This is very long. I will be happy to answer further questions, but I will not seek to further pursue the subject in this kind of detail. My apologies for raising this subject, which is usually deprecated in aus.religion.christian.

My aim was to show that [our friend's] description of sceptics in the weeping icons thread: "denying based on falsehood ... deep in deceitful ways ... denying the works of God who made them", might reasonably describe his own approach to geology and Earth science.

I do not say [our friend] himself is lacking in integrity. This reaction to his remarks on deceit and falsehood is intended to be robust and challenging, but it is not intended to disparage [our friend] personally.

[our friend] <> wrote: > On 31 Jan 2001 13:14:36 +1000, Chris Ho-Stuart

> <> wrote:

[snip]

 

> Instead of attempting to answer all your statements, may I just zero

> in on what I perceive to be the lynchpin? If you are correct in that

> then I will let it go if not then there is no use debating the

> peripherals.

>

> Chris stated:

>

>>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).

>>

>> the enormous wealth of results which have been obtained stand

>>as a scientific proof of great age of the Earth, amongst other

>>things.

>>

>>I am quite serious when I say that there is no (none, not any,

>>zero) credible dispute over whether or not radiometric 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.

 

I am happy to defend the above statements, as given.

Please note carefully what I am *not* saying in the above remarks. I am not saying that every individual radiometric date is gospel. I am saying that the general principles and foundations are valid. Radiometric dating useful for estimating ages, and is amply confirmed and proven to be useful. The wealth of data collected is proof, by any reasonable standard of proof, for the Earth being very old (some billions of years).

A date obtained for a particular sample is always subject to uncertainty.

There are measurement errors (precision) where uncertainty is expressed as error bars. There is the possibility of method failure, which may make results meaningless (accuracy).

[our friend's] position is entirely dependent on method failure. He must have this apply to every single measurement; not just some or even most of them. He must have the method itself intrinsically meaningless. For measurements using long lived radioactive isotopes: Potassium-Argon, Uranium-Lead, Rubidium-Strontium, Samarium-Neodymium, and a host of others, he cannot merely call individual results into doubt (which is a reasonable position). He must have every single result being utterly meaningless, because they all work only for ages in many millions of years.

[our friend's] questions are derived from a small book by Paul Taylor. All the points in his post can be found in on-line extracts from that book, at <http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-radioactive.html>

In my response, I will therefore refer to Taylor explicitly, as the actual source of [our friend's] questions and comments. Knowing the source makes it possible to pin down some of the errors and omissions more precisely than would have been possible working from [our friend's] post alone; and also serves as an indirect acknowledgment that [our friend's] himself is writing in good faith.

1. Seven questions answered. ----------------------------

> (snip rest)

>

> Okay. I am interested in whether the following statements are true or

> false. Thats all Chris. Are you able to state true or false to the

> unbracketed statements please????

>

> 1.

> Rock strata dates were assigned long before the first use of

> radioactive age estimating methods in 1911. (They were based on

> Evolutionary presuppositions) True or False?

 

False.

There were some quantified estimates of age prior to 1911, but they were not based on evolutionary presuppositions, and they were not in the form of dates assigned to strata.

Some very crude estimates of bounds on the time it would take for whole sequences of strata to be laid down, or eroded away, were made from time to time, based on geological presuppositions. The reasoning used was sound, and the conclusion of great age has been vindicated by modern dating techniques.

Eicher[2] lists 19 estimates for various formations and assumptions, made between 1860 and 1909. These range from 3 to 1584 million years, but are mostly from 30 to 100 million years.

By 1911, it was well established that the Earth was at least several hundred million years old.

> 2.

> Age estimates which are obviously wrong have been noted. True or

> false?

 

True; and nearly always we can tell why they are wrong.

Each dating method requires certain assumptions to hold. The methods are not trusted unless there is reason for confidence in those assumptions.

Scientific literature is often cited by creationists for obviously wrong dates. However, in every case of which I am aware, these citations refer to a study of the failure modes of a dating method, in which a method is applied to a circumstance where incorrect results were expected by the investigators.

There are also cases where an incorrect date is not so obvious. It is proposed seriously, but then later substantially invalidated. I know of some examples, where dates are altered by 10% or so. This is a large error, scientifically speaking. But cases where a seriously proposed date is later shown to be incorrect by an order of magnitude or more are very rare indeed.

Taylor needs dates to be wrong by more than five orders of magnitude!

> 3.

> New rock in recent lava flows (less than 200 years old) produced ages

> of between 3 billion and 10.5 million years old. True or false?

 

False.

Taylor is citing a study dating OLD rocks in recent lava flows. This distortion is widely used by creationists[14].

The particular example being cited here concerns the dating of xenoliths within lava. Xenoliths are inclusions of older rocks which are picked up as the lava ascends through the Earth. That the lava was 200 years old is completely irrelevant; it was not the 200 year old lava that was being dated.

The question being addressed by this research is whether or not the xenoliths could be accurately dated. The research confirms that they cannot be reliably dated by the tested method, as the researchers had expected. The inaccuracy was not demonstrated by comparison with a 200 years old "correct"

result (since the inclusions were certainly far older) but by the lack of consistency in the measured results for the inclusions. The causes of method error are a combination of the effects of heat from the lava enabling contamination by atmospheric argon, and/or the presence of argon within the lower mantle where the minerals were first formed.

A crucial step in Krypton-Argon dating is usually removal of xenoliths.

> 4.

> Arriving at a date depends largely on a chain of assumptions. True or

> false?

 

True.

But note that science does not make up assumptions for the hell of it. If there is reason to doubt the necessary assumptions, then the method is considered unreliable. There is an enormous body of research concerned with testing these assumptions.

Taylor's habit of simply using the word "assumption" can give the misleading impression that scientists are not taking adequate account of the requirements for the accurate dating. But in real science, "assumptions" are a deliberate attempt to identify possible sources of error, so that they can be addressed.

> 5.

> Assumption One. That there existed no daughter elements in the sample

> or that the amount can be accurately estimated. (Thus all lead in a

> piece of uranium is assumed to be produced by decay). True or false?

 

False.

Last week, I answered this one as "true"; because it is normally true for generic radiometric dating, and understanding this assumption is important for understanding radiometric dating.

However, there is an important exception to the general rule, and comically the example Taylor chooses (of uranium to lead decay)

can serve as an example of this exception.

Isochron dating is a variation of generic radiometric dating, which does not depend on knowledge of the original daughter isotope. This requires three measurements, rather than two; the parent isotope, the daughter isotope, and another isotope of the daughter element which is not part of a decay chain.

Isochron dating also requires measurement of samples that incorporate a range of different minerals, all of which have the same age.

The nice thing about isochron dating is that violations of its assumptions (such as different ages for the minerals tested, or contamination from outside sources, or loss to outside sources)

can actually be detected in the vast majority of cases. The method does not merely calculate a number; it calculates the slope of a line using measurements of several samples. Violation of the required assumptions nearly always means that the measurements are not on a line, and so the method can detect its own failure. Knowledge of initial daughter isotope amounts, however, is NOT one of the requirements.

A straightforward explanation of isochron dating for the non-specialist is available on-line[11]. It includes also a discussion of the possible errors in isochron dating.

Taylor's example cited above involves lead and uranium. Lead exists in four different isotopes. Three of these occur as final results of complex decay series from Uranium and Thorium, and one is not radiogenic. This allows use of the isochron method, in which case we do NOT need to know initial amounts of lead in the sample! This is standard for uranium-lead dating of zircons[3].

> 6.

> Assumption Two. The material being dated is assumed to be in a closed

> system without the effects of external influences. (For example

> leaching of radioactive elements has been observed under certain

> circumstances) True or false?

 

True.

If there is reason to think this assumption is violated, then you can't use

the method. Isochron dating detects violation of the assumption.

Circumstances in which significant leaching occurs are invariably

circumstances in which you don't use radiometric dating.

As for assumption one, there are exceptions to this general rule, where

radiometric dates are obtained even for open systems; but such methods are

inherently less reliable. Dickin has some very technical discussion on this

matter[3].

By and large, however, assumption two is a precondition for radiometric

dating, to an even greater extent than assumption one.

Any radiometric dating method has some associated assumptions, which are

usually variations of assumptions one and two listed above. But assumptions

are not merely assumed. They indicate something which needs to be tested or

justified in some way.

Sometimes assumptions are violated, in unexpected ways, and there can be

substantial undetected errors as a result. But what counts as "substantial"?

The errors involved are nothing like what is required to invalidate the old

Earth conclusion. For example, if there is leaching, or otherwise some

process leading to losses or gains of material, this means the measurement

will be very inaccurate. It rarely makes a result totally meaningless. The

observational data still shows that the Earth is very old, even if errors

mean that specific dates cannot be reliably given.

Any credible text on radiometric dating will include discussion of

assumptions and errors and checks. Here is an example[5].

"These types of errors, which can beset even the most meticulous radiometric

analysis, sometimes add up to sizable total errors, especially when very old

rocks are being dated. The point is well illustrated by past estimates made

for the beginning and end of the Silurian Period. In evaluations made

between 1959 and 1968 alone, the duration of the Silurian was halved, and

then doubled, and then halved again. It now seems likely that the Silurian

began between 440 and 430 million years ago and that it ended between 410

and 400 million years ago. However, the exact dates remain uncertain."

"Earth and Life through Time", Steven M Stanley, p117

Sounds bad? Not as bad as you think. The problem is that estimates of dates

for the start and the end of the Silurian differ by as much as 15 million

years, which is nearly 4% error. The duration of the Silurian, which is the

difference in time from start to finish, varies from 20 to 40 million years

in the estimates; but this is less than 10% of the total elapsed time since

the Silurian, which is roughly 400 million years.

Taylor, however, wants to consider a date of 6 to 10 thousand years for the

age of the Earth. That is utterly and completely incompatible with the

evidence; no amount of leaching or contamination or other such processes can

explain this; Taylor is merely ignoring evidence and pretending to make

sensible objections. This is unambiguously pseudo science.

> 7.

> Assumption Three. It is assumed that the rate of decay has remained

> constant throughout time-absolutely constant. True of false?

 

True.

This assumption is crucial. It is also solidly established.

The proviso "absolutely constant" is misleading; in fact if Taylor insists

on this as part of the assumption then the answer to this question becomes

"false".

Small variations in decay rate would simply lead to small variations in

measured ages. What Taylor needs to do to make this point have any force is

to show enormous variations in decay rate. However, all the indications are

that decay rates are constant to well within the limits of measurement used

for dating.

There are two possible ways in which decay rates might vary. One is that

decay rates can vary depending on the environment. Taylor cites examples of

this, but omits a few embarrassing details. Firstly, variations only occur

under very extreme circumstances. Second, this occurs for some kinds of

decay and not others; specifically electron capture decay. Third, the

variations are very small -- fractions of a percent. Fourth, such variations

only occur in a few isotopes, and not the isotopes which are used in

radiometric dating.

What really demolishes Taylor's position is that this variation, under

circumstances which have no effect on radiometric dating, stands as a

powerful confirmation of the underlying quantum theory and electro-weak

theory that governs decay processes. Quantum mechanics now stands as one of

the most precisely measured and tested scientific theories ever. It is known

that the theory is incomplete; because it does not yet properly incorporate

gravity and relativity; but this is no help to Taylor. Any new relativistic

quantum theory will be a refinement of what is already known, reducing to

classical quantum theory in normal circumstances. That is, the circumstances

which apply for radiometric dating.

This brings us to the second way in which decay rates might vary, which is

variation of the fundamental physical constants that govern decay -- these

being primarily the speed of light, and Planck's constant. If these could be

shown to vary, under any circumstances, it would revolutionize all of

physics. It is quite possible that they might vary, under the kinds of

circumstances which are proposed for the very early universe, near the

initial singularity. But of course, such variations would have enormous

effects on the very structure of reality. There have been many attempts to

look for any tiny variations which could give a clue to these more extreme

conditions; but all investigations show that the physical constants are

constant to the limits of measurement. There is no hope here for Taylor at

all.

There are many independent lines of evidence which show the effective

constancy of decay rates and related physical constants. These are not only

laboratory measurements in the present; they include study of the past. For

example, nuclear processes are studied in distant stars and galaxies, and

show no signs of any discernible difference in the underlying physics over

billions of years. (Note that looking at such distant objects is looking

into the past.) Fundamental constants are also so fundamental that any

variation would have an enormous range of effects visible in geological

traces from the past. No such traces are apparent.

Another direct consideration of decay rates in the past is study of the Oklo

natural nuclear reactor. This was a fortuitous and unusual case in which

self sustaining nuclear reactions occurred about 1.8 billion years ago.

Traces from this reactor show that the decay processes at that time were the

same as now.

Drastic changes in decay rates and physical constants have been disproved,

by any reasonable standard of proof. Scientists are still looking for tiny

variations in these constants. Theory predicts that there are no such

variations within the lifetime of the Earth. Scientists like to disprove

someone else's theory, so they still look for signs of any variation. So

far, however, observation fits theory like a glove. There are no signs of

any variation at all.

Some good discussions of the constancy of decay rates are available

on-line[15,16]. Dickin[3] also discusses this issue, and the Oklo

phenomenon.

2. Responses to two quotes. ---------------------------

> Now leaving these important matters, I offer the following for your

> information.

>

> "It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute

> dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given

> geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite

> different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years) There is no

> absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'. Evolutionist,

> Biologist, William Stansfield, PHD, California Polytech State. 'The

> Science of Evolution.', p.84.

 

I, in return, offer this for your information.

The immediately following sentence from that quote is as follows: "The

uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists

and evolutionists, but their overall interpretation supports the concept of

a long history of geological evolution."

Taylor cannot quote this context. It undercuts him entirely. Taylor is

looking for support of his view that radiometric methods are absolutely

unreliable, which is not what Stansfield is saying.

Stansfield argues, and I agree, that radiometric methods are not absolutely

reliable. However, Stansfield also argues that radiometric methods are not

absolutely unreliable, and that overall they support the observation of

Earth's great age.

The larger context of this quote just gets worse and worse for Taylor.

The paragraph Taylor is quoting is followed by a paragraph about an

independent dating method called racemization dating, using polarity and

amino acids, with examples from about 110,000 years to 8,500,000 years old.

This is immediately followed with a section on continental drift, which is

confirmed by "overwhelming evidence"[sic]. Continental drift operates over

hundreds of millions of years (as reading Stansfield in the original will

show).

Thus Stansfield also refutes an earlier assertion by [our friend] that

radiometric dating "in no way can be tested by other independent tests".

Science is not able to give final proof of a particular age (like the

present best estimate of 4.54 +- 0.02 billion years for the age of the

Earth). But it can invalidate incorrect hypotheses. The notion that the

Earth is only a few thousand years old has been definitively refuted now for

over 200 years.

Taylor also gives a second quote:

> "The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion

> years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such

> 'confirmation' may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered

> quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible

> realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously

> thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this

> could mean that atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster,

> and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million

> years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man."

> Evolutionist, Frederick B. Jueneman. "Secular Catastrophism"

> Industrial Research and Development, Vol. 24 (June, 1982), p.21.

 

I have not been able to obtain the reference, which is very obscure, but the

quote seems to be a case of one pseudo scientist citing another.

That may be harsh; I don't know much about Jueneman. He is (was?) a fan of

Velikovsky, and has written for Aeon magazine. He has written a couple of

books, and still writes a column for R&D magazine. My guess is that Jueneman

is a maverick who likes to shake up people's complacency by deliberately

advocating wild and wacky ideas. At least, that is the most generous

interpretation.

In any case, the actual content of the quote is drivel, no matter who wrote

it. I see no reason at all for taking it seriously.

Nearly twenty years ago Jueneman suggested that the estimate of 4.5 billion

years may be short lived. However, twenty years of further research and

development has only confirmed that estimate, and made it more precise (4.54

billion years +- 0.02).

The "horrible realization" Jueneman mentions is most likely a reference to

work in which careful measurement and extreme conditions was able to produce

tiny variations in a few isotopes not used for dating; results which confirm

the underlying theory of radioactive decay.

The quote implies that these results call into question the decay rates of

uranium and thorium. That is false.

Jueneman makes a very confused association between global disaster and

varying decay rates. In fact, the notions are completely distinct. Resetting

of radiometric clocks has nothing at all to do with varying decay rates.

Even more comically, reset of a clock means that measured times now refer to

elapsed time since the clocks were reset. Therefore Jueneman's claim that a

reset effect could bring the Mesozoic to within human history is complete

bollocks.

Here is an article written by Jueneman last year, which assumes without

comment the great age of the Earth, and conventional dating of the Mesozoic.

<http://www.rdmag.com/features/0001fred.htm>

Here is a rather self congratulatory page about his books, which plainly

depicts him as a bit of a maverick.

<http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/essays/index.htm>

His books are not available in the Brisbane city library, the Queensland

state library, or the main university libraries. My guess is that this is

more a reflection on Jueneman than on the libraries.

Frankly, the quote above is very much characteristic of Velikovsky style

pseudo science: impressive sounding words which evaporate into nonsense on

the slightest examination, together with vague invocations of global

catastrophes without any serious attempt to actually get a reasonable

explanation of how the catastrophe relates to geological evidence, or the

fact that the catastrophes in question (which for Velikovsky generally

involved the planet Venus bouncing all over the solar system like a billiard

ball) violate the most elementary basics of physics.

3. Closing remarks. -------------------

> Few people realise that there are age estimation methods which seem to

> contradict the typical old-age 'dates' mentioned in the media.

 

That is because this too is a falsehood.

I do not know of any sensible dating method which contradicts the old-age

dates. That is a zero, people. None.

I am not simply stating this as a matter of presumption. I am reasonably

well informed on this subject. There are many methods cited by creationists:

polonium halos, meteorite dust, magnetic field decay, sizes of river deltas,

metals in the ocean, etc[13].

Every one, on examination, turns out to be a case of human incompetence,

distortion, or lunacy. I know of no exceptions. Some, like polonium halos,

or meteorite dust, were interesting questions in their time; but have long

since been resolved[10].

> Chris, you shall now have to attack the quotes, the men and the points

> to validify your assertion that this method of dating (radio-metric)

> can be trusted at all. You made these statements:

 

The first quote is misleading as to the real views of the quoted authority,

and omits crucial context. The source of the second quote is not credible.

The content of the first quote questions a presumption of absolute accuracy

(and I agree), but it does not deny that the methods are sometimes correct,

or that they still imply enormous periods of time even when highly

inaccurate. The content of the second quote is simply drivel.

There is plenty of dispute amongst scientists on many matters, which is

fertile ground for "quote mining"; looking for brief quotes that appear to

give credence to some pet theory of the pseudo scientist. Creationists do

this a lot, and it is dishonest.

But let us put the ball on the other foot, and consider quotes stating that

the Earth is obviously old. To refute them, you will likewise have to attack

the men, the quotes and/or the points. It was very easy for me to identify

the flaws in Taylor's quotes. I think you will find it much more difficult

to do the same with my quotes. I'll supply a selection for you to consider

at the end of this post.

>>I am quite serious when I say that there is no (none, not any,

>>zero) credible dispute over whether or not radiometric 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.

>

> Forgive me if I do not see it as you do. (Love that bit at the

> end..'excepting only people who don't know what they are talking

> about."

 

I most definitely stand that phrase. I do not think you actually know what

you are talking about here. This is not a subject in which you have much

background. You are in the position of an interested outsider, unsure of

whom to trust. You are able to repeat what Taylor says, but you have no

other background which would enable a sanity check on his claims.

As for Taylor; I prefer not to speculate on the man himself. I can say that

the writings are recognizably worthless. I don't know his background, or how

he comes to be writing this material.

Conversely, at this point you can't readily tell whether or not I am

reliable! It is possible that the information in this post might give some

you pause for thought; but you should no more take my amateur writings as

gospel than you should trust Taylor.

If you want an informed opinion on the relative merit of the scientific

arguments, this will require a bit of work. You are by no means obliged to

undertake that study. If, perchance, you were interested, there is no reason

why you could not. It would take some months, and a wider and more demanding

range of reading than creationist tracts; but nothing impossibly difficult.

The references listed in this post would be a good starting point for anyone

interested.

I maintain that there is no dispute that the Earth is billions of years old

amongst those who know what they are talking about. If you look through a

University library for material on the age of the Earth, you will find

plenty of discussion of errors and uncertainties; but you won't find any

serious discussion speculating that the Earth could possibly be younger than

billions of years. That has been a non-issue now for nearly a hundred years.

> I think I would rather believe the story of Creation and not long ages

> ago if that is alright with you. (Remembering that MY religion allows

> me to be even a priest with long age views).

 

Fine by me. I'm just warning you that the arguments used to defend the young

age Earth which purport to be scientific are actually deceitful; and so I am

advising caution when you label unbelievers as deceitful.

If you defend your views by reference and trust in the bible, then I will

certainly disagree; but I no longer call this deceit.

Best wishes -- Chris

4. References. --------------

All listed references I have accessed directly for myself. I have drawn on

these sources for information, but the text of the post is my own original

work, except for explicitly indicated quotes. Any errors in this post are

therefore my own responsibility.

[1] G. Brent Dalrymple. "The Age of the Earth" (Stanford University Press,

1991)

 

This is the classic reference. Comprehensive and detailed, but not

excessively technical. Highly recommended.

[2] Don L Eicher. "Geologic Time" 2nd ed, (Prentice Hall, 1976)

 

Good readable book. A major advantage is that it is short. It does not bog

down into exhaustive detail of the many geological eras, and gives some very

good historical background.

[3] Alan P Dickin "Radiogenic Isotope Geology" (Cambridge University Press,

1995)

 

Highly detailed and specific on the various methods; a standard reference.

The first couple of chapters explain the physics, the assumptions, the

justifications, and the many experimental protocols of radiometric dating.

The rest is a case by case detailed examination of the different methods.

Each chapter is self contained, which makes this a superb reference to find

details of any particular method. It is, however, very technical; not

suitable as an introduction.

[4] Robert H Dott, Roger L Batten. "Evolution of the Earth", 2nd ed, (McGraw

Hill, 1976)

 

General purpose text. The first six chapters are the most relevant for us,

and could be read fairly quickly.

[5] Steven M Stanley "Earth and Life through Time", 2nd ed, (WH Freeman &

Co, 1989)

 

Another general purpose text, using palaeontological and geological science

to give a detailed history of the Earth.

[6] A. Hallam, "Great Geological Controversies" (Oxford University Press,

1983)

 

A look at some conflicts in early geology. Good at undermining simplistic

notions of good guys and bad guys. Most relevant is the age of the Earth

controversy, between Kelvin and geologists, in the latter half of the

nineteenth century. (Chapter 4)

 

[7] William D Stansfield, "The Science of Evolution" (Collier Macmillan,

1977)

 

Widely cited by creationists; who invariably omit crucial aspects of the

cited passage. Stansfield emphasizes that science does not formally prove

conclusions, which makes him an easy source for quotes that downplay

scientific results, or chastise scientists for over confidence. I take issue

with some of his views on the philosophy of science, but mostly I agree with

him. His book is a detailed defence of evolution as valid science, and so

goes much beyond the subject of this post. First four chapters are relevant

to us.

[8] <http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/resources/Wiens.html>

A very readable introduction to radiometric dating. This is particularly

useful as the author is a Christian, who is specifically attempting to

address confusions and misconceptions prevalent amongst Christians and

fostered by creationists.

[9] <http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8851/radiometric.html>

A page filled with pointers for investigating radiometric dating on the web

and in the library. Recommended.

[10] <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#constant>

Good FAQ on the age of the Earth, specifically intended to address

creationist confusions. The link cited takes you directly to the section on

constancy of decay rates.

[11] <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html>

Simple discussion of isochron dating. This is aimed at the non-specialist;

it may take careful reading to follow the explanations, but advanced

background knowledge is not needed. Sources of error are specifically

addressed. Highly recommended for understanding isochrons.

[12] <http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-radioactive.html>

A creationist page, based on the same book that [our friend] was using.

[13] <http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html>

A list of "evidence" for a young Earth, from the same web site as the above.

The eleven evidences exhibited here are all worthless; most of them

comically so. Not because they give the wrong answers, but because the

evidence and reasoning itself is silly, or because the matter was resolved

decades ago.

[14] <http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/hawaii.html>

A concise refutation of the creationist claim that 200 year lava was dated

to millions of years.

[15] <http://physics.hallym.ac.kr/education/faq/decay_rates.html>

The section of the Usenet physics FAQ which addresses the constancy of decay

rates. Shows how they can be varied.

[16] <http://physics.hallym.ac.kr/education/faq/constants.html>

The section of the Usenet physics FAQ which addresses the constancy of

fundamental constants in physics. Briefly mentions the Oklo natural reactor.

5. Appendix: Some quotes. -------------------------

Taylor supplies some quotes intended to suggest support for his views within

the scientific community. On the other hand, I claim that Taylor's views

have no support, excepting only people who don't know what they are talking

about.

[our friend] points out that this means I have to discredit his quotes

somehow. [our friend] is correct: I do have to discredit the quotes. I have

done so above, in section 2 of this post.

In this concluding section, I put the boot on the other foot, and quote

three authorities.

First Stansfield[3]: the same reference used by Taylor for his first quote!

When it comes to plate tectonics and continental drift, Stansfield is

unambiguous that this indicates great age.

Page 86 "By extrapolation back through time, the continents must have formed

one giant land mass, called Pangea ("all lands"), about 200 million years

ago." Page 87,90 (pages 88 and 89 are actually a large diagram. The quoted

text is continuous)

"Recall that scientific theories gain validity in proportion to their

predictive value. One of the most striking predictions of the continental

drift theory was verified by P. M. Hurley. A sharp discontinuity was known

to exit between a 2,000 million year old geological province in Ghana on the

Ivory cost of Africa and the 600 million year old province in Dahomey,

Nigeria to the east. This discontinuity continues southwesterly into the

ocean near Accra in Ghana. On the assumption that Brazil was formerly joined

to Africa, the discontinuity should have entered South America near Sao

Luis. Hurley went to Sao Luis and discovered the same continuity in

Brazilian rocks exactly where it had been predicted by the continental drift

theory.

Additional evidence to support this theory has come from the fossil record.

For example, the fossils of a sheep-sized reptile known as Lystrosaurus,

which flourished about 200 million years ago, were recently found in the

Coal Sack Bluff of the Transarctic Mountains. They appear identical to those

found in Africa, India, and China at that same time. Lystrosaurus could not

have crossed even narrow spans of open ocean. The conclusion is inescapable

that Antarctica was formerly joined to these other land masses." Page 90:

"The overwhelming evidence that has accumulated since the 1960s has

converted most "antidrifters" into staunch supporters of the theory." Page

96, after an intervening discussion of biogeography: "The overwhelming

majority of facts concerning biogeographical distribution are only

understandable in terms of continental drift, migration, isolation and

evolution"

Quote number two, from Professor Don Eicher, geologist, of the Uni of

Colorado, in "Geologic Time"[2] (page 18). "In addition to refuting, once

and for all, Kelvin's arguments demanding a young Earth and Sun,

radioactivity thus provided the ultimate tool for measuring geological time.

It was clear from even the earliest efforts that the Earth's antiquity was

far greater than prevailing scientific opinion at the turn of the century

would have deemed possible." [Note: Kelvin's estimates ranged from 20 to 100

million years.]

 

Third quote, from page 103-104 of "Great Geological Controversies" by

Professor A Hallam, University of Birmingham[6]. This is near the conclusion

of a section on the dispute between Kelvin and geologists. "As the years

passed the number of reliable dates inevitably increased, as did the variety

of isotopes utilized in radiometric dating and which could therefore be used

for cross-checking. Instrumental quality and hence precision of age

determination improved, and so did the understanding of geological

relationships bearing on age determination, while considerable new

information accumulated on stratal thickness across the world. Despite all

this there has been no really drastic revision of the Phanerozoic time-scale

in over half a century, as table one clearly demonstrates. [The Phanerozoic

scale goes back to the Cambrian, roughly 600 million years ago. Table 1

lists 5 different scales, as given in 1917, 1933, 1947, 1960 and 1971.

Variations in estimates are generally within 20% or less.]

Yet in the closing years of the last century and the start of this there was

wild disparity in the dates put forward by the geologists who attempted age

determinations. Thus the base of the Cambrian was variously determined,

between 1885 and 1902, at 3, 18, 28, 600, 794, and 2400 million years! Such

is the measure of value of Barrell's achievement in particular and

radiometric dating in general.

As regards the age of the earth, there was an important meeting of the

National Research Council in Washington in 1931. In the longest and most

important section of the committee report Holmes concluded: 'No more

definite statement can therefore be made at present than that the age of the

earth exceeds 1460 million years, is probably not less than 1600 million

years, and is probably much less than 3000 million years.' Half a century

later it is generally believed that the earth is approximately 4500 million

years old, though the age of the oldest rocks yet discovered is less than

3800 million years. There may be further revisions, but they are likely to

be insignificant. The age of the earth is no longer the subject of major

controversy."

Cheers -- Chris