Re: Kulp's proof?
dfsiemensjr@juno.com
Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:25:33 -0700
On Wed, 15 Dec 1999 14:04:10 -0700 "Diane Roy" <Dianeroy@peoplepc.com>
writes:
> 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.
>
snip
>
> 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.
>
snip
>
> 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
>
> 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 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.
>
> Do you follow what I'm trying to say?
>
> Allen
>
A philosopher whose name I do not recall at the moment noted something
like: It is not difficult to prove that any system will work amiss if it
is coupled with universal idiocy. In your illustration, as I understand
it, the problem is alien incompetence, with the ability to measure only
one age which is actually not relevant to any of the ages premised,
coupled with a total inability to learn an alternate approach.
With Kulp we have one specified assumption (though, if one gets
technical, there are others unstated), the constancy of the decay rate.
The relationship of half-life to age was established by observation of
elemental isotopes with short half-lives. This relationship can now be
supported theoretically as well.
Kulp's assumption gives a precise age, within experimental limits. It is
supported by the relative ages given by stratigraphy, provided one
recognizes overthrusts and folding, for example. It is further supported
by sedimentation on the sea floor spreading from the midocean rifts.
There are undoubtedly other items in addition to these that I am not
recalling at the moment.
As for Oklo, we now know the half-lives of U235 and U238, as well as the
ratio necessary for fission and the products of such nuclear reactions
with U isotopes. If we calculate back, we can determine the ratio of the
isotopes for any time in the past. The age of the reaction, determined
from the dates of overlying and underlying sediments, plus the amount of
specific fission products, plus the reduction in the amount of U235, plus
all the other information, makes the explanation obvious, unless, of
course, the loci were produced miraculously. Anybody for a God who sets
out to deceive us?
IMO, we have interlocking pieces that either specify an OE or a lying
deity. Can anyone come up with a third alternative?
Dave