| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Pahu" |
| Date: |
19 Sep 2007 01:31:46 PM |
| Object: |
Science Disproves Evolution |
Radiometric Dating: Contradictions and Key Assumption 2
Many published radiometric dates can be checked by comparisons with
the evolution-based ages for fossils that sometimes lie above or below
radiometrically dated rock. In more than 400 of these published checks
(about half of those sampled), the radiometrically determined ages
were at least one geologic age in error-indicating major errors in
methodology (b). One wonders how many other dating checks were not
even published because they, too, were in error.
A major assumption underlying all radioactive dating techniques is
that decay rates, which have been essentially constant over the past
100 years, also have been constant over the past 4,600,000,000 years.
This huge, critical, and untestable assumption is made, even though no
one knows all the root causes of radioactive decay (c). Furthermore,
two lines of evidence suggest that radioactive decay rates were once
much faster than they are today (d).
b. John Woodmorappe, "Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised," Creation
Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 16, September 1979, pp. 102-129.
Robert H. Brown, "Graveyard Clocks: Do They Tell Real Time?" Signs of
the Times, June 1982, pp. 8-9.
"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.' " William D.
Stansfield, Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.,
1977), p. 84.
c. "For some inexplicable reason, the nuclei of certain elements
become unstable and spontaneously release energy and/or particles."
Stansfield, p. 82.
d. The first line of evidence concerns "blasting halos." See:
Robert V. Gentry, "Variance of the Decay Constant over Geological
Time," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 5, September 1968,
pp. 83-84.
Robert V. Gentry, Creation's Tiny Mystery, 2nd edition (Knoxville,
Tennessee: Earth Sciences Associates, 1988), p. 282.
Paul Ramdohr, "New Observations on Radioactive Halos and Radioactive
Fracturing," Oak Ridge National Laboratory Translation (ORNL-tr-755),
26 August 1965, pp. 16-25.
The second line of evidence concerns the apparent decrease in the
vibrational rates of atoms.
Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Are
Based on Unreasonable Assumptions.
To estimate a date prior to the beginning of written records, one must
assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the
clock's initial setting is known, and that the clock has not been
disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated,
overlooked, or invalid.
http://www.creationscience.com/
.
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
19 Sep 2007 01:51:30 PM |
|
|
In article <1190226706.564085.153270@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> Pahu <pahu70@yahoo.com> writes:
Radiometric Dating: Contradictions and Key Assumption 2
Sorry, son, but we're still waiting for your comments regarding the refutation
of part 1.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
23 Sep 2007 04:00:33 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:31:46 -0700, Pahu wrote:
A major assumption underlying all radioactive dating techniques is
that decay rates, which have been essentially constant over the past
100 years, also have been constant over the past 4,600,000,000 years.
This huge, critical, and untestable assumption is made
Ah, yes, of course. Let's see...
Evolution requires long time periods, thus we'll attack the notion of an
old earth. In order to do so, we will have to...
Debunk pretty much all of geology
Debunk pretty much all of radiometric dating
Debunk pretty much all of geophysics
And, in order to do those, we'll have to, in essence, rip physics itself
apart, to insert our "errors" - decay rates changing, etc, etc, etc -
where convenient, all while failing to note the humour value of relying on
that very same physics to tell us where to insert the errors and what
those errors should be.
Meanwhile, in doing all this, we overlook something very basic: we are now
taking on at least three distinct fields, not a one of which has a damned
thing to do with evolution, but which _do_ have a lot to do with pretty
much every scientist, past or present, either directly or indirectly -
which is to say, if our notions of magical speed ups or slowdowns hold
true, we're playing hob with everything from geophysics to cosmology,
physics itself and by extension many other fields. Thus we are, in
essence, asserting that not a one of these hundreds of thousands
(millions?) of scientists is smart enough to note the gaping errors in
their work thanks to wildly fluctuating timelines or laws of physics,
meaning they are all screaming bloody morons who need us, with our
millennia-old books lacking in any foundation or validation whatsoever to
tell them what the _correct_ timelines involved are.
I'm sure the worlds' scientists will immediately drop all their
current work to solve this little problem, how to reconcile the entire body
of modern science with the scribblings of questionably-educated goatherds
from days long past.
--
God: colourless, odorless invention, given enough time, kills people
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
