Radiometric Dating is based only on assumptions and is not reliable [Spirituality & Religion]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUJ-PZ0nXNo]
Assumptions are truth.
Assumptions are truth.
61-69, M
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
Assumptions? Nah, study. Not cherry picking and anomaly hunting like YEC folks do but actual, honest study.
I know this is a lot more of a counter argument then you are prepared to challenge and i know you won't actually read it but i hope it will serve to expose people to the other side of this argument.
Additionally i challenge you to either respond meaningfully to this post if you find yourself able or, if not, to ignore it entirely.
_______________________________________________________________________
[u]A good "Natural Clock" has the following qualities[/u]:
[b]1) A known initial condition (assume physics different in past)
2) The process of decay occurs at a relatively constant rate
3) The condition is irreversible
4) A know final condition[/b]
This is what radiometric dating gives us and the age of the earth or specific deposits.
[b]1)[/b] This means that we observe only "parent" material and no "daughter" material.
As we know, certain elements (parent) naturally decay to become other elements (daughter) for example polonium into lead. Since we can observe and document in modern times the way in which daughter elements form from parent elements, we know conclusively whether or not we're looking at a parent material or a material in it's initial state.
Igneous rock is perfect for this because we can observe the parent state in complete absence of daughter state.
[b]2)[/b] We know that the rate of decay is constant because scientists have tried everything they can think of (including conditions that could never occur naturally) like temperature, pressure, gamma or x-ray radiation, magnetic fields etc to speed up or slow down the decay rate.
This has produced no appreciable result.
The rate of change is constant.
[b]3)[/b] This is a key quality because if the condition can be reversed then the material cannot be counted on as reliable. For example, metamorphic rock is useless as a natural clock because the conditions under which it forms can "reset" the known markers.
All the elements used in radiometric dating are taken from irreversible conditions
[b]4)[/b] A final condition means that we observe only daughter material of the kind we have already observed being produced via degradation from the parent material.
Example: we know through direct observation that Polonium-210 decays into Lead-206 so we know that when there is only lead-206 we are looking at a final condition.
So we can already see that the objections raised in this video are without merit.
Dr. Mason identifies the assumptions as:
[b]a) a constant rate of decay
b) there there is no initial instance of daughter element
c) that the element occurs in a closed system.[/b]
[u]Response[/u]:
[b]a)[/b] We know beyond a reasonable doubt that the rate of decay is constant for the reasons stated above.
[b]b)[/b] We know that a daughter element can only exist after the parent element and to say otherwise is simply to abandon science and claim miraculous creation. That's fine if you want to do that but you then surrender the credibility of science.
Dr. Mason dishonestly attempts to invalidate this assumption by using inappropriate examples like lava which of course have not reach the point of a closed system so of course the levels of parent/daughter elements are not stable.
[b]c)[/b] The closed or open nature of the system can be tested for and certain events close the system (eg> crystallization). From that point on we observe that no new elements can be introduced or removed.
[i][b]Tl;dr Dr. Mason uses inappropriate examples and mines for results which are anomalous amongst the [u]thousands[/u] of consistent results from around the world and holds them up as if the anomalies are necessarily the true results because his faith demands it and is paycheck counts it.[/b][/i]
I know this is a lot more of a counter argument then you are prepared to challenge and i know you won't actually read it but i hope it will serve to expose people to the other side of this argument.
Additionally i challenge you to either respond meaningfully to this post if you find yourself able or, if not, to ignore it entirely.
_______________________________________________________________________
[u]A good "Natural Clock" has the following qualities[/u]:
[b]1) A known initial condition (assume physics different in past)
2) The process of decay occurs at a relatively constant rate
3) The condition is irreversible
4) A know final condition[/b]
This is what radiometric dating gives us and the age of the earth or specific deposits.
[b]1)[/b] This means that we observe only "parent" material and no "daughter" material.
As we know, certain elements (parent) naturally decay to become other elements (daughter) for example polonium into lead. Since we can observe and document in modern times the way in which daughter elements form from parent elements, we know conclusively whether or not we're looking at a parent material or a material in it's initial state.
Igneous rock is perfect for this because we can observe the parent state in complete absence of daughter state.
[b]2)[/b] We know that the rate of decay is constant because scientists have tried everything they can think of (including conditions that could never occur naturally) like temperature, pressure, gamma or x-ray radiation, magnetic fields etc to speed up or slow down the decay rate.
This has produced no appreciable result.
The rate of change is constant.
[b]3)[/b] This is a key quality because if the condition can be reversed then the material cannot be counted on as reliable. For example, metamorphic rock is useless as a natural clock because the conditions under which it forms can "reset" the known markers.
All the elements used in radiometric dating are taken from irreversible conditions
[b]4)[/b] A final condition means that we observe only daughter material of the kind we have already observed being produced via degradation from the parent material.
Example: we know through direct observation that Polonium-210 decays into Lead-206 so we know that when there is only lead-206 we are looking at a final condition.
So we can already see that the objections raised in this video are without merit.
Dr. Mason identifies the assumptions as:
[b]a) a constant rate of decay
b) there there is no initial instance of daughter element
c) that the element occurs in a closed system.[/b]
[u]Response[/u]:
[b]a)[/b] We know beyond a reasonable doubt that the rate of decay is constant for the reasons stated above.
[b]b)[/b] We know that a daughter element can only exist after the parent element and to say otherwise is simply to abandon science and claim miraculous creation. That's fine if you want to do that but you then surrender the credibility of science.
Dr. Mason dishonestly attempts to invalidate this assumption by using inappropriate examples like lava which of course have not reach the point of a closed system so of course the levels of parent/daughter elements are not stable.
[b]c)[/b] The closed or open nature of the system can be tested for and certain events close the system (eg> crystallization). From that point on we observe that no new elements can be introduced or removed.
[i][b]Tl;dr Dr. Mason uses inappropriate examples and mines for results which are anomalous amongst the [u]thousands[/u] of consistent results from around the world and holds them up as if the anomalies are necessarily the true results because his faith demands it and is paycheck counts it.[/b][/i]
View 4 more replies »
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@GodSpeed63
You made the excuse that the reason for your lack of a response was because any science which does not support your bias is not real science.
You demonstrated a lack of understanding of the subject and a lack of intellectual honesty.
I've made my case very clearly and you have responded to....none of it.
And that's where i'll end this.
Better luck next time.
You made the excuse that the reason for your lack of a response was because any science which does not support your bias is not real science.
You demonstrated a lack of understanding of the subject and a lack of intellectual honesty.
I've made my case very clearly and you have responded to....none of it.
And that's where i'll end this.
Better luck next time.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Pikachu [quote]You made the excuse that the reason for your lack of a response was because any science which does not support your bias is not real science.[/quote]
That's not an excuse like you guys try to make all the time, it's what we call the truth. The Word of God is not bias but the Truth.
That's not an excuse like you guys try to make all the time, it's what we call the truth. The Word of God is not bias but the Truth.
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
QueenOfZaun · 26-30, F
Science is based on observable facts that are continuously tested and proven constantly every single day. The Bible is a 2,000 year old book containing assertions not backed up by any sort of physical evidence. I'm siding with science.
This message was deleted by its author.
This message was deleted by its author.
@CopperCicada
lol well probably even AiG would go that far. They would say you're calling god a liar but that's probably about it.
[quote] why are we looking at them and not the Pb isotopes?[/quote]
My guess would be because lead isotopes are less likely to produce anomalous results.
lol well probably even AiG would go that far. They would say you're calling god a liar but that's probably about it.
[quote] why are we looking at them and not the Pb isotopes?[/quote]
My guess would be because lead isotopes are less likely to produce anomalous results.