Sorry for the delay in responding. a bunch of things came up. I hope you
haven't forgotten the thread of thought.
From: Steven M. Smith <smsmith@helios.cr.usgs.gov>
> Allen wrote:
> >Let me illustrate, Let's say I drop by your place, having never seen a
child
> >before, and I decide to determine her age. So, everyday for a month I
> >measure her height. I discover that she grew from 1.366 meters (4' 5
3/4")
> >to 1.370 meters (4' 5 7/8). By extrapolation into the past (to zero, I
said
> >I knew nothing of children. :) I find that she is 28.54 years old. You
look
> >at me like I am crazy, because you were there from start to finish and
you
> >know she is only 13 year old. But I have absolute empirical evidence that
a
> >child grows 0.004 meters per month!
>
> There is nothing wrong with your hypothesis, but your experimental process
> was insufficient to either confirm or refute it. To test this idea of age
> being proportional to height, you wouldn't measure just one child for a
> month but several. Even if the experiment was limited to just one month,
> you would then quickly find that a simple straight-line age determination
> method is inappropriate. In fact, I predict that you would find a rough
> pattern of increased growth rates with shorter height - perhaps suggesting
> a logarithmic pattern of growth vs age. .... The point is that it takes
more
> than a few simple measurements to establish a growth curve worthy of
> extrapolating.
If I took a million samples and then plotted them according to rate of
growth over size and happened to get some kind of logarithmic plot, it still
would have nothing to do with age. I would still have to assume first that
measuring difference in height over time could be used to find age. And
that is an invalid assumption
> This is the case for radioactive decay rates. There are hundreds of
> radioactive isotopes. The majority of them have decay rates that are well
> within the normal lifespan of a single person. From thousands of
> measurements done by different scientists in different laboratories all
> over the world, we know that populations of every single isotope ever
> measured follows the exact same logarithmic decay curve and that the rate
> of decay for a population of each separate isotope can be expressed as a
> constant value or half-life. Multiple measurements have determined and
> confirmed these half-life constants.
>
> This measurement of decay rates was begun by physicists (not geologists)
> before anyone tried to use the method to date rocks. For the most part,
> these physicists couldn't have cared less what age geologists wanted for
> their rocks.
I find nothing wrong with physicists determining half-life constants. This
is good science. My rejection of radiometric dating has nothing to do with
the determining of decay rates. This is just like measuring the change of
height of your daughter in the analogy. I do not reject physics just
because I reject radiometric dating.
> >My assumption above was that it was possible to measure height and
estimate
> >age. Wrong! The problem with radiometric dating is the assumption that it
is
> >possible to measure quantities of isotopes and estimate age.
> >
> >I also had to assume in my estimation that the child could really be as
old
> >as I calculated for me to accept it as valid. You have to assume that the
> >rocks can really be as old as your calculations for those ages to be
valid.
>
> My assumption is not so much that the rocks can or cannot be as old as
> radiometric methods imply but simply that studying and measuring the part
> of the Universe with which we are familiar is a valid method for
> understanding it. From the empirical evidences and the progress which I
> see in following this assumption, I also assume that we are capable of
> deriving a limited understanding of the properties which describe how the
> Universe works. Some of these properties are referred to as the "Laws of
> Science."
I have no trouble with the "Laws of Science." Just because we are able to
measure quantities of isotopes in a rock, that does not mean that we are
automatically measuring age. To calculate age you have to make certain
assumptions (which I have listed before), and it is these assumptions which
I find false and so reject radiometric dating. The one assumption I've been
discussing here is the idea that we have to first assume the rock can be as
old as the calculations determine. If we measure the isotopes and compute
an age of several million years, and yet know that the rock was formed in a
kiln in our back yard, we would reject the computed date and try to find
some reason for the quantities of isotopes to be in that rock. On the other
hand, if we know for certain that the rock is several millions of years old
because someone saw it being formed then, we could accept our computations.
The whole point is, computing an age does not prove the age, it must be
accepted or rejected according to what else we know.
> >You don't accept my estimation because you know the child is not that old
> >and therefor you know my assumptions are incorrect. I don't accept
> >radiometric dating because I know from someone who is in the position to
> >know and who has told us so that the rocks (sedimentary rocks in
particular)
> >are not that old and therefore I know that the assumptions behind
> >radiometric dating are in error.
>
> Please share with us where God has said that "the rocks (sedimentary rocks
> in particular) are not that old." This passage must be missing in every
> translation of the Bible which I have. All translations of the Bible that
> I have read say absolutely nothing about sedimentary rocks being 4,000
> years old (or 6,000 or 10,000 years old). By adding up some genealogies
> and making some assumptions about the timeframes of certain patriarchs we
> can get a possible age for Noah's Flood at about 4,000 years ago BUT
> nowhere in the flood story can I find any mention of sedimentary rocks or
> gravel, pebbles, sand, silt, clay, or mud. All it says is that the water
> covered the earth. The amount of sediment deposited by this event is not
> mentioned and must be an assumption on your part.
On one hand Sue B. says that you cannot have a flood with out evidence in
the rocks and here you are saying that a flood might not leave any evidence.
Come on, folks!
It is true, that time in the Bible is built upon the geneaologies. One is
expected to use one's head, the Bible was not written for imbiciles. And it
is a forgone conclusion that a flood which "coveres the highest mountains"
would leave evidence like erosion and deposition. The quantities of water,
erosion, and deposition are not mentioned. So what! One must first assume
an ancient earth when interpreting sedimentary rocks as being the record of
vast ages. One must first assume a Catastrophic flood when interpreting the
sedimentary rocks as being the record of the flood. When one first assumes
an ancient earth as Actualists (or Uniformitairans) do, then one will not
see any evidence of a flood. This is the whole point that I've been trying
to make.
> >This is another topic, only partially related to the age of the rocks by
> >which the sedimentary rocks are dated which we have been discussing. As I
> >have stated before I am a Creationary Catastrophist, i.e. I believe that
the
> >Creation Week occurred somewhere in the 6000 to 10000 year ago range and
> >that there was a global catastrophe responsible for all (or nearly all)
> >sedimentary rocks some 4000 years ago. However, unlike many of my
> >Creationary Catastrophist friends, I am not a YEC. I believe that there
is
> >non-symbolic Biblical evidence that the universe (including this planet
and
> >solar system) could be very old. (The Biblical basis for this is another
> >topic too long to be discussed at this moment). Therefor, that the
> >foundational rocks might be depleted in certain isotopes is not a problem
> >for me. It is a problem for my YEC friends and they have proposed various
> >theories to try to explain away the problem. However, I do not find those
> >theories convincing nor necessary.
>
> Having read some of your former posts over the past few years, I was aware
> of your Old Universe-Young Creation Week view. That's why I'm confused
> about your argument of circular reasoning wrt radioactive decay age
> determination methods. You appear to accept the depletion of certain
> radioactive isotopes as evidence of long periods of time implying that
> radioactive decay laws are valid and also that the Universe has a history
> that is "old enough to be dated"; and yet you don't accept that those same
> radioactive decay laws are valid when applied to understanding the history
> of the Earth's crust and when they imply that those fossil-bearing
> sedimentary rocks are also "old enough to be dated." It sounds like you
> want to pick and choose only those parts of science that you like and then
> reject the rest.
Based on the Biblical record I see four possible orders of rocks: A)
Cosmological, B) Genetic, C) Catastrophic and D) Modern.
The Cosmological rocks would be those associated with "In the Beginning."
This would include everything (all matter) in the universe -- elements,
stars, planets, debris, etc. which likely were spoken into existence by God,
(perhaps in something similar to the Big Bang idea??). On planet earth,
these would be the foundation rocks of the crust, mantle and core. As I
mentioned above, I believe that there is Biblical evidence that this may
have occurred in untold ages ago.
By Genetic, I am referring to the rocks and soils formed or modified from
the Cosmological rocks during the "Creation Week" of Genesis. These may
also include any sedimentary depositions following the "Creation Week".
The Catstrophic rocks would be those sediments (and associated igneous
rocks) which were deposited and/or formed during the Flood catastrophe.
Modern rocks would be those deposited or formed following the Flood.
It may be that the Cosmological rock once held all radio isotopes. Over
time, prior to the formation of the Genetic rocks and soils, some of those
isotopes may have become depleted. and thus supporting the interpretation
of a vast age for the universe.
The Genetic, Catastrophic and Modern rocks would primarily be surfacial,
reworked rocks of the planet and likely contain traces of the isotopes as
originally contained in the Cosmological rocks. Measurements of these
isotopes would not likely have anything at all to do with the age of these
rocks.
Allen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 14 2000 - 13:44:33 EDT