ASA - December 1999: Kulp's proof?

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BF4705.42917220
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I want to thank all those who responded to my question. However, it =
appears that some didn't understand what I was trying to find out.=20

For instance, George Murphy thought the question had to do with the =
constancy of radiometric decay, admitting that "we can't determine =
simply from laboratory measurements" that "the proportionality constant, =
& thus the half life, doesn't change on a geological time scale, so we =
have to make the assumption that Kulp mentions." But Kulp was saying =
that the fact of long term radiometric decay proved the old age of the =
earth, not that the decay rates were constant.

Chuck Vandergraaf stated that he didn't 'see this as a "false twist in =
logic,"' and yet proceeds to show by some examples exactly what I'm =
saying. Our expectations of the age of the earth influences which =
measuring device we use. And in doing so, we cannot then use that =
measuring device to prove the age of the earth. That is the very 'false =
twist of logic' I'm talking about. The same thing goes for the Oklo =
reaction.

M. B. Roberts reported that arguments for an old earth were widely known =
since even before the 1800s. And he concluded that he didn't see that =
they had the vast age of the earth as an ASSUMPTION though they knew it =
was vast. However, just as the radiometric dating system assumes that =
the earth has to have existed for as long as the measuring device =
measures, the same holds true for the uniformitarian concepts of the =
early geologists. Besides assuming that the processes going on to day =
occurred at virtually the same rate in the past, you must also assume =
that there was a past that was as long as the calculations made based on =
uniformitarianism (I am referring, of course, to strict Huttonian =
uniformitarianism). Thus one cannot use the calculations based on =
uniformitarianism to prove the vast age of the earth either. So, one has =
to ask just how did they really know it (the age of the earth) was vast?

Ted Davis and Aaron J. Romanowsky discuss the apparent old age of the =
universe and it seems safe to apply the same to Earth. Thus, this =
conclusion of an old universe can be applied as an assumption of old age =
to the Earth. When it come trying to determining the age of any =
particular rock unit, however, we cannot assume that it is as old as =
the universe. We still have to assume that a rock unit is as old as the =
measuring device being applied.

I hope the following illustration makes the point I'm trying to make =
more clear:

Let's say that we have been around for a very long time and have =
observed three different events which resulted in rocks being formed. =
Let's say that we know that rock formation=20

Now, Let's suppose that some third party comes along who does not know =
us nor communicates with us, and begins to study the rocks using a =
measuring device capable of measuring at a maximum of 2.0 billion years. =
Other than possible physical relationship, the third party has no clue =
concerning the actual ages of nor the spread of the ages of the rocks. =
So the first thing that the third party must do is assume that each rock =
unit is old enough to be measured by his method. Now, we know that A is =
far older than he can measure, and that C is way to young. But he =
doesn't know that, so he must assume that they are all measurable by his =
measuring method.

He might be able to eventually obtain an age for the B rocks that agrees =
with what we know. However, he will never get the correct ages for A and =
C using his 2.0 billion year measuring device. In any case, whatever =
dates he may obtain are totally irrelevant, because he doesn't know the =
true age. What is important is that he had to assume an old age for each =
of the rock units first and therefore he cannot later use whatever =
results he may obtain to prove that the rocks are old. And yet Kulp =
said, "only one assumption -- a uniform rate of radioactive =
disintegration [his measuring method]-- was necessary to prove a very =
old earth."

Now if you assume an old universe, then you may, if you want, take the =
measurements and computed ages as valid. But you cannot use those =
computed ages as proof of the old age of the universe.

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BF4705.42917220
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I want to thank all those who responded to my question. However, it = appears=20 that some didn’t understand what I was trying to find out.

For instance, George Murphy thought the question had to do with the = constancy=20 of radiometric decay, admitting that "we can't determine simply from = laboratory=20 measurements" that "the proportionality constant, & thus the half = life,=20 doesn't change on a geological time scale, so we have to make the = assumption=20 that Kulp mentions." But Kulp was saying that the fact of long term = radiometric=20 decay proved the old age of the earth, not that the decay rates = were=20 constant.

Chuck Vandergraaf stated that he didn’t ‘see this as a = "false twist in=20 logic,"’ and yet proceeds to show by some examples exactly what = I’m saying. Our=20 expectations of the age of the earth influences which measuring device = we use.=20 And in doing so, we cannot then use that measuring device to prove the = age of=20 the earth. That is the very 'false twist of logic' I’m talking = about. The same=20 thing goes for the Oklo reaction.

M. B. Roberts reported that arguments for an old earth were widely = known=20 since even before the 1800s. And he concluded that he didn’t see = that they had=20 the vast age of the earth as an ASSUMPTION though they knew it was vast. = However, just as the radiometric dating system assumes that the earth = has to=20 have existed for as long as the measuring device measures, the same = holds true=20 for the uniformitarian concepts of the early geologists. Besides = assuming that=20 the processes going on to day occurred at virtually the same rate in the = past,=20 you must also assume that there was a past that was as long as the = calculations=20 made based on uniformitarianism (I am referring, of course, to strict = Huttonian=20 uniformitarianism). Thus one cannot use the calculations based on=20 uniformitarianism to prove the vast age of the earth either. So, one has = to ask=20 just how did they really know it (the age of the earth) was vast?

Ted Davis and Aaron J. Romanowsky discuss the apparent old age of the = universe and it seems safe to apply the same to Earth. Thus, this = conclusion of=20 an old universe can be applied as an assumption of old age to the Earth. = When it=20 come trying to determining the age of any particular rock unit, however, = we=20 cannot assume that it is as old as the universe. We still have to assume = that a=20 rock unit is as old as the measuring device being applied.

I hope the following illustration makes the point I’m trying to = make more=20 clear:

Let’s say that we have been around for a very long time and = have observed=20 three different events which resulted in rocks being formed. Let’s = say that we=20 know that rock formation

A is 25.5 billion years,

B is 300 million years, and

C is 125,000 years old.

Now, Let’s suppose that some third party comes along who does = not know us nor=20 communicates with us, and begins to study the rocks using a measuring = device=20 capable of measuring at a maximum of 2.0 billion years. Other than = possible=20 physical relationship, the third party has no clue concerning the actual = ages of=20 nor the spread of the ages of the rocks. So the first thing that = the=20 third party must do is assume that each rock unit is old enough = to be=20 measured by his method. Now, we know that A is far older than he = can=20 measure, and that C is way to young. But he doesn’t know = that, so he must=20 assume that they are all measurable by his measuring method.

He might be able to eventually obtain an age for the B rocks = that=20 agrees with what we know. However, he will never get the correct ages = for=20 A and C using his 2.0 billion year measuring device. In = any case,=20 whatever dates he may obtain are totally irrelevant, because he = doesn’t know the=20 true age. What is important is that he had to assume an old age for each = of the=20 rock units first and therefore he cannot later use whatever results he = may=20 obtain to prove that the rocks are old. And yet Kulp said, "only = one=20 assumption -- a uniform rate of radioactive disintegration [his = measuring=20 method]-- was necessary to prove a very old earth."

Now if you assume an old universe, then you may, if you want, take = the=20 measurements and computed ages as valid. But you cannot use those = computed ages=20 as proof of the old age of the universe.

Do you follow what I’m trying to say?

Allen