Thanks. Nice article.

It can also be said if we were to assume that a god created the world two days ago with an age including the appearance of many diverse cultures and religions as well, then the way our Universe, Earth, religions (all false since they can't be true if the world was created 2 days ago and they claim events that happened before this creation), etc functions make abundant sense as well.

pcCoder wrote:It can also be said if we were to assume that a god created the world two days ago with an age including the appearance of many diverse cultures and religions as well, then the way our Universe, Earth, religions (all false since they can't be true if the world was created 2 days ago and they claim events that happened before this creation), etc functions make abundant sense as well.

No, that is Lastsundayism and it is a completely wrong doctrine. God actually created the Universe 5 days ago.

willhud9 wrote:Kudos to this post. Sadly, creationists cannot agree on this point. Some support it and others attempt to disprove it. However, if we are to assume mature fiat creationism ie God created the Earth with age(evidence found in Scripture) than carbon dating and the way our Universe and Earth functions makes abundant sense.

Fail, because the assumption itself is an evidentially unsupported one, not only that, care to explain why an omnipotent omniscient god would create an old earth with Radon gas?

willhud9 wrote:Kudos to this post. Sadly, creationists cannot agree on this point. Some support it and others attempt to disprove it. However, if we are to assume mature fiat creationism ie God created the Earth with age(evidence found in Scripture) than carbon dating and the way our Universe and Earth functions makes abundant sense.

That's because creationists are stupid and/or deluded and take the fantasist writings of bronze-age goat-herders more seriously than 300 years of hard scientific exploration and testing. An affront to the expansion of human knowledge. When every reasonable and rigorous dating method used comes up with ages in the billions of years, for the earth, and they all agree upon the age... that should tell you something. The fact that it doesn't is a testament to the willful insanity one must subject themselves to, to be a believing christian litteralist.

A really good article. I really only have one or two issues with it, as someone who works in Geophysics for a living. (Note: That is not a claim to be a geophysicist myself, I just happen to work with some really brilliant ones, and we have had this same discussion numerous times.)

First, nothing with Radionuclide Dating is Empirically proven. It has been proven to the best of our ability, but that is not the same thing at all. The most accurate statement would be "We have proven that, over the last century and a half, the nuclear decay rate for the isotopes which we have studied have followed a stable, predictable decay rate which can be measured. We can then calculate this backwards, based on the results of our observations, to produce a rough estimate of the age of a particular sample." If you claim more than that you are being intellectually dishonest because unless someone has managed the measure a particular sample over the course of a few billion years than you are assuming that there is no change, nor has there ever been, in the decay rate. Not saying there is, but I have not observed it, nor have I read a research paper claiming several billion years worth of observations.

Secondly, what the composition of Earth should be according to a physicist's notebook, and what it is in reality are rarely, if ever the same. The discrepancy between the two only grows larger the further you go back in geological time. This is because, in complete opposition to what you stated above, the transport problem has not been completely dealt with, nor will it ever be unless we can be absolutely sure of every major geologic and meteorologic event. This problem is only compounded by major catastrophic events which are known to occur, such as meteor impacts, which vastly change the geological structure and composition of a wide area, as well as depositing fresh material to that geological layer.

Thirdly, we estimate that 30,000 metric tons of cosmic dust settle on the earth per year. Since we can not account for the composition of this material, this adds yet another unknown into the use of Radionuclide Dating.

All of this is not to say that any of the data you presented was incorrect. It is simply misleading. And while I am certainly not here touting "God did it", I do think that shouting things such as this with such certitude is a mistake.

Balance_Maintained wrote:
All of this is not to say that any of the data you presented was incorrect. It is simply misleading. And while I am certainly not here touting "God did it", I do think that shouting things such as this with such certitude is a mistake.

Balance_Maintained wrote:A really good article. I really only have one or two issues with it, as someone who works in Geophysics for a living. (Note: That is not a claim to be a geophysicist myself, I just happen to work with some really brilliant ones, and we have had this same discussion numerous times.)

And who would they be? What peer reviewed citations from the literature have they brought up in support of the purported statements they made which you present below?

First, nothing with Radionuclide Dating is Empirically proven.

The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.
I would say that the consilient dating of objects by non-radiometric methods and by radiometric dating, as well as the consilience obtained through different radiometric methods would qualify as empirical tests.

Different radionuclides that follow different decay pathways at different rates wouldn't agree if the decay rate wasn't constant, or if the methods were flawed, the fact that this consilience is a feature serves as validation for the core postulates behind radiometric dating, IMO.

It has been proven to the best of our ability, but that is not the same thing at all. The most accurate statement would be "We have proven that, over the last century and a half, the nuclear decay rate for the isotopes which we have studied have followed a stable, predictable decay rate which can be measured. We can then calculate this backwards, based on the results of our observations, to produce a rough estimate of the age of a particular sample." If you claim more than that you are being intellectually dishonest because unless someone has managed the measure a particular sample over the course of a few billion years than you are assuming that there is no change, nor has there ever been, in the decay rate. Not saying there is, but I have not observed it, nor have I read a research paper claiming several billion years worth of observations.

If there were changes in decay rates then it would mean consilient values wouldn't be arrived at, since different radionuclides already decay at different rates, and as a consequence any change in rates per se would result in loss of consilience.

The extant evidence supports the hypothesis that decay rates have stayed constant, internal consilience and external consilience to go with that make for good empirical evidence to support the core postulates of radionuclide dating, IMO.

Secondly, what the composition of Earth should be according to a physicist's notebook, and what it is in reality are rarely, if ever the same. The discrepancy between the two only grows larger the further you go back in geological time. This is because, in complete opposition to what you stated above, the transport problem has not been completely dealt with, nor will it ever be unless we can be absolutely sure of every major geologic and meteorologic event. This problem is only compounded by major catastrophic events which are known to occur, such as meteor impacts, which vastly change the geological structure and composition of a wide area, as well as depositing fresh material to that geological layer.

Can you back this statement up with the apposite peer-reviewed citations, please?

Thirdly, we estimate that 30,000 metric tons of cosmic dust settle on the earth per year. Since we can not account for the composition of this material, this adds yet another unknown into the use of Radionuclide Dating.

[1] Please demonstrate, with the apposite citations, that this constitutes a problem for radiometric dating, along with quantitative estimates of the error this variable may introduce.

[2] Provide evidence that the aforementioned cosmic dust you speak of actually skews ratios of the elements involved in radiometric dating per se

[3] If consilient values can be obtained without accounting for this, chances are it is a negligible factor.

All of this is not to say that any of the data you presented was incorrect. It is simply misleading. And while I am certainly not here touting "God did it", I do think that shouting things such as this with such certitude is a mistake.

Please present the evidence that has been asked for, firstly and then these claims can be considered, secondly, I do not think it is misleading, for anyone who is acquainted with the nature of science will now that even things that sound certain are to be taken tentatively, with no mention being needed.

Balance_Maintained wrote:A really good article. I really only have one or two issues with it, as someone who works in Geophysics for a living. (Note: That is not a claim to be a geophysicist myself, I just happen to work with some really brilliant ones, and we have had this same discussion numerous times.)

First, nothing with Radionuclide Dating is Empirically proven. It has been proven to the best of our ability, but that is not the same thing at all. The most accurate statement would be "We have proven that, over the last century and a half, the nuclear decay rate for the isotopes which we have studied have followed a stable, predictable decay rate which can be measured. We can then calculate this backwards, based on the results of our observations, to produce a rough estimate of the age of a particular sample." If you claim more than that you are being intellectually dishonest because unless someone has managed the measure a particular sample over the course of a few billion years than you are assuming that there is no change, nor has there ever been, in the decay rate. Not saying there is, but I have not observed it, nor have I read a research paper claiming several billion years worth of observations.

Secondly, what the composition of Earth should be according to a physicist's notebook, and what it is in reality are rarely, if ever the same. The discrepancy between the two only grows larger the further you go back in geological time. This is because, in complete opposition to what you stated above, the transport problem has not been completely dealt with, nor will it ever be unless we can be absolutely sure of every major geologic and meteorologic event. This problem is only compounded by major catastrophic events which are known to occur, such as meteor impacts, which vastly change the geological structure and composition of a wide area, as well as depositing fresh material to that geological layer.

Thirdly, we estimate that 30,000 metric tons of cosmic dust settle on the earth per year. Since we can not account for the composition of this material, this adds yet another unknown into the use of Radionuclide Dating.

All of this is not to say that any of the data you presented was incorrect. It is simply misleading. And while I am certainly not here touting "God did it", I do think that shouting things such as this with such certitude is a mistake.

Once again, I despair that some universities can get accreditation to teach science, if your post is an accurate reflection of what your tutors taught you about science at your university. Not one real scientist will claim that anything in science is absolutely proven or disproved. Absolute proof [or disproof] would require perfect knowledge of a system. It is quite clear that human beings, even the whole science community are not omniscient.
If a scientist does use the word proof or disproof, he/she means in a special and specific way. Formally, it means that an accepted scientific theory has abundant evidence in it's favour, and little or indeed no contrary data to dispute it. This conclusion is always tentative, and subject to further investigations. In other words, acceptance of a theory [and it's promotion from hypothesis] is based on destructive testing of that idea, and it's null form.
The same goes for "scientific belief" Post-modernist, relativists, and creationists will tell folks that science is shit because it is not perfect. Of course science is not perfect. But I am benefiting from this imperfect science right now. I am typing on an electronic computer, which is made of integrated circuits and chips, which are made from diodes, which depended on the imperfect science of Quantum Mechanics for it's development.

All good science has error bars. But radiometric dating does not stand alone. Not only can we compare different radioactive decay elements, but we are able to calibrate it by comparing it with other dating methods that have nothing to do with physics. Tree rings for example. Relative dating in rocks, Ice core samples.
There is no doubt that radiometric dating is hard to do well, and there are many traps, especially for the careless. Of course assumptions are made in science. But these assumptions are not pulled out of the scientists asses, but are based on earlier findings, and tested. Furthermore, if out assumptions about radioactive decay were badly wrong, then other branches of physics would not work either. A nuclear power station or an atomic bomb would not work as predicted. Samples from the moon would not give expected readings.
Physics is physics. Science is science. No more, and no less. Science is about critical thinking and empirical testing. It is not about piss-ant irrational skepticism that is to be found in the writings of creationists and post-modernist word salad.

I'd like to add that the claim that we don't know the chemical composition of the interstellar dust is not really true at all.
Interplanetary dust particles collected from the stratosphere: physical, chemical, and mineralogical properties and implications for their sources

Identification of molecular-cloud material in interplanetary dust particles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_dust_cloud

feign_ignorence wrote:Excellent stuff; but it would be alot better for topics like these if there were pictures to help explain (esp the graphing and math bit dealing with linear regression) for those not very aquainted with that sort of material.

Hi Calilasseia. Fine & detailed post. The sort of serious info that 99.99% of RatSkep posts lack
I agree with feign-ignorence that a few graphs, & other visuals would have helped.

Have you covered the topic of a change in decay rate over time? There's stuff in astrophysics that covers that area, for example the research done regarding expansion of the Universe, MOND, & such. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_of_decay_rate

Also, if you used ln instead of loge , it would make this inordinately long post somewhat shorter!

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Once again, I despair that some universities can get accreditation to teach science, if your post is an accurate reflection of what your tutors taught you about science at your university. Not one real scientist will claim that anything in science is absolutely proven or disproved. Absolute proof [or disproof] would require perfect knowledge of a system. It is quite clear that human beings, even the whole science community are not omniscient.

Well, that ^^^ is a crock of bulldog shite. Here's just a sample of things we know for a certainty:
The Earth goes around the Sun. The Earth is a sphere (of sorts). That water is H2O. That 2+3=5....etc
We don't need omniscience to know where the local grocer is, or not drink boiling water. The research boundaries of science are in a state of flux, & debatable. But the well bedded areas are beyond dispute...ABSOLUTELY.
We might be pedantic & assert that it's just an illusion created by a Spaghetti Monster Computer, or God, or aliens. But the fact is that, barring mysticism, in the frame of reference that we use, the basic foundations are irrefutable

Galaxian wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Once again, I despair that some universities can get accreditation to teach science, if your post is an accurate reflection of what your tutors taught you about science at your university. Not one real scientist will claim that anything in science is absolutely proven or disproved. Absolute proof [or disproof] would require perfect knowledge of a system. It is quite clear that human beings, even the whole science community are not omniscient.

Well, that ^^^ is a crock of bulldog shite. Here's just a sample of things we know for a certainty:
The Earth goes around the Sun. The Earth is a sphere (of sorts). That water is H2O. That 2+3=5....etc
We don't need omniscience to know where the local grocer is, or not drink boiling water. The research boundaries of science are in a state of flux, & debatable. But the well bedded areas are beyond dispute...ABSOLUTELY.
We might be pedantic & assert that it's just an illusion created by a Spaghetti Monster Computer, or God, or aliens. But the fact is that, barring mysticism, in the frame of reference that we use, the basic foundations are irrefutable

No of course we don't need to be wibbly about the existence of the corner store. On a pragmatic level I totally agree with you. But dogmatic certainty is a bad habit to get into. It becomes not science, but a religion. For three centuries folks thought that Newton saw the absolute truth-the clockwork universe. At a certain level of accuracy, that is still true. But Newton could only be accurate to one part in a thousand for some measurements, not we have atomic clocks that can measure billionths of a second.
At Mundane speeds, Newton is still "true". But at higher speeds, we see the discrepancies and have to use the Einsteinian model. Who knows, as we gather more data with better instruments, we may "chuck out" Einstein and use some better model. Cracks are already appearing in the Einsteinian model.
So you can say absolute, you can say confidence. Let the woo-mongers have their absolutes...the intellectual higher ground lies with the strength of uncertain scientism. Woo mongers say that uncertainites in science is it's weakness. Quite the opposite. They don't understand. That is science's strength.
You don't build a space shuttle by praying to airborn pasta. You build a spacecraft with uncertain science. It works. Wooists pray and they are certain they are right and achieve sweet fuck all. Scientists are uncertain and play with ideas and test them, and reach the stars. Fuck your certainty, it will kill science.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

Galaxian wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Once again, I despair that some universities can get accreditation to teach science, if your post is an accurate reflection of what your tutors taught you about science at your university. Not one real scientist will claim that anything in science is absolutely proven or disproved. Absolute proof [or disproof] would require perfect knowledge of a system. It is quite clear that human beings, even the whole science community are not omniscient.

Well, that ^^^ is a crock of bulldog shite. Here's just a sample of things we know for a certainty:
The Earth goes around the Sun. The Earth is a sphere (of sorts). That water is H2O. That 2+3=5....etc
We don't need omniscience to know where the local grocer is, or not drink boiling water. The research boundaries of science are in a state of flux, & debatable. But the well bedded areas are beyond dispute...ABSOLUTELY.
We might be pedantic & assert that it's just an illusion created by a Spaghetti Monster Computer, or God, or aliens. But the fact is that, barring mysticism, in the frame of reference that we use, the basic foundations are irrefutable

No of course we don't need to be wibbly about the existence of the corner store. On a pragmatic level I totally agree with you. But dogmatic certainty is a bad habit to get into. It becomes not science, but a religion. For three centuries folks thought that Newton saw the absolute truth-the clockwork universe. At a certain level of accuracy, that is still true. But Newton could only be accurate to one part in a thousand for some measurements, not we have atomic clocks that can measure billionths of a second.
At Mundane speeds, Newton is still "true". But at higher speeds, we see the discrepancies and have to use the Einsteinian model. Who knows, as we gather more data with better instruments, we may "chuck out" Einstein and use some better model. Cracks are already appearing in the Einsteinian model.
So you can say absolute, you can say confidence. Let the woo-mongers have their absolutes...the intellectual higher ground lies with the strength of uncertain scientism. Woo mongers say that uncertainites in science is it's weakness. Quite the opposite. They don't understand. That is science's strength.
You don't build a space shuttle by praying to airborn pasta. You build a spacecraft with uncertain science. It works. Wooists pray and they are certain they are right and achieve sweet fuck all. Scientists are uncertain and play with ideas and test them, and reach the stars. Fuck your certainty, it will kill science.

I wonder if creationists would change their minds about dating methods if they were applied to Biblical manuscripts, and artefacts?

Something tells me that they would accept them if we found a piece of wood supposedly from Jesus' cross, and it dated to around 2000 years ago...

That's the fun part, they already do accept dating results that happen to confirm the occasional bit of their mythology, but then go on in the next breath to assert that it magically stops working the moment anything older than 6,000 years is dated. Indeed, an even funnier part of the screed AiG posted on their website, trying to hand-wave away radiocarbon dating, centres upon the fact that biblical artefacts were used as test materials by Willard Libby in order to provide the calibration data for the technique, as cited in his Nobel Lecture, and of course, because the liars for doctrine at AiG didn't actually bother to read that Nobel Lecture when they were rushing to traduce his work and his reputation, this is something else that we can beat them over the head with for shits and giggles.

Oh dear me, Calilasseia, you should publish a book.