Creation Science ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tim Elliott

Firstly, the decision that the world had to be ancient, pre-dates quantitative dating techniques. It was observed that the processes that formed rocks observed at the surface needed a lot more time. This has not changed. In my job, I repeat the original observations of the founders of geology almost daily.

Every single facet of geology could provide sufficient evidence to remove all doubt from a logical mind that the earth is much much older than 6000 years. Structural geology, Geochemistry, Geophysics, Volcanology, Palentology, Sedimentology, Metamorphic and Igneous Petrology.

I work in Geochronology and Geological mapping. I personally do Uranium/Lead dating. When you map igneous rocks, which I do a lot, you work on cross cutting relationships. If rock A. cuts rock B. then rock A. is younger than rock B. If rock C. Cuts rock A. then it is younger than rock A. and rock B. and so on and so forth. This can get quite complicated, till your up to a a dozen units ordered in relative age and guess what, when they are dated by Uranium/Lead or some other method, the order of ages matches. Rock B. turns out to be 110 million years old, rock A. gives an age of 100 million years old and rock C. turns out to be 90 million years old. Closing temperatures for different minerals give cooling rates, which give uplift rates which can be correlated to sedimentary sequences with fossil dates. The uplift rates match those observed for geologically similar settings today, measured by GPS and Satellite. The fossil dates for the sediments correlate to paleomagnetic dates from sea floor spreading. And so on and so forth in an almost endless sequence of supporting data that is applied daily in real world situations for real world outcomes. The fossil dates and uplift rates were used to find the oil, that made the plastic for the computer your typing on. The U/Pb dates were used to help find the gold that coats the electronic parts within it.

Its not that I cant explain why the earth is old, its that it disturbs me that I would need to. It was established, without doubt, that the world is ancient. Everyone has moved on. If you dont know why, you simply have not looked. Theres no evidence that granites are young, apart from the ones that are. There are granites forming right now, and granites that have been around for billions of years.

I have no problem with a creator, but earth was not made for man 6000 years ago. The idea that it was and that man will soon leave to go somewhere else is where christianity becomes harmful. We are rendering our own planet uninhabitable because some people think we wont need it much longer!

I simply dont understand why the bible must be taken literally? Actually, its not taken literally. When was the last time you stoned somebody? If Christians want to be taken seriously, then they cant take the bible literally.

---

It's nice to find someone who has a similar level of "...*sigh* Really? We're not debating this in the geology/biology/physics/chemistry community at all. Why am I trying to show in a few sentences on a forum what has taken thousands of scholars many years to craft?" The scientific disciplines overlap and we all basically use the same process of inquiry. The problem we have is that we're being asked to show gradute-level work on a VERY broad topic to an audience wholly unfamiliar with the tools, methods, and procedures of the discipline.

To use jiu jitsu, I'd say I'm a high purple to brown belt in evolutionary theory. I'm no Eddie Bravo, but I'm at least a Kevin Greene or Chris Herzog. Eddie took three books and a dvd set to explain his system and that still doesn't cover it all. There is simply far too much information on the topic. It takes a lifetime of dedication to the discipline to have a robust understanding. You have to put it into practice and spend the time with the methods or you'll never understand where it all comes from. I'm a white belt in jiu jitsu. If I were to examine Eddie's system and find what I considered a fatal flaw I would have a few different options. I could stick with the system and see if I'm missing something (most likely); I could ask those who are much more knowledgeable than I on the topic for their opinion and trust that since they've put in that time they know what they're talking about; or I could say the system is crap because I discovered a fatal flaw (and some guy in a gi told me I was right). Which one makes the most sense? :)

Because then things would be nice and simple!!! and everyone would be getting along and loving each other and all kinds of crazy shenanigans!!!

And I'm sorry that this is tedious for you Jason but if it helps you should know that you are like a super hero to people who don't have the patience or aptitude for math to be truly effective in these types of discussions. You too Tim.

lol yup..

Nice analogy. I agree. Each one of the countless lines of evidence took someone years to establish, and would take them a long time to explain, yet your expected to fit all of it into a few sentences. And your audience is only listening for flaws, rather than trying to understand. Its painful.

The "Creation Science" that is the title of this thread does not exist. Its not science. Creation science does exist and its the realm of high level physicists. I was at least partially educated in science by christian brothers. Chemistry, Maths Physics and Biology. It took them very little effort to fit their knowledge into the context of their beliefs.

I think thats what it boils down to. Very little effort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Hyatt

Cystic fibrosis.

"The normal CFTR protein product is a chloride channel protein found in membranes of cells that line passageways of the lungs, liver, pancreas, intestines, reproductive tract, and skin." Mutation of three base pairs changes the amino acid sequence in the protein the gene codes for.

"About 70% of mutations observed in CF patients result from deletion of three base pairs in CFTR's nucleotide sequence. This deletion causes loss of the amino acid phenylalanine located at position 508 in the protein" The end result is a transmembrane protein that is more permeable to chloride.

"People who are homozygous for delta F508 mutation tend to have the most severe symptoms of cystic fibrosis due to critical loss of chloride ion transport. This upsets the sodium and chloride ion balance needed to maintain the normal, thin mucus layer that is easily removed by cilia lining the lungs and other organs. The sodium and chloride ion imbalance creates a thick, sticky mucus layer that cannot be removed by cilia and traps bacteria, resulting in chronic infections."

Changing just three base pairs results in a different gene. The "normal" protein is no longer normal. That's now a different gene. Just like if you're not hugging the knee, you're not in New York. Change a small detail and you've changed the structure. The details matter. All ANY gene does is code for a protein. Change the bases, you change the gene and thus the protein. This may have a small effect or a very, very large effect depending on what the specific change is and where it occurs. There is a tremendous amount of data out there. Google isn't bad, but Google scholar, medline, Ovid, and the individual journal websites are a good place to start. To understand genes, gene flow, drift, and genetic variation I once again highly recommend the Berkely site. Google for "berkeley evolution 101 genes".

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresource...ome/cftr.shtml

---

That's loss of information in an existing gene, not the creation of a new gene through mutation. On top of that it is harmful, not an 'evolutionary' advance at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tim Elliott

Which brings me to another point.

Jason. As you require some evidence from me as to ages etc. I would like some evidence from you.

What evidence do you have for the existence of god and a creator?

---

I assume you mean the other Jason, but in the interest of open discussion I'll add my half-nickel.

For me, I don't have any. I was a bible-thumping baptist for a long time before realizing that I was spending all of my time trying to convince others of a belief I didn't really have. While buddhism fits like a warm sweater (or gi pants if you prefer...), I cannot reconcile the supernatural aspects with my experience and scientific background. As such, my "religion" is less a belief in the divine than a useful guide to thought and behavior. We could all do with a little more altruism in the world. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Mallory

That's loss of information in an existing gene, not the creation of a new gene through mutation. On top of that it is harmful the an evolutionary advance.

---

Let me be clear on what you're asking: Are you asking for evidence of the spontaneous creation of a whole gene from a pool of chemicals? That's not how it happens. Mutation by definition is the loss, replacement, or exchange of one or more base pairs. This occurs constantly. In fact, it occurs so often the process is used in the lab the way a carpenter uses a hammer. Geneticists DEPEND on mutation and selection to do their work. Once again, that the process occurs is not at all in question.

DNA sequences will spontaneously assemble from the proper pool of chemicals; RNA even moreso. Gene formation is a very long process, but when you look at how DNA, RNA, and their associated enzymes interact they do so very much on their own. That's just chemistry. You don't have to prompt hydrogen to bond to oxygen. Give it the right environment and you can't prevent it from doing so. Chemistry is chemistry whether it's a very large molecule or a very little one. A hydrogen bond is a hydrogen bond; it makes no distinction between whether it is binding two water molecules or adenine to thymine. Given a reasonable amount of time and the right materials you almost can't PREVENT a gene from forming. Just ask a virus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tim Elliott

Firstly, the decision that the world had to be ancient, pre-dates quantitative dating techniques. It was observed that the processes that formed rocks observed at the surface needed a lot more time. This has not changed. In my job, I repeat the original observations of the founders of geology almost daily.

Every single facet of geology could provide sufficient evidence to remove all doubt from a logical mind that the earth is much much older than 6000 years. Structural geology, Geochemistry, Geophysics, Volcanology, Palentology, Sedimentology, Metamorphic and Igneous Petrology.

I work in Geochronology and Geological mapping. I personally do Uranium/Lead dating. When you map igneous rocks, which I do a lot, you work on cross cutting relationships. If rock A. cuts rock B. then rock A. is younger than rock B. If rock C. Cuts rock A. then it is younger than rock A. and rock B. and so on and so forth. This can get quite complicated, till your up to a a dozen units ordered in relative age and guess what, when they are dated by Uranium/Lead or some other method, the order of ages matches. Rock B. turns out to be 110 million years old, rock A. gives an age of 100 million years old and rock C. turns out to be 90 million years old. Closing temperatures for different minerals give cooling rates, which give uplift rates which can be correlated to sedimentary sequences with fossil dates. The uplift rates match those observed for geologically similar settings today, measured by GPS and Satellite. The fossil dates for the sediments correlate to paleomagnetic dates from sea floor spreading. And so on and so forth in an almost endless sequence of supporting data that is applied daily in real world situations for real world outcomes. The fossil dates and uplift rates were used to find the oil, that made the plastic for the computer your typing on. The U/Pb dates were used to help find the gold that coats the electronic parts within it.

Its not that I cant explain why the earth is old, its that it disturbs me that I would need to. It was established, without doubt, that the world is ancient. Everyone has moved on. If you dont know why, you simply have not looked. Theres no evidence that granites are young, apart from the ones that are. There are granites forming right now, and granites that have been around for billions of years.

I have no problem with a creator, but earth was not made for man 6000 years ago. The idea that it was and that man will soon leave to go somewhere else is where christianity becomes harmful. We are rendering our own planet uninhabitable because some people think we wont need it much longer!

I simply dont understand why the bible must be taken literally? Actually, its not taken literally. When was the last time you stoned somebody? If Christians want to be taken seriously, then they cant take the bible literally.

---

I mentioned this in an earlier post with a link. Polonium radiohalos are proof that the earth is not millions of years old. Polonium halos are found in granite along with uranium halos. The problem is that Polonium forms very quickly, within 6-10 days while the half life of uranium is 100 million years if I remember correctly which means the granites that make up this planet had to have formed quickly. They could not have formed over millions of years or else there would be no Polonium halos in granite.

As far as Uranium-Lead dating is concerned it can only be accurate if certain assumptions always apply to each specimen that is tested.

1. Each system has to be closed. That means that there can be no contamination of any of the parent or daughter products while they are going through the process of decay.

2. Each system must have been completely void of the daughter products.

3. The process of decay rate must have been constant and can never change.

4. If any change occured in the atmosphere surrounding our planet this would greatly affect the reliability of radioactive minerals.

5. Long half life minerals have varied in their decay rates in the past.

6. Any change in the Van Allen radiation belts would greatly affect the rate of decay of radioactive minerals.

7. The basic assumption of all radiactive dating is that at the beginning there were no daughter products in existence, only the elements at the top of the chain were in existence.

Because none of these assumptions can be determined about the past none of the dating methods can be proven to be reliable. Not Carbon dating, Thorium-Lead, Helium, Rubidium-Strontium...

Well put, Michael Romano. Even a meathead like you understands. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Mallory

I mentioned this in an earlier post with a link. Polonium radiohalos are proof that the earth is not millions of years old. Polonium halos are found in granite along with uranium halos. The problem is that Polonium forms very quickly, within 6-10 days while the half life of uranium is 100 million years if I remember correctly which means the granites that make up this planet had to have formed quickly. They could not have formed over millions of years or else there would be no Polonium halos in granite.

As far as Uranium-Lead dating is concerned it can only be accurate if certain assumptions always apply to each specimen that is tested.

1. Each system has to be closed. That means that there can be no contamination of any of the parent or daughter products while they are going through the process of decay.

2. Each system must have been completely void of the daughter products.

3. The process of decay rate must have been constant and can never change.

4. If any change occured in the atmosphere surrounding our planet this would greatly affect the reliability of radioactive minerals.

5. Long half life minerals have varied in their decay rates in the past.

6. Any change in the Van Allen radiation belts would greatly affect the rate of decay of radioactive minerals.

7. The basic assumption of all radiactive dating is that at the beginning there were no daughter products in existence, only the elements at the top of the chain were in existence.

Because none of these assumptions can be determined about the past none of the dating methods can be proven to be reliable. Not Carbon dating, Thorium-Lead, Helium, Rubidium-Strontium...

---

I'll let Tim have the meat on this one but I'll just say this: Virtually everything on this list flies in the face of all of chemistry. That list belies a fundamental misunderstanding of chemistry as a discipline; much less how it applies to geology. I'll say it again: chemistry is chemistry whether in a rock or a monkey.

^^^ No, the list is based in a fundamental understanding of how radiometric dating works and is the reason why none of the dating methods can be proven to be accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott Yockel

I'm on Jason Mallory side on this one. He posts a lot of things on this site and I may not agree/ believe everything he posts. I think as a person its important to expand your mind. Jason is just passing along information he found interesting. You should still show the man respect even if you don't agree with him or his views. Jason thank you sharing new things with us andd please keep posting interesting things like this!

---

Thanks Scott. We may not all agree on everything but I appreciate the support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis Ho

Well put, Michael Romano. Even a meathead like you understands. :)

---

Thanks Lois i can always count on you for support:D

"Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth’s history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts."

—National Academy of Sciences, Science, Evolution, and Creationism (2008)


Also, there is some good stuff from Dr. Robert C. Wiens about common misconceptions from within certain portions of the religious community as to the validity of various dating methods. A good article can be found here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page%2020

I don't think you'll find arguments against the validity of dating methods in any peer-reviewed journals or publications. You think religion is critical of established science, -have you ever met (science field) doctoral students? If there were flaws within the system there would be 1,000's of young scientists eager to make names for themselves by exposing them and tearing them apart... But there is almost 0.00 dissention within the scientific community itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Hirt

"Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth’s history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts."

—National Academy of Sciences, Science, Evolution, and Creationism (2008)


Also, there is some good stuff from Dr. Robert C. Wiens about common misconceptions from within certain portions of the religious community as to the validity of various dating methods. A good article can be found here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page%2020

I don't think you'll find arguments against the validity of dating methods in any peer-reviewed journals or publications. You think religion is critical of established science, -have you ever met (science field) doctoral students? If there were flaws within the system there would be 1,000's of young scientists eager to make names for themselves by exposing them and tearing them apart... But there is almost 0.00 dissention within the scientific community itself.

---

Or else it means that young students are being indoctrinated. And there are scientists that say radiometric dating is unreliable because of the assumptions surrounding it and the impossibility or knowing the beginning state. These are not my original thoughts, I'm not that brilliant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Mallory

Or else it means that young students are being indoctrinated.

---

Are you making that claim right now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Mallory

Or else it means that young students are being indoctrinated. And there are scientists that say radiometric dating is unreliable because of the assumptions surrounding it and the impossibility or knowing the beginning state. That was not my original thought.

---

Pop quiz Jason. What do we actually date when we date a granite?

Your points above are not founded on a deep understanding of radiometric dating. All of the things you have stated as causing huge differences actually cause very small differences. Others are totally made up.

Its not Scientists who are indoctrinated. Thats ridiculous. Why would anyone bother?

You didnt read my post. Radiometric dating correlates well with other forms of dating. It is not proven because as we have already established, nothing is. It is however now beyond reasonable doubt.

Im not going into the finer details. I suggest you read something other than church propaganda if you want to understand it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Mallory

Or else it means that young students are being indoctrinated. And there are scientists that say radiometric dating is unreliable because of the assumptions surrounding it and the impossibility or knowing the beginning state. That was not my original thought.

---

Pop quiz Jason. What do we actually date when we date a granite?

Your points above are not founded on a deep understanding of radiometric dating. All of the things you have stated as causing huge differences actually cause very small differences. Others are totally made up.

Its not Scientists who are indoctrinated. Thats ridiculous. Why would anyone bother?

You didnt read my post. Radiometric dating correlates well with other forms of dating. It is not proven because as we have already established, nothing is. It is however now beyond reasonable doubt.

Im not going into the finer details. I suggest you read something other than church propaganda if you want to understand it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tim Elliott

Pop quiz Jason. What do we actually date when we date a granite?

Your points above are not founded on a deep understanding of radiometric dating. All of the things you have stated as causing huge differences actually cause very small differences. Others are totally made up.

Its not Scientists who are indoctrinated. Thats ridiculous. Why would anyone bother?

You didnt read my post. Radiometric dating correlates well with other forms of dating. It is not proven because as we have already established, nothing is. It is however now beyond reasonable doubt.

Im not going into the finer details. I suggest you read something other than church propaganda if you want to understand it.

---

From what I understand radiometric dating tries to measure the natural decay of radioisotopes which are unstable. They decay, emitting radiation until they reach a stable state. In the case of Uranium-238 it goes through transitional stages before becoming Lead-206. By measuring how long it takes for an unstable element to decay into a stable one and by measuring how much daughter element is produced by the parent element within a rock, scientists believe they are able to determine the age of a rock.

As I said in a previous post there are fundamental problems with this idea. First, no one knows how much Uranium was in a rock to begin with or if there was any daughter element present when the rock formed and if the daughter element was present how much. Without this information you cannot determine the age of a rock based on the half like of Uranium. Also, the planet Earth is not a closed system which means we don't know whether contamination of either the parent or daughter element has taken place. This again makes it impossible to date a rock with Uranium-Lead dating.

I did read your post Tim but may have misunderstood what you meant when you said radiometric dating correlates well with other forms of dating. What other forms of dating are you referring to ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryan Cook

After you write something like that, people tend to not read what you have to say because you couldn't care less what they have to say.

---

You're right. Normally I wouldn't have said anything, only everything in the OP was just so inconsistent with reality I felt compelled to comment.

It was actually just more me rambling out loud to myself about how I can't believe these kinds of beliefs and outdated ideas still exist with the amount of information available to people.

My girlfriend takes classes with a guy that is getting into science just to try and disprove carbon dating (he's a Christian).
I don't know if there are flaws with it, since I have never studied it (majoring in Physics, but only a first year student, so I'm stuck in basic Chem at the moment), but it seems silly to me to use so much effort to try and disprove it. Even if you disproved all science that stands in the way of religion, you haven't disproved any other religion. So then...how do we prove who is right? Blind faith? Guess and see what "feels" right? I'm no God, but I think God would have a much better plan than that. But since all religion is based on faith, you can never know if you are right. Seems pretty fucked up to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jared Gammel

It was actually just more me rambling out loud to myself about how I can't believe these kinds of beliefs and outdated ideas still exist with the amount of information available to people.

---

Ironically, I think you'll see more people with bizarre beliefs due to the massive amount of available information. Nowadays anybody can go find any random YouTube video or Wikipedia entry to validate the preconceived notion on any topic. As formal education continues to be financially unobtainable, self educated gurus without formal merit or accreditation will fill the void taking over the general pool of knowledge. Wives tales, myths, and anecdotal observation will be disseminated via YouTube blogs and message boards disposing of logical analysis, peer review and the scientific method. Welcome the digital dark age.

Hey Jason H, I know your interest in this thread is dying / has died. Any chance you can answer those questions I had? I just read through 6 pages of this thread hoping to find them. :( If you can point me in the right direction I should be able to put the rest together.

Thanks for posting this video Jason, it truely is a blessing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAnderson

Thanks for posting this video Jason, it truely is a blessing.

---

No doubt, you should check out Hovind's whole series. Michael Behe's book 'Darwins Black Box' is really good too. I wouldn't say he is a Christian but his science definately disproves evolution and points to a creator.

cool bro, i'l check it em out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AJ Camacho

Ironically, I think you'll see more people with bizarre beliefs due to the massive amount of available information. Nowadays anybody can go find any random YouTube video or Wikipedia entry to validate the preconceived notion on any topic. As formal education continues to be financially unobtainable, self educated gurus without formal merit or accreditation will fill the void taking over the general pool of knowledge. Wives tales, myths, and anecdotal observation will be disseminated via YouTube blogs and message boards disposing of logical analysis, peer review and the scientific method. Welcome the digital dark age.

---

So very very true. This should be read by lots of people.

Jason, you have been actively mislead on the topic of dating. Your description of the process of uranium lead dating is like trying to sum up Jiu Jitsu in five sentences, four of which are deliberately wrong. Its an extremely complex topic. Heres an example of how you have been mislead. Its correct to say that a granite is loosely an open system, and you are dating a granite, so you can explain to people these problems, they will be factually correct. You cant U/Pb date a piece of granite. But its spin. We dont date the granite, we date constituent minerals of the granite. Specifically Zircon. Very different.

What amazes me, and I dont mean to give offence here Jason, Im not just talking about you, but it does amaze me, is that someone is willing to write off one of the most rigorously tested tools in modern science, without even a rudimentary understanding of it. And the information is freely available and theres mountains of it. These days there Google Scholar. You can get at academic papers easily and with the help of google/wikipedia, you can read them.

Geochronologists (people who date rocks) are spend their entire lives studying dating and trying to tear apart and find flaws in each others methods.

In short, the world is billions of years old. This has been established, without a scrap of doubt. There was no cohabitation of humans and dinosaurs. That didnt happen. You have to ask yourself which is more likely. Did God create all this stuff to test your faith, or is a book, written by men thousands of years ago wrong?

All I can say is in the Churches where they preach this stuff, it must be getting harder and harder to keep people from looking out the window.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tim Elliott

So very very true. This should be read by lots of people.

Jason, you have been actively mislead on the topic of dating. Your description of the process of uranium lead dating is like trying to sum up Jiu Jitsu in five sentences, four of which are deliberately wrong. Its an extremely complex topic. Heres an example of how you have been mislead. Its correct to say that a granite is loosely an open system, and you are dating a granite, so you can explain to people these problems, they will be factually correct. You cant U/Pb date a piece of granite. But its spin. We dont date the granite, we date constituent minerals of the granite. Specifically Zircon. Very different.

What amazes me, and I dont mean to give offence here Jason, Im not just talking about you, but it does amaze me, is that someone is willing to write off one of the most rigorously tested tools in modern science, without even a rudimentary understanding of it. And the information is freely available and theres mountains of it. These days there Google Scholar. You can get at academic papers easily and with the help of google/wikipedia, you can read them.

Geochronologists (people who date rocks) are spend their entire lives studying dating and trying to tear apart and find flaws in each others methods.

In short, the world is billions of years old. This has been established, without a scrap of doubt. There was no cohabitation of humans and dinosaurs. That didnt happen. You have to ask yourself which is more likely. Did God create all this stuff to test your faith, or is a book, written by men thousands of years ago wrong?

All I can say is in the Churches where they preach this stuff, it must be getting harder and harder to keep people from looking out the window.

---

I will agree with you, it's obvious that the science behind radiometric dating goes beyond the scope of a forum post to describe the process but as you said yourself the problem with granite being an open system is factually correct. I think you are nit pickin' when you say 'we don't date the granite, we date the constituent minerals of the granite.' The same problems apply. You cannot date the age of the minerals within a granite because you do not know the beginning state, whether contanimation has occured or whether the decay rate of radioisotopes is constant. The speed of light was once believed to be constant but we know this is not true today.

You still have not addressed the issue of Polonium halos in granite which form within 6-10 days. This proves the granites on planet earth formed very quickly, they did not form over millions of years or else the Polonium halos would not be present. This is not religious misinformation this is modern science.

I don't know about you but I have never been in a church where they preached about radiometric dating and Polonium halos. I've read a few books on creation science and looked things up on the net. Books like Behe's Darwins Black Box are not religious at all and have nothing to do with any particular religion, it's a science book.

Scientists themselves are the ones saying that radiometric dating is unreliable.

As far as humans and dinosaurs living together, anyone who is interrested should watch Hovind's lecture on it. There are a number of books on the subject that I believe he mentions in the lecture. And for those who were not aware, unfossilized dinosaur bones have been found with fresh plasma within them and Human and Dinosaur footprints have been found together.
Dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...2951687298593#

Also, for the record, the Bible does not state emphatically that the world is 6,000 years old.

I'm just saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe

Also, for the record, the Bible does not state emphatically that the world is 6,000 years old.

I'm just saying.

---

This is true. There are a number of people who have studied this out, I feel Tim Warner has done a great job of taking everything into consideration. For anyone who is interested, you can check out his paper with the link below. He does a pretty good job of explaining theological terms as he goes along.

http://www.oasischristianchurch.org/air/chronology.pdf

The way I look at is that 1000 years ago people believed there was nothing outside their own continent and we know that was wrong so why fight about now because time will prove what we believe to be true maybe is not. So fuck it. As long as we get through the next 100 years without destroying eveything we will be good.

You know what I like about the polonium halo thing? Ignoring all else, the theory relies on known half lives. Which apparently, we dont know.

Which is it Jason?

Iv never really discussed this stuff with anyone who actually believed it before.

All of the things you said were problems with the technique are not problems. They can be corrected for. Zircon closes at 900 degrees Celsius. After that its a closed system and Zircon is a virtually indestructible time capsule. Native lead can be measured and corrected for. The decay rates are reliable, the only change in them Iv ever heard described (as a result of sun spots) would make the earth OLDER than we think it is.

Explain to me how someone can tell the difference between native Polonium and Polonium from as a decay product, but you cant do the same for lead? The counter for the theory also proves it!

Jason, how do creation scientists who discredit radiometric dating explain how well it works?

I mean, if a its a flawed technique, why does it work? And it works all the time. As I said, it correlates perfectly with other forms of dating. Ages are consistent. Why does it work so well?

You haven't shown that it works Tim, you just say that it works. The problems with radiometric dating are real and make it unreliable.

While the radioisotopes in granite go through the decay process they are open systems. This is when contamination makes radiometric dating unreliable. You still don't know what elements and at what quantities were in the granite when it formed and we believe the decay rates are constant today but we don't know that they have always been constant. Sunspots, the Van Allen radiation belts or some radioactive meteor that hit Earth could have altered the decay rates in the past making the calculations unreliable.

Leeching is also a problem. We do not know if any of the elements leeched out of a sample which would greatly affect the calculations. A weak acid solution could leech out lead for example.

Evolution theorists say that at the beginning there was only Uranium and all its daughter elements developed later through the decay process ( this sounds like chemical de-evolution, not evolution to me ). Polomium is a daughter product of Uranium.

Polonium forms the outer three rings of Uranium decay halos but Polomium halos apart from Uranium halos are in granite as well which means the daughter element was present apart from the parent. If at the beginning only the parent element existed and produced all the daughter elements then independent Polomium halos would not exist, but since they do, Uranium-Lead dating is unreliable.

Lead neutron capture is another problem for Uranium or Thorium dating.

Again you say that it correlates perfectly with other forms of dating but have failed to give any examples that we can talk about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Mallory

You haven't shown that it works Tim, you just say that it works. The problems with radiometric dating are real and make it unreliable.

While the radioisotopes in granite go through the decay process they are open systems. This is when contamination makes radiometric dating unreliable. You still don't know what elements and at what quantities were in the granite when it formed and we believe the decay rates are constant today but we don't know that they have always been constant. Sunspots, the Van Allen radiation belts or some radioactive meteor that hit Earth could have altered the decay rates in the past making the calculations unreliable.

Leeching is also a problem. We do not know if any of the elements leeched out of a sample which would greatly affect the calculations. A weak acid solution could leech out lead for example.

Evolution theorists say that at the beginning there was only Uranium and all its daughter elements developed later through the decay process ( this sounds like chemical de-evolution, not evolution to me ). Polomium is a daughter product of Uranium.

Polonium forms the outer three rings of Uranium decay halos but Polomium halos apart from Uranium halos are in granite as well which means the daughter element was present apart from the parent. If at the beginning only the parent element existed and produced all the daughter elements then independent Polomium halos would not exist, but since they do, Uranium-Lead dating is unreliable.

Lead neutron capture is another problem for Uranium or Thorium dating.

Again you say that it correlates perfectly with other forms of dating but have failed to give any examples that we can talk about.

---

I am just telling you Jason. Iv been studying this stuff for a long time. At the moment, what your talking about is not U/Pb dating. It appears that whoever told you about it had never done it and had never actually tried to understand it. Im really not going to teach you basic geology, mineralogy and geochronology. The information is readily available if your willing to put the time in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tim Elliott

I am just telling you Jason. Iv been studying this stuff for a long time. At the moment, what your talking about is not U/Pb dating. It appears that whoever told you about it had never done it and had never actually tried to understand it. Im really not going to teach you basic geology, mineralogy and geochronology. The information is readily available if your willing to put the time in.

---

I am confident in the information I have about U/Pb dating and it's consistent with what I have read on the net about it.

everybody look up the 11th dimension
you dont have to understand string theory to get it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE7xRgfPjAI