Posted on 10/28/2013 8:45:36 AM PDT by fishtank
“an assumption, when dating methods are fallible.
most all fossils underwent partial decay or dehydration, thus no fresh blood.”
Again, you are engaging in using half truths and misrepresentations to propound and promote false statements and false conclusions.
Radiometric dataing methods were never supposed to be any less fallible than the scientific methods and employed and the scientists who employed them. Nonetheless, radiometric dating methods are based upon physical mechanisms that are observed to have definite time lapses. The margin for error is due principally to errors in observations of quantitification and qualification. Such errors in procedure no more invalidate the validity of the scientific principle than an erroneous chemical experiment would invalidate the existence of a common element like Carbon or Oxygen.
Furthermore, radiometric dating methods are much more than just mere assumptions. Radiometric dating is also backed by direct observations in some experiments. The more distant an object is in space, the longer it takes for the light or other electromagnetic energy emitted or reflected by the object to travel through space to be observed here on the Earth. By observing these ancient emissions of electromagnetic energy, direct observations of radioactive decay can be made and measured to establish radioactive decay rates at various stages of time going back billions of years in some instances. So, such radiometric dating can be directly observed and not just assumed from inferred principles.
Your use of “fresh blood” misrepresents and deceives insofar as the scientific papers were referring to evidence of the byproducts of decomposed blood in a fossil speciman and not to any form of “fresh blood.”
On the other had, there is no evidence of "species jumping" which is required for the theory of evolution. Even Darwin himself doubted this theory later in his life. Who cares whether Darwin believed it or not? The weight of evidence is more than a preponderance - it is rather "beyond a reasonable doubt" on the side of creation and against Darwinism.
Well that’s a relief. Don’t have to worry about those stupid electric fences not working.
This evolutionist will. Just show me the evidence for a non-natural cause.
What is "species jumping"? I've read a lot about evolution, and I've only ever heard the term as applied to diseases that started in one species and then infected another. Somehow I don't think that's what you mean.
Compare that with the more than abundant and robust evidence of intelligent design. No contest, Bro.
Compare that with the more than abundant and robust evidence of intelligent design. No contest, Bro.
There is plenty of evidence that a geographically isolated subpopulation of a species, after some time, can change so that it no longer interbreeds with the original population. That’s the scientific definition of a different species. So your claim that there’s no evidence of its happening is mistaken. Bro.
“Species jumping simply addresses the requirement that a particular species somehow “morphs” or “jumps” to form another species. There is no evidence of this happening even though it is absolutely required for evolution to be a viable theory.”
Your “species jumping” is fanciful nonsense, because that is not how speciation takes place at all. It appears you do not even understand the definition of the term, species, or why it is a subjective term when applied to individuals who are transitory between notional species.
“Compare that with the more than abundant and robust evidence of intelligent design. No contest, Bro.”
In your make believe world perhaps.
ping
When Walker was asked by an audience this question they have looked at him incredulously and said, “Starting time?” You cannot know how long the swimmer took unless you knew the time on the wristwatch when the race started. Without the starting time it is impossible to establish the time for the race. Note: Impossible.
Actually, knowing the starting time is still not enough. During the race you have to watch the swimmer and count how many laps he has swum so you know that he has done 1,500 metres. And you have to check to make sure he touches the edge at the end of each lap. Without these observations you cannot be sure that the time is valid. That is why you need at least two, sometimes three judges to measure the time of the race to the standard needed to enter the record books.
It would make no difference how accurate or high-tech the wristwatch was. You could talk about the tiny quartz crystal and the piezoelectric effect used to provide a stable time base for the electronic movement. You could describe the atomic workings of the quartz oscillator and how it resonates at a specific and highly stable frequency, and how this is used to accurately pace a timekeeping mechanism. But without reliable witnesses the accuracy of the watch makes no difference. You can only establish the time for the race if it was timed by two or more qualified eyewitnesses who observed the start, the progress and the finish.
This illustrates the whole problem with the radioactive dating of geological events. Those who promote the reliability of the method spend a lot of time impressing you with the details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc. But they omit discussion of the basic flaw in the method: you cannot measure the age of a rock using radioactive dating because you were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and you did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.
If you check this educational page by the US Geological Society you will see that they spend all their time talking about the technicalities of radioactive decay. But they do not even mention the basic problem that you cannot know the radioactive concentrations that existed in the rock in the past. In other words, the fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make. And that is what geologist do, they make up an assumed geological history for rock depending on the numbers that come from the geochronology lab (see Dating secrets).
Radiometric Dating – Is It Accurate? Written by: Paul Taylor Tags: Radiometric Dating
Radiometric dating is a much misunderstood phenomenon. Evolutionists often misunderstand the method, assuming it gives a definite age for tested samples. Creationists also often misunderstand it, claiming that the process is inaccurate. Radiometric Dating Is Not Inaccurate Perhaps a good place to start this article would be to affirm that radiometric dating is not inaccurate. It is certainly incorrect, and it is certainly based on wrong assumptions, but it is not inaccurate. What do I mean? How can something be accurate and yet wrong? To understand this point, we need to understand what exactly is being measured during a radiometric dating test. One thing that is not being directly measured is the actual age of the sample. No “Age-Meter” There is no “age-meter” that you can plug into a rock, giving an immediate read-out of the rock’s age. It needs to be remembered that observational science can only measure things in the here-and-now, in a manner which can be repeated. Historical science is concerned with trying to work out what may have happened in a one-off event in the past. Historical science is not capable of repetition, checking or peer‑review. The age of a rock sample falls under the heading of historical science, not observational science. So what do the observational scientists in the radiometric dating lab do? Radioactive isotopes are unstable and will decay into more stable isotopes of other elements. One common radiometric dating method is the Uranium-Lead method. This involves uranium isotopes with an atomic mass of 238. This is the most common form of uranium. It decays by a 14-step process into lead-206, which is stable. Each step involves the elimination of either an alpha or a beta particle. Therefore the process is:
Uranium Decay Equation Uranium Decay Equation
Each individual atom has a chance of decaying by this process. If you were able to examine just one atom, you would not know whether or not it would decay. The chance of it decaying is not definite, by human standards, and is similar to the chance of rolling a particular number on a dice. Although we cannot determine what will happen to an individual atom, we can determine what will happen to a few million atoms. This is similar to our dice analogy. We cannot tell what number we will roll in any one shake, but if we rolled 6,000 dice, the chances are very high that 1,000 of them would have landed on a six. One dice is unpredictable. Many dice follow a statistically predictable pattern. In the same way, one U-238 atom is unpredictable, but a sample containing many millions of U-238 atoms will be very predictable.
What happens statistically is that half of the available atoms will have decayed in a given period, specific to each radioactive species, called the half-life. For example, if element Aa had a half-life of 1 day and we had 1,000 lbs. of it on Monday, then we would have 500 lbs. on Tuesday, 250 lbs. (half of 500) on Wednesday and 125 lbs. on Thursday. By observing how fast U-238 decays into lead-206, we can calculate the half-life of U-238. This is a theoretical calculation, and we can therefore determine that the half-life of U-238 is 4.5 billion years. Remember that the half-life is a statistical measure. Granting that U-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years in no way negates the idea that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. A very common rock that contains U-238 is granite. If we look at some of the very small zircon crystals in granite, we can accurately measure how much U-238 and Pb-206 the crystal contains. In order to calculate the age of the rock, we need three other pieces of information: 1.We need to know how fast the U-238 turns into Pb-206. The half-life gives us this value, provided the half-life has never altered during the lifetime of the zircon crystal. 2.We need to know how much Pb-206 there was in the original rock. This is clearly impossible. It is usually assumed, without justification, that the original quantity of Pb-206 in the rock was zero. 3.We need to be sure that no lead compounds have been added to or taken away from the rock. Given that lead compounds are fairly soluble in water, this is something that we cannot be very sure of. Using the above assumptions, it is calculated that the zircon crystals have an age of about 1.5 billion years.
Based Upon Assumptions
The radioactive decay process above can be seen to produce 8 alpha-particles for each one atom of U-238. Each α-particle could gain new electrons and become an atom of helium. The rate of diffusion of helium from a zircon crustal can be measured. It turns out that this rate of diffusion of helium is compatible with the crystals being about 5,000 years old, not 1.5 billion years old. Although assumptions 2 and 3 are not provable, they actually seem very likely in this particular example. Therefore, it seems that the first assumption must be wrong1. Remember that we have already said that these experimenters are highly skilled. It is therefore unlikely that the laboratory technicians have made a mistake in their measurements of U-238 or Pb-206. The only possible conclusion, therefore, is that the half-life of U-238 has not been constant throughout the lifetime of the granite and its zircon crystals.
Other radiometric dating methods are based on similar assumptions. If the assumptions cannot be trusted, then the calculations based on them are unsound. It is for this reason that creationists question radiometric dating methods and do not accept their results. -Paul Taylor
Problems with Radiometric Dating
New ways of dating rocks are supposed to be able to give ages in the billions of years. These are the radiometric dating methods. Each of these methods is based upon the decay rate of certain elements. In one method, for instance, the element uranium-238 will break down into the element lead over a period of many years. The element that breaks down (in this case, uranium-238) is called the parent element. The element that is formed (in this case, lead) is called the daughter element. How long is this supposed to take? In the case of uranium and lead, the half-life is supposed to be 4.5 billion years. A half-life is simply the time that it takes half of a sample of the parent element to turn into the daughter element. For instance, if you have 50 ounces of uranium, then in 4.5 billion years you supposedly should have 25 ounces of uranium and about that many ounces of lead. Therefore, if you know the rate of decay for an element, once you measure the amount of the two elements in the rock sample, simple math should give you an age for the rock. However, there are certain things that scientists must assume in order for radiometric dating to work. Let’s look at those assumptions.
Assumption 1: The Rate of Decay has Always Been the Same
The first major assumption built into radiometric dating is the idea that the parent elements have decayed in the past at the exact same rate as they are decaying today. This idea has problems, because no one alive today knows what kind of environment existed in the distant past. We cannot claim to know how fast elements decayed in the past, because we have very little evidence to prove this idea (which is why it is an assumption). Let’s consider how badly this idea could alter the age of the Earth. Suppose you come upon a man who is cutting down trees in a forest. You watch him for an entire hour, and he cuts down only 1 tree. Then you count the number of trees he has cut—31 in all. If you assume that he has been cutting trees down at the same rate, then you calculate that he has chopped for 31 hours. However, when you talk to the man, he tells you that, earlier in the day when his ax was sharp and his stomach was full, he was cutting down 5 trees an hour; only in the last hour had he slacked off. With this information, you now understand that he worked for only seven hours, not 31. Claiming that the decay rates in the past were the same as they are now is an assumption that cannot be proven and should not be granted to those who want an age for the Earth measured in billions of years.
Assumption 2: Elements have not Been Affected by Outside Forces
Another assumption built into the radiometric dating methods is the idea that the elements have not been affected by outside forces. That means that no water has soaked through the sample and “carried away” some of the lead, or that none of the uranium had a chance to escape through holes in the rock. However, this is a huge assumption. How can a person claim that natural forces have not affected the elements in a rock for a period of billions of years? In 4.5 billion years, could it be slightly possible that water seeped through the sample and added or subtracted some lead or uranium? Furthermore, could there be an “outside chance” that some of the uranium seeped out of pores in the rock? If any rock were really 4.5 billion years old, no one in this world would have a clue what had or had not gone in or out of the rock over that vast amount of time. Once again, the assumption that certain rock samples are “closed systems” simply cannot be granted.
Assumption 3: No Daughter Element Existed at the Beginning
To date rocks using any radiometric dating system, a person must assume that the daughter element in the sample was not there in the beginning. However, that claim cannot be proven. Who is to say that the rock did not start out with 23 ounces of lead already in it? The lead could have been in the rock from the beginning (and so could the uranium). To illustrate this point, suppose you go to a swimming pool and find a hose that is pumping water into the pool at a rate of 100 gallons an hour. You discover that the pool has 3,000 gallons of water in it. You calculate that the hose must have been running for 30 hours. However, when you ask the owner of the pool how long she has been running the hose, she tells you that she has been running it for only 1 hour. Most of the water was already in the pool due to a heavy rain the night before. If you assumed that all the water came from the hose, your calculations would be way off—29 hours off to be exact. Assumption three, that no daughter element existed at the beginning, simply cannot be granted.
Another Problem with Radiometric Dating
In addition to the assumptions that are built into radiometric dating, another problem is that the different radiometric methods drastically disagree with one another at times. On occasion, the same sample of rock can be dated by the different methods, and the dates can differ by several hundred million years. Some rocks from Hawaii that were known to have formed about two hundred years ago rendered a date of 160 million to 3 billion years when dated by the potassium-argon method. Another time, the same basalt rock in Nigeria was given a date of 95 million years when dated by the potassium-argon method, and 750 million years when dated by the uranium-helium method. But what can you expect from dating methods that are based entirely on built-in assumptions? Anything is possible!
It is likely that other dating methods soon will be “discovered” that will give even older ages for the Earth. But each dating method that renders colossal numbers of years will be based on similar, unprovable assumptions. All around you, books, television, and radio are telling you that the Earth is billions of years old. This is nothing more than a trick to try and discredit the real history of the Earth as found in the Bible. Realizing that these vast ages of billions of years come from dating methods that are based upon incorrect assumptions will give you more confidence in the Bible. There never have been billions of years available for evolution. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright © 2006 Apologetics Press,
"This evolutionist will. Just show me the evidence for a non-natural cause....."
explain How Life came from non-life......
you have all day to think about it.
and yes, offer prove to support your claims.
An evolutionist sent me articles that show a process called ‘speciation’ in which animals can over time become a different species and are no longer able to breed with their ‘prior’ species. Whether this is true or not, it does not prove macro-evolution. In all of the examples that were sent to me, they became a different “species” alright, but they were still the same kind of animals. Whales were still whales; plants were still plants, etc. How does this show macro-evolution is true; that one animal can become a different type of animal given enough time? It doesn’t. This is begging the question. You must assume that small changes (micro-evolution) can lead to big changes (macro-evolution). Speciation is yet another example of micro-evolution, and the Bible provides for it. You would assume that if God made each animal after its kind, there would come a point after thousands of years of inbreeding within a species that, for instance, one breed of canine would not be able to breed with another breed of canine. “Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes and new traits as life is supposed to move from simple beginnings to ever more varied and complex forms (“molecules to man” or “fish to philosopher”). Suppose there are islands where varieties of flies that used to trade genes no longer interbreed. Is this evidence of evolution? No, exactly the opposite. Each variety resulting from reproductive isolation has a smaller gene pool than the original and a restricted ability to explore new environments with new trait combinations or to meet changes in its own environment. The long-term result? Extinction would be much more likely than evolution.”
aig
In your make believe world perhaps...”
facts are such ugly things to the evoulutionist
There is no good argument against Intelligent Design.
That just makes em’ mad!!!
“facts are such ugly things to the evoulutionist”
You’re making up fantasies and then misrepresenting them as facts and as science when they are nothing of the sort. Such deceptions are a violation of one or more of the Ten Commandments of the Bible.
New information, therefore it’s all crap and the Earth is 600 years old - formulaic.
which commandment?
On the other hand, you have to close your eyes and stop up your ears to try to avoid the evidence of intelligent design that is in you and all around you. As I said, no contest, Bro. The case would be thrown out of court and you might even be charged with frivolously wasting the court's time with such a contest, the evidence being so overwhelmingly lopsided.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.