A mortal blow to Young Earth creationism

[Wolverine]

Here they are. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/how-did-scientists-calculate-age-earth/ Now tell us how they are wrong.
The 6000 years was determined by Bishop Ussher using the bible and his guesses. Now that is not scientific.

radiometric dating is flawed!
Most scientists today believe that life has existed on the earth for billions of years. This belief in long ages for the earth and the existence of life is derived largely from radiometric dating. These long time periods are computed by measuring the ratio of daughter to parent substance in a rock and inferring an age based on this ratio. This age is computed under the assumption that the parent substance (say, uranium) gradually decays to the daughter substance (say, lead), so the higher the ratio of lead to uranium, the older the rock must be. Of course, there are many problems with such dating methods, such as parent or daughter substances entering or leaving the rock, as well as daughter product being present at the beginning.

 

[Cypress]

Most scientists today believe that life has existed on the earth for billions of years. This belief in long ages for the earth and the existence of life is derived largely from radiometric dating. These long time periods are computed by measuring the ratio of daughter to parent substance in a rock and inferring an age based on this ratio. This age is computed under the assumption that the parent substance (say, uranium) gradually decays to the daughter substance (say, lead), so the higher the ratio of lead to uranium, the older the rock must be. Of course, there are many problems with such dating methods, such as parent or daughter substances entering or leaving the rock, as well as daughter product being present at the beginning.

You cut and pasted from a website that publishes someone's opinion,

the author won't even share his name,

the article is not peer reviewed or published in a reputable scientific journal,

the author provides no citations to legitimate scientific literature so that his claims can be validated,

and the only citation provided is to somebody named Jon Covey. A rudimentary Google search reveals Jon Covey is the editor of some obscure creation science newsletter and has never been employed as a legitimate research scientist with expertise in isotope geochemistry.


Moral of the story: your link is not a credible source of reputable scientific information

 

[Cypress]

Sure. You and I could pass a test, after study, of Islam without actually believing the religion.

It's odd to go the other way; disregard fact in favor of faith.

My guess is that they genuinely like most aspects of biochemistry, geology, physics, but they cannot be dislodged form their biblical literalism on sensitive topics like abiogenesis or the divine origins of humanity. But they are perfectly willing to write down the scientifically correct answers on a test.

 

[Micawber]

Young earth creationism.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

My guess is that they genuinely like most aspects of biochemistry, geology, physics, but they cannot be dislodged form their biblical literalism on sensitive topics like abiogenesis or the divine origins of humanity. But they are perfectly willing to write down the scientifically correct answers on a test.

Heh, good point.

Every human culture that we know of, even those that existed before the invention of writing, has its own creation stories. What hubris some have to believe that *their* myth is superior to someone else's.

And that's why science is the only possible way to explain the age of the planet, life arising (and dying out), and arising again.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

My guess is that they genuinely like most aspects of biochemistry, geology, physics, but they cannot be dislodged form their biblical literalism on sensitive topics like abiogenesis or the divine origins of humanity. But they are perfectly willing to write down the scientifically correct answers on a test.

They are accepting the Biblical story of Genesis which, as you know, was passed around the campfires for centuries before being written down about 550 BCE.

Additionally, anyone who thinks God couldn't have created the Big Bang 13.5B years ago and knew how it would all work out is limiting God.

Occam's Razor applies: God gave us brains and expected us to use them. WYSIWYG God would not be dishonest by creating a fake universe.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

radiometric dating is flawed!
Most scientists today believe that life has existed on the earth for billions of years. This belief in long ages for the earth and the existence of life is derived largely from radiometric dating. These long time periods are computed by measuring the ratio of daughter to parent substance in a rock and inferring an age based on this ratio. This age is computed under the assumption that the parent substance (say, uranium) gradually decays to the daughter substance (say, lead), so the higher the ratio of lead to uranium, the older the rock must be. Of course, there are many problems with such dating methods, such as parent or daughter substances entering or leaving the rock, as well as daughter product being present at the beginning.

God is honest and would not allow Satan or whoever you think faked the Universe to trick us.

 

[Wolverine]

You cut and pasted from a website that publishes someone's opinion,

the author won't even share his name,

the article is not peer reviewed or published in a reputable scientific journal,

the author provides no citations to legitimate scientific literature so that his claims can be validated,

and the only citation provided is to somebody named Jon Covey. A rudimentary Google search reveals Jon Covey is the editor of some obscure creation science newsletter and has never been employed as a legitimate research scientist with expertise in isotope geochemistry.


Moral of the story: your link is not a credible source of reputable scientific information

https://answersingenesis.org/geolog...ometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/
https://www.evolutionisamyth.com/dating-methods/radiometric-dating-flaws-of-presumption/
http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/fatal-flaw-radioactive-dating
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170131104433.htm

 

[Wolverine]

Heh, good point.

Every human culture that we know of, even those that existed before the invention of writing, has its own creation stories. What hubris some have to believe that *their* myth is superior to someone else's.

And that's why science is the only possible way to explain the age of the planet, life arising (and dying out), and arising again.

So before writing people wrote stories about creation?
Science is simply the study of what God created!

 

[Celticguy]

I believe every educated person is aware that scientific knowledge is provisional and incomplete. What we know about human evolution today will be substantially different from what is understood 50 years from now.

In 50 years we won't just be using fossil evidence, but we will have more and better genetic evidence for anatomically-modern humans as well as archaic humans, aka Neaderthals, Homo Erectus etc.

Lots of "educated" people refer to climate alarmism as "settled science". Not sure I can agree with that remark.
We may well come to fill in more gaps in the time frames you suggest or even doubly faster but it will all depend on whatever we dig up to prove the theories.
But we certainly can enjoy the discoveries as they keep popping up ! For me its like seeing a flower unfold from a bud. Each advance a bit more beautiful than the one before.
Enjoy the process, don't get hung up on what the end result must be.

 

[Cypress]

https://answersingenesis.org/geolog...ometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/
https://www.evolutionisamyth.com/dating-methods/radiometric-dating-flaws-of-presumption/
http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/fatal-flaw-radioactive-dating
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170131104433.htm

You can frantically google for random links, but the fact is for the most part you are citing opinions and Creation Science websites which are not legitimate sources of information.

But thanks for confirming that conservatism is still infected with science denialism and young Earth creationism, which some on this thread have attempted to deny

Radiometric isotope techniques, like most laboratory methodologies in science, will always be beset by some uncertainties.

The way that scientists deal with that is continual improvement of analytical techniques, and independent corroboration of lab results by other lines of evidence, resulting in a weight of evidence approach.



Wrapping up, frantically googling for random internet links is no way to become scientifically literate. Scientific literacy comes from effort and hard work, including reading reputable source literature and pursuing higher education.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

So before writing people wrote stories about creation?
Science is simply the study of what God created!

Agreed which is why everyone who denies science is anti-God. Fuck all those losers. LOL

 

[Cypress]

Heh, good point.

Every human culture that we know of, even those that existed before the invention of writing, has its own creation stories. What hubris some have to believe that *their* myth is superior to someone else's.

And that's why science is the only possible way to explain the age of the planet, life arising (and dying out), and arising again.

I think the value of world religions is when they largely stick to questions about what it means to live an ethical, authentic life.

As for evangelicals who barely passed High school and deem themselves prepared to throw out 60 years of isotope geochemistry research, well that really does not pass the laugh test.

 

[Wolverine]

You can frantically google for random links, but the fact is for the most part you are citing opinions and Creation Science websites which are not legitimate sources of information.

But thanks for confirming that conservatism is still infected with science denialism and young Earth creationism, which some on this thread have attempted to deny

Radiometric isotope techniques, like most laboratory methodologies in science, will always be beset by some uncertainties.

The way that scientists deal with that is continual improvement of analytical techniques, and independent corroboration of lab results by other lines of evidence, resulting in a weight of evidence approach.



Wrapping up, frantically googling for random internet links is no way to become scientifically literate. Scientific literacy comes from effort and hard work, including reading reputable source literature and pursuing higher education.

All of those are reputable sources and prove that science has no idea, how to date things! Man's wisdom is foolishness in God's eyes!

 

[Cypress]

Lots of "educated" people refer to climate alarmism as "settled science". Not sure I can agree with that remark.
We may well come to fill in more gaps in the time frames you suggest or even doubly faster but it will all depend on whatever we dig up to prove the theories.
But we certainly can enjoy the discoveries as they keep popping up ! For me its like seeing a flower unfold from a bud. Each advance a bit more beautiful than the one before.
Enjoy the process, don't get hung up on what the end result must be.

You will have to be more specific than a meaningless, loaded term like "climate alarmism".

I cannot address buzzwords, I can only address legitimate scientific research and conclusions.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

https://answersingenesis.org/geolog...ometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/
https://www.evolutionisamyth.com/dating-methods/radiometric-dating-flaws-of-presumption/
http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/fatal-flaw-radioactive-dating
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170131104433.htm

The only credible source in your list is from Science Daily. I will quote the last of the article.

""The rate of diffusion will vary, based on the sample -- what type of rock it is, the number of cracks and amount of surface area, and so on," Hayes says. "So, there's not a simple equation that can be applied to every circumstance. Researchers will need to evaluate samples individually, then apply the relevant physics accordingly.

"It's a pain in the neck, but it will make our estimates significantly more accurate," Hayes says. "If we don't account for differential mass diffusion, we really have no idea how accurate a radioisotope date actually is. It's worth noting that the issues raised here do not apply to carbon dating, which does not utilize isotopic ratios.""

In other words this article did not refute the science of radioisotope dating; it merely refined it and offered a cautionary caveat to scientists using it.

Next?

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

All of those are reputable sources and prove that science has no idea, how to date things! Man's wisdom is foolishness in God's eyes!

Wrong. Here is some light reading material proving the accuracy of various methods, and how and what they date.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/kno...and-fossils-using-geologic-methods-107924044/

 

[Cypress]

The only credible source in your list is from Science Daily. I will quote the last of the article.

""The rate of diffusion will vary, based on the sample -- what type of rock it is, the number of cracks and amount of surface area, and so on," Hayes says. "So, there's not a simple equation that can be applied to every circumstance. Researchers will need to evaluate samples individually, then apply the relevant physics accordingly.

"It's a pain in the neck, but it will make our estimates significantly more accurate," Hayes says. "If we don't account for differential mass diffusion, we really have no idea how accurate a radioisotope date actually is. It's worth noting that the issues raised here do not apply to carbon dating, which does not utilize isotopic ratios.""

In other words this article did not refute the science of radioisotope dating; it merely refined it and offered a cautionary caveat to scientists using it.

Next?

That's the problem when a scientifically illiterate Deplorable starts frantically googling for links. They do not read them, and wind up with egg on their face.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

So before writing people wrote stories about creation?
Science is simply the study of what God created!

You've never heard of "oral tradition" or "oral history"? Too bad. How do you suppose that the stories of the Old Testament were preserved, before the Jews were able to write them down? You know, that whole creation story you believe?

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

That's the problem when a scientifically illiterate Deplorable starts frantically googling for links. They do not read them, and wind up with egg on their face.

My guess is that he got all those links from a creationist site. The Science Daily article was from 2017. They don't understand what they're reading.

I could not care less if he wants to believe that some sky dude created everything. My only objection is when they try to use it to refute first this science, then *all* science. That's how we end up with a pandemic killing idiots who think vaccines are witchcraft or some other nonsense.