My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

[_Franktalk]

I am definitely not a YEC. But I do feel there is a problem with our current dating system for the past. I would expect that one method if accurate should be confirmed by other methods. Erosion is in my mind a pretty direct measurement of the past. Yet when we examine erosion rates in the US and project backwards we don't get the same kind of time scales for events we get with other systems of dating. I sure don't know for sure what the age for all of the ages in the past should be but they appear to me to be off.

Some years back I studied this and found the two systems were way different. I don't really care which date is correct but I did find the study interesting. Erosion study shows the earth to be old. Way outside the boundary for YEC. But it is in conflict with current decay systems of dating. I stopped my study before I could come up with a correction factor. But a good guess might be 100 to 1.

[_spotlight]

I am definitely not a YEC. But I do feel there is a problem with our current dating system for the past. I would expect that one method if accurate should be confirmed by other methods. Erosion is in my mind a pretty direct measurement of the past. Yet when we examine erosion rates in the US and project backwards we don't get the same kind of time scales for events we get with other systems of dating. I sure don't know for sure what the age for all of the ages in the past should be but they appear to me to be off.

Some years back I studied this and found the two systems were way different. I don't really care which date is correct but I did find the study interesting. Erosion study shows the earth to be old. Way outside the boundary for YEC. But it is in conflict with current decay systems of dating. I stopped my study before I could come up with a correction factor. But a good guess might be 100 to 1.

Frank, you appear to me to be off.

Erosion rates? Really frank? Do share enough detail so we can correct you. Have you heard of tectonic uplift and crustal recycling? Are you aware that many mountains are still rising? Or that present rates of erosion are particularly high due to more mountain building and higher mountains than usual in earth's history? (Erosion rates slow as mountains lose elevation.)

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD501.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate- ... earth.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/ ... -yea2.html

[_Franktalk]

Frank, you appear to me to be off.

Erosion rates? Really frank? Do share enough detail so we can correct you. Have you heard of tectonic uplift and crustal recycling? Are you aware that many mountains are still rising? Or that present rates of erosion are particularly high due to more mountain building and higher mountains than usual in earth's history? (Erosion rates slow as mountains lose elevation.)

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD501.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate- ... earth.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/ ... -yea2.html

I made a comment and stand by it. If you wish to not check it out then so be it. I could care less.

Your comments appear to me to come from a child defending something the child believes should be defended. I on the other hand defend nothing.

If you wish to ignore what I say I am fine with that. I do find it interesting that you did not ask one question why I feel the way I do. I suspect you worship at the feet of some authority and will not accept anything that interferes with your worship. That is fine, we do all have our sacred cows.

[_spotlight]

I do find it interesting that you did not ask one question why I feel the way I do.

That would be covered by -
"Do share enough detail so we can correct you."

If all you have are feelings don't bother Frank. If you have some evidence that the scientific community has missed over the past hundred years, please share. I'll go get the popcorn ready.

[_Franktalk]

I do find it interesting that you did not ask one question why I feel the way I do.

That would be covered by -
"Do share enough detail so we can correct you."

If all you have are feelings don't bother Frank. If you have some evidence that the scientific community has missed over the past hundred years, please share. I'll go get the popcorn ready.

Do you know the difference between a question and a statement? This first sentence is a question. The second sentence is a statement.

[_Franktalk]

Spotlight,

Please provide me with a link to a study which shows that erosion evidence confirms radioactive decay dating?

[_spotlight]

Do you know the difference between a question and a statement? This first sentence is a question. The second sentence is a statement.

And that's important why?
But here you go:
Do share enough detail so we can correct you, OK?

[_spotlight]

Spotlight,

Please provide me with a link to a study which shows that erosion evidence confirms radioactive decay dating?

I can't respond to this and have my post remain in the celestial forum Frank. So I'll just leave the offending word out since there is not another word that can adequately take it's place.

Only an _ _ _ _ _ would use erosion rates to confirm any kind of dating technique Frank. There is nothing consistent at all about erosion rates over geologic time. A thousand different variables can affect rates of erosion.

Radioactive decay rates on the other hand are constant/consistent since they depend upon the nature of atoms which decay due to the weak nuclear force. One atom is indistinguishable from the next for the same isotope of the same element and the nature of atoms remains unchanged over time as we can observe from the study of distant starlight.

[_spotlight]

Frank is not going to share a cut and paste of some internet crackpot that finds fault with radiometric dating??
Maybe he'll discredit me for using two question marks instead. That seems consistent with someone who'd use an inaccurate means to measure the passage of time to calibrate a far more accurate measure of the passage of time. If he were alive when Einstein lived and disagreed with GR he'd point out that Einstein's shoe lace was untied and claim victory.

[_Themis]

I am definitely not a YEC. But I do feel there is a problem with our current dating system for the past. I would expect that one method if accurate should be confirmed by other methods.

You may feel there is a problem, but do you have any specifics on problems scientists are not aware of or are ignoring? There are many dating methods and any good scientist will want independent dating methods to help get as accurate a dating as they can. For example, if one is dating a dead tree from thousands of years ago with tree ring data they can also use radio carbon dating to see of they both agree. On sea floors you can use radioactive elements to get their age and you can also compare that to sea floor spread speed with distance to get anther date and see if they agree. You can also use magnetic reversals.

There are many dating methods and it is the scientists who are the most critical of them when use or evaluating them. That is because they are the ones who have the knowledge necessary to evaluate them. You can as well, but you will need to do a lot more then you have in understanding how they work.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Dating_Techniques.aspx