How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
The Age of the Earth FAQs
Young Earth Creationism
Problems of Young-Earth Creationism (by a creationist!)
Supernovae, Supernova Remnants and Young Earth Creationism FAQ
Young Earth Creationism Links
http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/badgeology/youngearth/
Young-Earth Creationism and the Geology of the Grand Canyon
Anti-Creationism FAQ: Age of the Earth
Fallacies in Young Earth Creationistm

I can not answer for the one's who claim to believe in Jesus yet do not believe his word to be 100% true, we will all have to answer to God in the end.

And I can not answer for people who are under the bizarre notion that Jesus stated what the age of the Earth was.

I said,

First it is assumed that as the magma is mixed in the chamber before it is erupted out it is an equal mix all the materials are equal within the batch, every time it erupts.

You said,

No it isn't. Where did you "learn" this bit of stupidity?

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html

More Bad News for Radiometric Dating

Most scientists today believe that life has existed on the earth for billions of years. This belief in long ages for the earth and the existence of life is derived largely from radiometric dating. These long time periods are computed by measuring the ratio of daughter to parent substance in a rock and inferring an age based on this ratio. This age is computed under the assumption that the parent substance (say, uranium) gradually decays to the daughter substance (say, lead), so the higher the ratio of lead to uranium, the older the rock must be. Of course, there are many problems with such dating methods, such as parent or daughter substances entering or leaving the rock, as well as daughter product being present at the beginning.

Here I want to concentrate on another source of error, namely, processes that take place within magma chambers. To me it has been a real eye opener to see all the processes that are taking place and their potential influence on radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is largely done on rock that has formed from solidified lava. Lava (properly called magma before it erupts) fills large underground chambers called magma chambers. Most people are not aware of the many processes that take place in lava before it erupts and as it solidifies, processes that can have a tremendous influence on daughter to parent ratios. Such processes can cause the daughter product to be enriched relative to the parent, which would make the rock look older, or cause the parent to be enriched relative to the daughter, which would make the rock look younger. This calls the whole radiometric dating scheme into serious question.

Geologists assert that older dates are found deeper down in the geologic column, which they take as evidence that radiometric dating is giving true ages, since it is apparent that rocks that are deeper must be older. But even if it is true that older radiometric dates are found lower down in the geologic column, which is open to question, this can potentially be explained by processes occurring in magma chambers which cause the lava erupting earlier to appear older than the lava erupting later. Lava erupting earlier would come from the top of the magma chamber, and lava erupting later would come from lower down. A number of processes could cause the parent substance to be depleted at the top of the magma chamber, or the daughter product to be enriched, both of which would cause the lava erupting earlier to appear very old according to radiometric dating, and lava erupting later to appear younger.