Posted: Dec 30, 2010 6:36 am
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.
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.