The Beginning

[valade16]

Let all scientific discussion concerning the beginning of the universe and/or life go here.

Subjects such as:

The Big Bang Theory
The Age of the Universe
The Age of the Earth
Abiogenesis
The creation of Life
etc.

[brett05]

What's the best single piece of evidence that shows billions of years?

[valade16]

What's the best single piece of evidence that shows billions of years?

It's not about a singular piece of evidence, it's that there are many, many different proofs that all point to the same conclusion.

Radiometric and Radio-Isotopic dating have been tested on an abundance of different samples (from the moon, from meteorites, various rocks and fossils from earth, etc.) and of an abundance of different elements (radiocarbon dating, Uranium-Lead dating, Calcium-Aluminum dating, Rubidium-Strontium dating, etc.).


So let's start off with what you disagree with. Do you believe any sort of nuclear half life decay dating is possible and if not, why not?

Second, Do you have any scientific evidence the earth is 6,000 years old? Because even disproving any evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old would not prove the earth is 6,000 years old, it would only prove the earth is not 4.5 billion years old.

So... do you have any evidence?

[brett05]

It's not about a singular piece of evidence, it's that there are many, many different proofs that all point to the same conclusion.

Radiometric and Radio-Isotopic dating have been tested on an abundance of different samples (from the moon, from meteorites, various rocks and fossils from earth, etc.) and of an abundance of different elements (radiocarbon dating, Uranium-Lead dating, Calcium-Aluminum dating, Rubidium-Strontium dating, etc.).

Let's work with my question and finish it off. You say there are multiple, but I asked for the single best and you've provided radiometric dating. What's the error with radiometric dating?

[valade16]

Let's work with my question and finish it off. You say there are multiple, but I asked for the single best and you've provided radiometric dating. What's the error with radiometric dating?

What do you mean by error? Do you mean the likelihood it works at all or the precision of its measurements?

[brett05]

What do you mean by error? Do you mean the likelihood it works at all or the precision of its measurements?

What is the built in assumption to all radiometric dating?

[brett05]

What is the built in assumption to all radiometric dating?

Hint: There is more than one, but one quite obvious one.

[valade16]

What is the built in assumption to all radiometric dating?

Hint: There is more than one, but one quite obvious one.

I'm going to assume you're talking about how much radioactive substance was initially in the sample in order to measure the decay?

If you're talking about something else, please let me know.

[brett05]

I'm going to assume you're talking about how much radioactive substance was initially in the sample in order to measure the decay?

If you're talking about something else, please let me know.

The amount of original substance is the correct answer.

[valade16]

The amount of original substance is the correct answer.

I assumed it was. Let me ask you, honestly: do you think scientists know that? Like if you told the scientists "but how do you know the age if you don't know how much there was to begin with?" and they'd go "You know what, you're right! Clearly we've been doing this ALL wrong and there is no way to determine age using radioactive dating!"

Or do you think they would give you how they can still determine age despite not know the exact amount in the original sample?

[brett05]

I assumed it was. Let me ask you, honestly: do you think scientists know that? Like if you told the scientists "but how do you know the age if you don't know how much there was to begin with?" and they'd go "You know what, you're right! Clearly we've been doing this ALL wrong and there is no way to determine age using radioactive dating!"

Or do you think they would give you how they can still determine age despite not know the exact amount in the original sample?

You keep saying scientists as if there aren't a decent amount that agree that there is the error in radiometric dating.

[valade16]

You keep saying scientists as if there aren't a decent amount that agree that there is the error in radiometric dating.

Can you provide those scientists and any evidence they have for why it doesn't work?

[brett05]

Can you provide those scientists and any evidence they have for why it doesn't work?

https://www.google.com/search?channe...rth+scientists

You were given not knowing the original amounts of parent material there was. You also assume uniformitarianism which is not science but faith.

[valade16]

https://www.google.com/search?channe...rth+scientists

You were given not knowing the original amounts of parent material there was. You also assume uniformitarianism which is not science but faith.

First, you did not provide any of their evidence for why they think radioactive dating is incorrect. You simply stated that they cannot know how old a sample is from the radioactive decay unless they know how much original sample there was. As my next post illustrates: they do know how much there was in the original sample.

Uniformitarianism is not faith, one can obtain uniformitarianism if everyone acknowledges a fact. 2 + 2 = 4, because there is uniformitarianism on this point doesn't mean believing 2 + 2 = 4 is faith.

[valade16]

Here is the actual science behind how they know the amount of original present material in a sample:

https://chem.tufts.edu/science/Frank...r/radioact.htm

To determine the fraction still remaining, we must know both the amount now present and also the amount present when the mineral was formed. Contrary to creationist claims, it is possible to make that determination, as the following will explain:

By way of background, all atoms of a given element have the same number of protons in the nucleus; however, the number of neutrons in the nucleus can vary. An atom with the same number of protons in the nucleus but a different number of neutrons is called an isotope. For example, uranium-238 is an isotope of uranium-235, because it has 3 more neutrons in the nucleus. It has the same number of protons, otherwise it wouldn't be uranium. The number of protons in the nucleus of an atom is called its atomic number. The sum of protons plus neutrons is the mass number.

We designate a specific group of atoms by using the term "nuclide." A nuclide refers to a group of atoms with specified atomic number and mass number.

Potassium-Argon dating:

The element potassium (symbol K) has three nuclides, K39, K40, and K41. Only K40 is radioactive; the other two are stable. K40 can decay in two different ways: it can break down into either calcium or argon. The ratio of calcium formed to argon formed is fixed and known. Therefore the amount of argon formed provides a direct measurement of the amount of potassium-40 present in the specimen when it was originally formed.

Because argon is an inert gas, it is not possible that it might have been in the mineral when it was first formed from molten magma. Any argon present in a mineral containing potassium-40 must have been formed as the result of radioactive decay. F, the fraction of K40 remaining, is equal to the amount of potassium-40 in the sample, divided by the sum of potassium-40 in the sample plus the calculated amount of potassium required to produce the amount of argon found. The age can then be calculated from equation (1).

In spite of the fact that it is a gas, the argon is trapped in the mineral and can't escape. (Creationists claim that argon escape renders age determinations invalid. However, any escaping argon gas would lead to a determined age younger, not older, than actual. The creationist "argon escape" theory does not support their young earth model.)

The argon age determination of the mineral can be confirmed by measuring the loss of potassium. In old rocks, there will be less potassium present than was required to form the mineral, because some of it has been transmuted to argon. The decrease in the amount of potassium required to form the original mineral has consistently confirmed the age as determined by the amount of argon formed.