Friend 1 wrote:

>>This illustrates my point. Your position has nothing at all in

>>common with reasonable scientific skepticism. There are no

>>credible scientists who have a general rejection of radiometric

>>dating for reasons you mention. Individual dates can, in some

>>limited cases, be inaccurate due to various effects; but over

>>all radiometric dating is confirmed and even calibrated to an

>>exceptional degree. There is no rational scientific dispute

>>which calls the method into general question, or which denies that

>>the method proves beyond doubt the great age of the Earth and the

>>long antiquity of humanity.

Friend 2:

> Thank you and I understand that you believe this to be the case. But

> words like.."credible scientists' and 'inaccurate due to various

> effects' hint at the very point I am trying to make. It is not an

> exact science and in no way can be tested by other independant tests.

Friend 1:

This is unambiguously false; and if you are interested to pursue this I repeat my offer to look at radiometric dating in a limited set of posts.

The principles and foundations of radiometric dating are about as solid as you get in science. It permits exactitude within measurement limits, as is usual for scientific measurement (and note the difference between precision and accuracy).

It is most certainly tested by other independent tests all the time. I have given examples of this in our past discussion. Radiocarbon dating in particular is callibrated and checked and spectacularly confirmed by a large number of clearly independent means; such as dendochronology, matches with history, varve measurement, ice core dating, thermoluminesence, comparison with other unrelated decay series,... the list goes on and on!

Of course, individual dates are frequently queried, as readings can in some cases be distorted or inaccurate for certain well known causes. But the principles work; and we can tell with good confidence when a sample is likely to lead to inaccurate results, and the enormous wealth of results which have been obtained stand as a scientific proof of great age of the Earth, amongst other things.

I use "credible" scientists above in the most inclusive possible sense. I include mavericks and isolated critics of the mainstream. I do not include cranks or pseudo-scientists; and for example I do not include Don Batten, whom we both heard at UQ.

I am quite serious when I say that there is no (none, not any, zero) credible dispute over whether or not radiometic dating works in general.

Radiometric dating provides unambiguous and incontrovertible proof that the Earth is billions of years old; and that is not in any scientific dispute at all, excepting only people who don't know what they are talking about.

Friend 2:

> We just cannot go back into time and 'prove' the long age theory.

> Thats the point I make and is made bny scientists, credible or

> otherwise is a matter of opinion.

Friend 1:

Science does not prove things in the limited mathematical sense of formally deduced theorems from axioms; but it does prove things in the conventional sense that matters are proven in a court of law, or by other kinds of investigation.

Empirical data most certainly is used to prove aspects of the past all the time. Forensic data can often give reliable proof of criminal matters relating to crimes in the past; archaelogical study can often find proof resolving some historical questions; and radiometric dating provides proof of the great age of the Earth.

You claim that "scientists" make the same point as you that you cannot prove a long age theory. Rubbish. The Earth is most certainly proven to be old.

Quote me any scientist who disagrees, and let's have a reference so we can check how sensible they are on the matter.

<>

The real point is this; the different dates were different samples; not an inconsistency, and the dates were used for calibration of thermoluminesence with radiocarbon over a range of ages. The thermoluminesence was less precise; but where the methods could be combined they matched within error bounds. This was used in the paper as a justification of the new method, then extended into a longer range than radiocarbon permitted.

It is incorrect to say that there was any conflict involving alterative measures at 10,000 and 70,000 years.

<>

Do you remember what half-life means?

I have never heard anyone ever suggest that radiocarbon dating is only accurate up to a half life (about 5730 years) or two; there is no sensible reason for proposing such an arbitrary limit. I assure you; if you ever heard such a thing, it was not from a reputable scientist; but someone either incompetant or dishonest. Plenty of both in the scientific creationists, sad to say. Disagree? Give a name, or a reference. Let's look at why they would suggest such a thing.

The truth is that radiocarbon dating is now callibrated and confirmed by independent tests to more than 40,000 years; I gave the references last time.

I quite sympathize if you do not want to pursue this. But make the choice.

One choice would be to admit that you *don't* know what you are talking about when it comes to the dating schemes used in science, but that on the basis of your faith in scripture and the church you are confident that scientists who claim that the Earth is very old are mistaken. You can't tell where or how their methods are flawed: you simply bear witness to your own methods.

That, I believe, is the most usual Orthodox approach to a perceived conflict with science?

Another choice is to continue to make vague assertions about anonymous "scientists" who consider that you can't prove the Earth to be old, or that radiocarbon dating only works over a half life, or the radiometric dating is generally unreliable. Take that road and I will call you on it. Because those assertions are wholly ludricrous; not merely maverick or fringe science but pseodoscience at its screaming worst.

And pseudoscience at its screaming worse seems to be the most usual Protestant approach to perceived conflicts with science. :-)

I understand that {rotestant and Orthodox believers are also capable of understanding and accepting the facts established by science -- and I use fact here deliberately of things like the great age of the Earth which are established beyond any credible dispute -- and reconciling those facts with their faith.

<>

Radiometric dating in particular is not really that difficult. If you were interested -- and I am not saying you should be -- I am quite positive than with a few months reading you would know the basics of the method, the reasons for when it goes wrong, some good examples of where it goes wrong and why, the range of dates and the kinds of samples to which it applies, and the methods by which it is checked and confirmed.

Cheers