[GodGunsGuts]

This is PART ONE in a three part series. Stay tuned for parts two and three!!!

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[KevinDavis]

I do need a good laugh..

[the long march]

All of metrology uses certain assumptions. It is a field bound by limitations on methodolgy and accuracy. When used as a tool to “prove” something it will frequently be misused. Fact is the data are the data ——interpretation is everything

[xcamel]

As soon as you show us **exactly**, with verified peer-reviewed physical evidence, where on planet earth is (or was).

[CottShop]

Superposition
Not a valid dating method- too manyvariables must be taken into account- too many suppositions
http://www.fbinstitute.com/powell/evolutionexposed.htm

Stratigraphy
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/bulletins/135/home.html

Dendrochronology
Up to 10000 years tops

Radiometric Dating Methods
problems with radiometic http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html

Obsidian Hydration Dating
Many obsidians are crowded with microlites and crystallines (gobulites and trichites), and these form fission-track-like etch pits following etching with hydrofluoric acid. The etch pits of the microlites and crystallines are difficult to separate from real fission tracks formed from the spontaneous decay of 238U, and accordingly, calculated ages based on counts including the microlite and crystalline etch pits are not reliable.”
http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp
http://www.scientifictheology.com/STH/Pent3.html

Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic
Very little info on this method
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm

Luminescence Dating Methods
http://karst.planetresources.net/Kimberley_Culture.htm

Amino Acid Racemization
http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/amino/

Fission-track Dating
http://www.ao.jpn.org/kuroshio/86criticism.html

Ice Cores
Varves
At best- the two methods above are only accurate to about 11,000 years due to numerous conditions and environmental uncertainties

Pollens
Corals
Highly unreliable- you’d need constant temps to maintaIN reliable growth pattersn http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/coral_reef.asp

Cation Ratio
Fluorine Dating
http://www.present-truth.org/Creation/creation-not-evolution-13.htm

Patination
Known times only throuhg analysis of the patina
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio

Electron Spin Resonance
Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating
Closely related to the buggiest dating methods of Carbon dating

why it’s wrong:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3059

RaDio helio dating disproves:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/369
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/
http://www.rae.org/

[tacticalogic]

But what if the assumptions are wrong? For example, what if radioactive material was added to the top bowl or if the decay rate has changed?

When discussing evolution, they argue that speciation cannot be assumed because no one has ever verified that change happened.

When discussing radiometrics they argue that decay rates cannot be assumed to be constant because no can verify that change has not happened.

[Buck W.]

Can’t wait—this will be amusing. Can you post the bibliography that the author has provided so we can do some advance reading?

The entire series has been peer reviewed, right?

[El Sordo]

But it’s such an awesome plot device!

[tacticalogic]

My son is a Nuke on a US Navy submarine. If the decay rate of the uranium in it’s reactor core ever changes significantly he’s dead meat. If it slows down, they’re left without power. If it speeds up it will melt the containment. Should I tell him to get the hell off that boat?

[alexander_busek]

[...] So let’s take a closer look and see how reliable this dating method is [...]

To begin with, radiometric dating isn't as a method - rather, it's a whole slew of methods, which in many cases can be used to corroborate each other. (E.g. the obsidian hydration analysis of a stone tool might comport well with the Carbon-14 dating of the wooden heft the obsidian was attached to.

Secondly, some of the techniques referred to here (dendrochronology, etc.) are NOT radiometric in nature, but rather are based upon entirely different principles.

Regards,

[agere_contra]

The Earth is Billions of years old.

[scripter]

Read later

[nuke rocketeer]

Is counting all the begats in Genesis more accurate that radioactive decay dating????

In that method you are really making some BIG assumptions.....

[RockyMtnMan]

How do new earthers explain the “pock” marks left in the crust by Yellowstone eruptions and the fact they are consistent with the timing of plate movements? (approx 600,000 years apart). Geological events occur over millions of years, not overnight.

[ShadowAce]

.

OK, assume "Assumption 2" is correct. Decay is, and has been, constant. There is no way one can assume the "daughter atoms" were all produced by decay.

Since you can't assume they were all produced by decay, you cannot measure the original amount of the "parent atoms".

[pctech]

Looks like you’re getting flamed already. You have to realize that although this is a conservative, pro-military, pro-God website, most people on these boards do not agree with a true literal interpretation of the Bible, especially when it comes to this type of subject.

[varmintman]

We actually do have one example (Venus) of a planet which is ballpark for some sort of 5K - 10K age. Venus LOOKS like a new planet, 900 F surface temperature, massive 90-bar CO2 atmosphere, major thermal imbalance, major upwards UV flux, total lack of regolith, statistically random cratering, etc. etc. Earth and Mars do not resemble that in any way, shape, or manner; you have to assume they are significantly older than that, but not hundreds of millions or billions of years old. Robert Bass once redid Lord Kelvin’s heat equations for the Earth WITH a maximum possible figure for radioactive elements included and came up with a max possible age of around 200M years. Attempts to publish that got him thrown out of BYU for heresy.

[DuncanWaring]

Even if it were universally agreed that radiometric dating was exceptionally accurate, does it not make sense that a being who can create the entire universe would also be able to create it with the appropriate ratios of C12-C14, as well as craters, fossils, etc to make it appear that the earth/universe were billions of years old, when it was actually only ~6000 years old?

Not that I’m particularly an adherent to the “Young Earth” theory, but fossils and Carbon 14 dating don’t prove the Universe is any particular age.

[xcamel]

Complete christian refutation of the entire series, by Dr. Roger C. Wiens

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Saving GGG the bother of posting thre rest of the bravo-siera

[calex59]

You know what? I don’t really care how old the earth is at this point. If everyone who is so hung up on this crap would pay attention to the politics of this country and put their energy into ridding us(legally of course) of Bozo as President we would all be a lot better off. In the long run, when you die you will find out the truth. Doesn’t matter what you think or some scientists think, what is true will remain true regardless and arguing about it will not change things one way or another.