I was just wondering if anyone wants to explain radiometric dating and why the scientists trust it.

First, welcome nishaun, and it's great to see you're reading through the forum and adding life to a whole bunch of old threads, as well as starting some new ones.

We've been through the issue here a few times before, so a Search of the forum may turn up some useful posts, but here's a very quick rundown.

Chemical elements tend to have some isotopes (kinds of atoms of the same element) that are radioactive. Normal carbon is carbon-12, for example, and is not radioactive, but there is another isotope called carbon-14 that is radioactive.

Radioactive atoms (at least, the nucleus of each radioactive atom) breaks down in a way that is very predictable, and that is not effected at all by outside conditions like temperature, pressure, pH and so on. For each radioactive isotope there is a specific amount of time that will pass before half of the atoms in any given sample will have broken down. That period is called the 'half-life' for that isotope. The half-life of carbon-14 is about 5700 years.

If you know how much carbon-14 was in something at the start, and then figure out how much is in it now, you can use that plus the half-life to calculate how old the thing is. There is a certain, fairly stable amount of carbon-14 in the air that we breathe and the food that we eat. As long as we're alive we are taking it in and excreting it, and have a fairly constant amount in our bodies. Once we die we stop taking in new carbon-14, and what is there breaks down in a predictable way according to the half-life.

This means that carbon-14 is only useful for dating things that were formerly living, both plants and animals. It is not used for dating rocks. The half-life also means that at some point, after maybe 3 or 4 half-lifes (so about 20,000 years for carbon-14) there won't be enough left to make an accurate reading, so carbon-14 can only date things back a few tens of thousands of years.

There are other isotopes, found in rocks, that have half-lives of hundreds of thousands of years, or millions of years. These are used to date rocks, but certain assumptions have to be made about the amounts of the different isotopes that were in the rocks in the first place. There are a number of such methods, though, and they are to some extent used to 'calibrate' each other.

The science is pretty clear, and there are no real scientific challenges to the methods. Some creationists have claimed that the rate of radioactive decay might have been much faster in the past, but if they also say the earth is only about 6000 years old that amount of radioactive decay would have killed all living things on earth with radiation poisoning.

Hope this is useful/interesting.

The creationists that suggest the decay rate was faster at some time in the past suggest it occurred during the Flood and God protected those in the ark from the radiation. The other possibility is that rocks had daughter elements in them at their formation. Thus counting the ratio of parent and daughter elements in a given rock would give an inaccurate age of the rock.

"Build an ark of shittim wood and 15 feet of lead shielding..."

(just joking around, not making any kind of serious point at all)

The Bible doesn't really claim that the earth is any specific age but I was really talking about the methods used to date fossils like uranium lead dating. My main question is how is the age of rocks relevant to the age of fossils.

Good question! The plant or animal died when it was covered by the material that became a rock, or shortly before. We have actually found some animals fossils being eaten by other fossils so we know the fossil being eaten was dead before it was covered. If we can date the rock we can than date the fossil that is in it. Uranium-lead dating goes on the assumption that when the rock was formed there was no lead in it. Since uranium turns into lead when it decays, we can calculate the age of the rock by how much lead is in it and presto, we know the age of the fossil. Of course, if there was lead in the rock when it was formed, then we have no way to calculate the age. However science has more than one way to test rocks. Different testing techniques have given similar dates thus "proving" the ages to be reliable.

The RATE Group has published a study that offers a plausible explanation for what we observe in the rocks. Here we see a big difference between Natural Science and Creation Science. Natural Science looks for probable answers and Creation Science looks for plausible answers. Basically natural scientists are trying to figure out what likely happened based on the observable evidence around us. Creation scientists are looking for how things could have happened in light of God's Word and the evidence around us. That means the threshold is much lower for Creation Science and as a result many natural scientists reject or baulk at creation science.

nishaun said:

A good question, which Shane has done a good job of answering above (with one reservation which I'll discuss below). Can I just ask you, though, if you have a specific question, to ask it directly? Might have saved me spending half an hour or so writing the general account of radioactive dating above, on a day when I had a grant application to write, if I'd known you already roughly understood dating methods and had a specific question about a specific issue.

Shane said:

It's only a minor correction, but the assumption is not that there was no lead, but that there was a 'normal' amount of lead for that particular kind of rock at formation.

But yeah, Shane explained it well. Due to the nature of how fossils form, the age of the rock in which they form is the age of the fossils.

Probably worth noting that there are issues in dating besides the proportions of the various isotopes - as some elements decay they create 'halos' in the rock around them as the particles split off from the nucleus. These halos show that the radioactive decay happened in that piece of rock, rather than earlier and elsewhere, or rather than the daughter element already being present in the rock.

Interesting explanation I believe there are certain weak points in this explanation. I believe radiometric dating is a weak science because there is still a gap. What you said Shane is what I expected you to say. Your explanation does not show a strong connection between the age of rocks and the age of fossils. My problem with evolution is that it is built on so many weak sciences. Science needs strong connections, an example of a strong connection would be the way airplane engineers connect the shape of a wing to causing lift.
Evolution is a weak science, when compared to other more provable sciences would you agree?

It is a science in which more inferences have to be made, true. The same is true of subatomic particle physics, as we discussed here recently, but I'm not sure anyone would call that a 'weak science'.

Perhaps part of the problem is that you are judging evolution without fully understanding it, as your posts in the 'Monsters' thread illustrate. Would you agree that in order to make a good judgement about the claims of a science it is necessary to have a good understanding of that science?

(just a side note - Shane is a creationist, so arguably on the same 'side' as you in this discussion. He described fossil formation from that perspective, so I'm not sure it makes sense to be snarky to him)

You've claimed that the link between rock age and fossil age is weak: would you be willing to share some evidence for that position?

I don't like the term 'evolution' because often times the meanings people attach to it are so different. Bravus is the scientist in this discussion. I consider myself more of a philosopher although my degree is in business so I am more of a self-educated philosopher than a formally trained one. I approach the discipline of Origins from a philosophical perspective and have often made the claim that it shouldn't be considered a science.

Many creationists consider the science of origins a "weak" science because it is not something that is observable, measurable and repeatable. Natural science approaches the study of origins from a uniformatarian perspective. That means they assume that the processes we observe today have always been the same. That seems like a safe assumption. They assume the speed of light has always been the same. They assume gravity has always been the same. And... they assume the rate of radioactive decay has always been the same. Creationists bring a big question mark to the table.

I think most creationists will concede that the age of rocks and fossils are the biggest challenges we (creationists) face in understanding the world around us in light of God's Word. Creationists have only plausible explanations, not probable explanations.

I would not call it snarky I was claiming that he provided no new info to me.

I believe it is possible to separate the age of rocks from the age of fossils.
I have not seen any evidence and I have looked that proves the fossils were layered at the same time.
It is true that there is no real counterarguments to the "fossil record" but Christianity is not
about a "negative" counterargument it is about the argument, the offensive, the reason why we believe
in God not the reason why we hate the devil. Sadly, Islam is a far bigger threat to Christians than
any evolutionist can ever hope to be.

And Bravus your argument made no sense, but I will answer your question, Your inability to respond with a better explanation or to strengthen your argument is my proof. I believe if you had a stronger argument you would use it to shut me up. I have listened to many evolutionists and I have never seen or heard an argument that connected the age of fossils to the age of rocks definitively.

You still haven't argued for how it would be possible for a fossil to exist in a rock of a different age. You've attacked my argument here and in another thread for not bringing evidence, but yet you haven't even clarified your position, let alone brought any evidence.

It's simple: as I understand it, sedimentary rocks are created by sedimentation, and fossils are created in the same process, at the same time.

You clearly have a different theory or explanation. What is it?

You are using evolution to prove evolution.

Layered rocks are created in layers, not sedimentary rocks are created by sedimentation.

There is no evidence of sedimentary there is only evidence of layered rocks. Sedimentary is YOUR theory.

You are literally stating because it is sedimentary then it is sedimentary.

To be honest you would have to state, because it is layered it is sedimentary, then you would have to explain why.

You can't say because it is sedimentary then it is sedimentary that is religion!

Fair enough, although I think the point is more semantic than substantive.

OK then. How did the fossils get inside the layered rocks?

This discussion would be a lot simpler if, rather than attacking the words I use and making me play '20 Questions', you would simply and clearly describe your theory of how fossils come to be in rocks that are of different ages than the fossils. You clearly have such a theory, so why not just describe it as clearly and simply as you can?

I will respond with no answer.

And I will stand by my claim, scientists claim to have disproved the Bible by claiming that the fossil record proves that the Bible is inaccurate. If then it is found that the connection from rock to fossil is a weak connection then it can be said that the scientists have not weakened the Bible's argument. Therefore if the fossil record is not a strong argument then the Bible stands uncorrected.

This is why I claimed evolution is like Islam, evolution is simply an alternate belief system. It has its strong points and its weaknesses. My only argument is this, evolution is just a different interpretation of the evidence. Evolution itself is not strong enough to counter the Bible's creation story. It does bring forth questions not all Christians can answer but then again so does Islam. The problem is when evolutionists claim to have disproved the Bible through the fossil record. My main argument was a claim that the main counter-proof in evolution, against the Bible, is quite weak.

Fair enough: you do not bring anything except attacks to a conversation. You claim that the connection is weak with no evidence but your assertion.

Good day to you, sir.

You call them attacks I call them warnings similar to the warnings given in the Bible.

I bring simple warnings that evolutionists are different from Christians and instead of being swayed by weak arguments Christians should judge these arguments made by evolutionists.

Strength and weakness is decided by opinion, your claim is empty because there is in fact no scientific reasoning to judge the weakness of an unprovable untestable argument. An argument that contains a missing link betweem the age of fossils and rocks. Your proof of the fossil record is simply an assumptions. Assumptions are scientifically weak.

[quote]"Anyone that truly understands the size of this universe, cannot have an ego."/quote]

A good quote! The question is, do you understand its meaning?

If you are going to disagree with someone, than say so....just to say they are weak arguments or don't answer your question and then to offer no thoughtful alternative is, just well, weak and self serving.

True meaning...I was having a debate with an atheist and he claimed that Baruch spinoza was the person who came the closest to understanding the reality we live in. I made a joke that Baruch seems like a nice guy and I would debate him. The guy responded by saying something along the lines of insulting my intelligence compared to Baruch's. So I responded "Anyone who understands the size of..." The true meaning of MY quote is that if Baruch truly understood God's universe he would be too humble to refuse to debate me.

Read my full heated debate I think I won!

Unless you're a spiritualist you'd have a pretty tough time debating Spinoza, since he died in 1677. Either that or a very easy time winning.

Actually, "he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish" so spiritualism is kinda out of the question.

Dude, I know that. It was what we call 'a joke' around here.

Even though I don't personally understand the size of this universe, I understand enough to sport a small enough ego.

To think the being who created that universe is watching us right now.
The size of this universe like the vast majority of scientific evidence presented does not disprove the Bible.

Agreed, absolutely. Did you assume I posted it for that reason? Nope, just sharing the sense of wonder. I believe God is greater than, and contains, this universe and potentially many others.

Life on earth is no older than about 6000 years old just in case anyone didn't know.

Egyptian written history seems to go back to 5,000 to 6,000 years old. The Yangshao culture in modern-day China seems to date back to about the same time. The tower of Babel probably happened about 100 years after the Flood. So I would date the Flood between 4,000 BC and 5,000 BC.

How old the Earth was before the Flood is hard to say unless we take the geologies literally. That is to say when the Bible says, "Enos lived ninety years and begat Cainan" that Cainan was the first generation son of Enos and was born when Enos was ninety. There is some reason to doubt this. These pre-flood geologies have a lot of children being born to men that were well over 65 years old. Noah was over 500 years old when his three sons were born to him. According to the geologies, Shem, the son of Noah, outlived Abraham by 35 years.

We have to think about that for a moment. If all these genealogies are accurate. Shem was the great great great great great great great grandfather of Abraham and outlived Abraham. Here is the relevance. Shem was born to Noah after Noah was 500 years old and yet Abraham, being of great faith found it hard to believe God would give him a son in his old age. Why did Abraham find that hard to believe if Shem, still being alive, had been born to Abraham when Abraham was over 500 years old?

Notice here I am using Sola Scriptura. The genealogies and the stories in the Bible themselves cause us to question a literal understanding of the genealogies. This ancient history was probably written by Adam and Noah. Some scholars believe Adam wrote Genesis chapters 1-4. Noah wrote chapters 5-9. Shem wrote chapters 10-25. The rest of Genesis was written by one of Jacob' sons and Moses compiled it, filling in some gaps, while in exile. The purpose of these geologies was to show God's faithfulness to His people throughout history and not to provide an exact time line for dating creation.

My point is the pre-Flood history could be longer than what we think. Noah's sons may not have even been his first generation sons but could have been his great grandchildren - although I do not doubt only eight were on the ark. While Shem lived 600 year, it is possible that Abraham was born after his death. According to the genealogies, Shem was 390 years old when Abraham was born and 565 years old when Abraham died.

(second para replace 'geologies' with 'genealogies' wherever it occurs)

Here is a good link: GENEALOGICAL DISCONTINUITIES

Blame the spell checker

Does anyone know about the flood theory I would like to learn more about that.

What's to explain? There are some who believe in the Biblical theory of the flood(Genesis 6-8) and those who don't generally don't believe in the Bible to start with so, naturally, they don't believe in a wordwide flood. Having tramped the length and breadth of what I believe are the remains of Noah's Ark at the foot of Mt. Ararat, I guess that you would have to say that I believe in the Biblical story of the Flood.
Regards, G www.anchorstone.com

It could be, though, that nishaun is talking about the ways in which creationists tend to use the flood to explain many of the features of the earth, such as the Grand Canyon, that those who believe in an older earth ascribe to hundreds of thousands of years of erosion. The 'flood theory', as I understand it, is the invoking of the flood to explain quite a wide variety of phenomena, including the fossil record and the existence of fossil fuels.

PS I envy you the experience of seeing the Ark!

The term often used is Flood Geology. There are some things that flood geologists struggle to explain. However there are also things that natural geologists struggle to explain. So I think it has more to do with the assumptions one begins with than the evidence being examined.

Just wondering if anyone was an expert on it.

I am not aware of any university that grants degrees in Flood Geology. There are Christian universities that teach it along side of normal geology and offer degrees in science. There are also creationist courses that offer professional certificates in creationism for pastors, Bible workers and science teachers in Christian schools.

oic, just wondering? I guess I will have to refute evolution myself then, or at least show it's weaknesses.


With God's help of course.

That video is extremely humbling. We will never be able to contact any of them, unless we overcome the most basic laws of physics. Even at the speed of light, thousands of generations will have passed before we even make any progress. I hope on other planets they don't have the same laws of physics as we do or we will be locked out forever form contacting anyone.

Quick question for anyone, So if the universe is expanding, and new galaxys are being formed, is it safe to assume that there is a fixed amount of matter in the universe?

1 Corinthians 13:12

"For now we see through a [telescope], darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

Other planets will definitely have the same laws of physics as us - as far as we know those apply throughout the universe. They may know more about the laws than we do, and have found ways to get beyond what we know how to do, so that they can travel faster than the speed of light, for example... it'll be interesting to find out (or, more likely, never find out but enjoy speculating!)

Under the standard Big Bang model the amount of matter-energy in the universe expanded massively in the picoseconds after the big bang and has been constant since then, with matter only being rearranged. So the new galaxies now forming are forming out of existing matter, rather than constituting new matter to the universe. Given that the universe is expanding, the average density is decreasing. Remember, though, that the most current theories suggest only 4% of the energy is the matter we can see - the other 96% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy.

So I am coming to the conclusion that there is a God or someone who created the universe, and what is in the bible is true, just extremely simplified. I do believe that God does speak to man, but he had to do it as simple as possible to avoid confusing him.

That sounds like what the Earth could have been before creation week started.

Amen

yeah, guess so, though that's a step away from 'ex nihilo'.

Not from my understanding. That would be that God created the universe 'ex nihilo' and later came back to planet Earth to create life on it.