Radiometric Dating: Back to Basics (does it really prove the Earth is millions of years old?)

Answers Magazine ^ | June 17, 2009 | Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.

[GodGunsGuts]

Radiometric dating is often used to “prove” rocks are millions of years old. Once you understand the basic science, however, you can see how wrong assumptions lead to incorrect dates.

Most people think that radioactive dating has proven the earth is billions of years old. After all, textbooks, media, and museums glibly present ages of millions of years as fact.

Yet few people know how radiometric dating works or bother to ask what assumptions drive the conclusions. So let’s take a closer look and see how reliable this dating method really is...

[Dr. I. C. Spots]

they don't use rocks to propel navy subs,... that sub was developed based on known standards and mathematical processes that do not change and have been proven, not assumed.

[tacticalogic]

Now, let’s say you have an environment that is still sealed but another scientist comes in and, not realizing you’re in the middle of something, adds or removes flies or maggots? Then, when you try to apply your knowledge about exponential growth/decay you will get erroneous conclusions.

And every time you repeat this experiment some other scientist comes in and does the same thing, so that you keep getting the same erroneous results over and over again?

[Minn]

Unreviewed articles are nothing more than musings designed to deceive.

Has that assertion of yours been peer reviewed?

[Natufian]

Indeed. Here´s a good one....

http://answersincreation.org/varves.htm

[GourmetDan]

"I'll stand by my original statement. If the decay slows down, the reaction doesn't produce enough power - power is also time based. If it speeds up it will melt the containment - the cooling systems that keep it from doing this are equally time based, being dependent on how much coolant they can move through the system and as a direct function how much heat they can remove in a given amount of time."

Again, you are assuming that radioactive decay energies are variable in dynamic time. That may not be the case but the method used to measure time prevents that from being measured. That was the point of post #27.

Ignoring the truth doesn't help.

[Buck W.]

Yes—it is unimpeachably brilliant.
If you’re satisfied with unreviewed scientific articles, then I thank God that this field of endeavor remains untaught in school.

[OneWingedShark]

There’s also an assumption here that TIME flows constantly and consistently... it might not, and the theory of relativity (and what we’ve been able to verify of it) suggests that is not the case.

[xcamel]

Complete christian refutation of the entire series, by Dr. Roger C. Wiens

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Saving GGG the bother of posting thre rest of the bravo-siera

[GourmetDan]

"If the rate of decay has changed, how does that sync with Romans 1:20. Also, if the rate of decay was much greater, how where Adam, Noah, Moses, etc not fried by the radiation? We have isotopes that have fast decay rates and we can see what happens with those in regards to living beings."

Again, this argument assumes that radioactive decay energies are variable in dynamic time. If they are constant in dynamic time and/or related to the ZPE, then nobody got fried.

This is the point of editor-surveyor's post #27.

[tacticalogic]

they don't use rocks to propel navy subs,... that sub was developed based on known standards and mathematical processes that do not change and have been proven, not assumed.

The decay of the uranium and the resulting energy it releases in the core is one of those "known standards". The article is arguing that there is no rational basis to assume that is constant, which means it's challenging the validity of that standard.

[mnehring]

Except dynamic time, (as well as dynamic physics, etc) clash with Romans 1:20.

[tacticalogic]

That may not be the case but the method used to measure time prevents that from being measured. That was the point of post #27.

Then we have just as much evidence to support that as we do to support the assertion that the decay rate varies.

[GourmetDan]

“All of metrology uses certain assumptions”.

"This is a false statement."

"Unless I have a rock that I know is 1 million years old then how can I accurately date anything to a million years? Without a known standard, anything else is guess work."

I think you just proved his point rather than falsifying it.

[GourmetDan]

"Then we have just as much evidence to support that as we do to support the assertion that the decay rate varies."

Wrong.

Dynamic time is measured separately from radiometric time.

That was the point of post #27.

[tacticalogic]

Dynamic time is measured separately from radiometric time.

How exactly is dynamic time measured?

[GourmetDan]

"Except dynamic time, (as well as dynamic physics, etc) clash with Romans 1:20."

Dynamic time is the only definition of time that there was at the time Rom 1:20 was written.

How can it clash?

[GourmetDan]

"How exactly is dynamic time measured?"

Astronomically

[xcamel]

exactly how long is "God's Day" in 'Dynamic time"?

[GourmetDan]

"exactly how long is "God's Day" in 'Dynamic time"?"

'ereb boqer 'echad yowm

[OneWingedShark]

>And every time you repeat this experiment some other scientist comes in and does the same thing, so that you keep getting the same erroneous results over and over again?

No. That’s not what I’m saying; look you can take different samples from the same fossil, test them separately, and get varying results.

The assumption here is that your “sealed environment” is not tampered with (or unsealed, as case may be). If there is a way for you to gain or lose maggots or flies, either one then the system is not reliable.

Taking the WHOLE Earth as your sample would obviously give you different readings than some discrete portions. (ie rock age disparities) Even excluding extra-terrestrial samples, that rocks have different ages should be somewhat puzzling, after all,, all that mapper was present at planetary accretion, right?

So then, maybe we’re measuring more the exposure than the actual age of these items... which is not to say that the two aren’t linked. Maximum exposure for zero time would be the same as zero exposure for maximum time, but there would obviously be an relationship between the two.