[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[aamacgregor]

Hi, this is just a quick reply. You'll not see me on the message board for at least a couple of weeks. I have lots of work to get done for up an coming meetings and so can't spend the time replying on this board. Anyway, very quickly...

Apparently, this is the consensus among astrophysicists.

Yes it is.

I'm told we have observed this occuring in the form of material blowing off of supernova remnants.

Yeah, supernovae happen. Though I haven't had the time to look at the links that you put up, thanks for putting them there though. I'll be interested to look at them soon.

Through spectroscopy, we can analyze what elements exist in these masses being blown off of explolding stars.

Yeah, spectroscopy of supernovae isn't all that simple though. Though it can give relatively confident answers about which elements are formed, but it can't give the velocity information of the right kind to tell us if the heavier elements are able to ultimately escape the gravitational well of the star remains. It can give us information about the velocity of the elements in relation to us (whether they are travelling toward us, away from us, or standing still), but that doesn't necessarily help, because we cant tell the relationship of the velocities of these elements with respect to the center of origin of the supernova. I guess if one is an evolutionist, then one assumes that they do escape (how else would one be able to explain the earth), but then if one is a creationist, then one doesn't care if they they do or don't escape - it makes little difference. Either way though, they do produce some amazingly beautiful pictures.

Among others, Argon/Argon methods got the date of the destruction of Pompeii to a very high accuracy. Carbon 14 has been tightly correlated to known ages of varves in a number of lakes.

That is of little consequence when considering the variation in starting ratio's when dating known rock, and those things that use to be living. It's just not realistic to place any confidence in these methods.

First, this was done by creationists before Darwin, so there could be no expectations of an "evolutionary time scale". Second, the index fossils are merely a useful way of determining the era, without saying what the actual age would be. That, as I pointed out, could not have been accurately determined before radioisotope dating.

The evolutionary time scale was invented by evolutionists, not creationists. Index fossils do not give age. There is no other way of telling its age, especially when radioisotope is pretty much not more than a joke.

[quote:b0185]Thus someone has to then add their bias (whether for creation or evolution) into the sum, when calculating the age of the rock.

I don't see how.

[/quote:b0185]

If one believes in evolution then, then one dates the rock according to the evolutionary time scale because one is unable to know the starting conditions of the radioisotopes when the rock was formed rock. Therefore one would take the radioisotope age that most closely matches the expected age of a near by fossil. At a guess, if one is a creationist, then one would realise that one doesn't know the starting radioisotope conditions, and realising that evidence shows that radioisitopes never underestimate (I don't know of a case where they do) the age of a known rock (and therefore will not underestimate for an unknown rock), most likely say that the rock is less than than the lowest radioisotope value. Thus the creationist and evolutionist will come out with differing values.

[quote:b0185]Yes. One can "date" a rock relatively to neighbouring igneous rock that can be "dated" using radioisotope analysis. But since there is no reliable radioisotope method of dating igneous rock, no rock can be reliably dated.

The consensus of physicists is that it can.[/quote:b0185]

No, wrong. It is not the job of a physicist to date a rock. A physicist only provides the method for dating using known starting conditions, and half lifes of materials. If the starting conditions are unknown, then there is no possible way of accurately calculating the age. Therefore no physicist in his (or her) right mind (if they know that the starting conditions are unknown) would place any confidence in any result given. Thus such a claim can not be made and I'd like to know where you heard such rubbish.

I'm very impressed by the fact that so many diverse methods give us the same answers.

Then you are easily impressed. Personally, when I see dating methods all agreeing a date that is known to be completely wrong, I decide that I'd need to be insane to put any trust in such methods.

Creationism can't explain this,

Creanists can explain this without any problems, and in fact, much of the explanation was evident from the extract that I included from ICR.

but it seems obvious in terms of mainstream science.

No. Placing a date on something when one does not know the starting conditions, and also knows that the method is very unreliable, is not science, since it is not objective, but biased.

[quote:b0185]
So we come back to dating rocks relative to how old we believe the fossils to be contained in the rocks.

Some might. But scientists don't.
[/quote:b0185]

really? I can name you a number that do. Dispite popular, belief. Scientists are not obective, but each is in their own way biased, and they apply their bias when interpreting. I see it often.

They rely on radioisotope dating, which have some spectacular successes.

Any true scientist that relies on an answer when the unknown is related to an exponantial should be shot. Those in my office (they are evolutionists) are whole heartedly (and in some cases enthusicastically) agreeing with me - even laughing at the prospect of relying on such a thing. However, this doesn't change the fact that some sadly do rely on such methods, despite evidence that shows how unreliable they are.

[quote:b0185]Radioisotope dating cannot reliably give us any information about the date of rocks, and thus the age of the earth.

No, that's been refuted by the Argon/Argon analysis of the rocks at Pompeii.
[/quote:b0185]

Are you seriously saying that because this particular analysis worked, using the same method that certainly doesn't work in many other examples, that the method should then be accepted as reliable? I certainly hope not!

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian on the interior of stars as the source of heavy elements:
Apparently, this is the consensus among astrophysicists.

Yes it is.

Barbarian observes:
I'm told we have observed this occuring in the form of material blowing off of supernova remnants.

Yeah, supernovae happen. Though I haven't had the time to look at the links that you put up, thanks for putting them there though. I'll be interested to look at them soon.

Barbarian observes:
Through spectroscopy, we can analyze what elements exist in these masses being blown off of explolding stars.

Yeah, spectroscopy of supernovae isn't all that simple though. Though it can give relatively confident answers about which elements are formed, but it can't give the velocity information of the right kind to tell us if the heavier elements are able to ultimately escape the gravitational well of the star remains.

Seems a while back we got to watch a star blow off it's outer shell, with new material being directly observed appearing from the star. I can't think of another source for that material.

It can give us information about the velocity of the elements in relation to us (whether they are travelling toward us, away from us, or standing still), but that doesn't necessarily help, because we cant tell the relationship of the velocities of these elements with respect to the center of origin of the supernova. I guess if one is an evolutionist, then one assumes that they do escape (how else would one be able to explain the earth), but then if one is a creationist, then one doesn't care if they they do or don't escape - it makes little difference. Either way though, they do produce some amazingly beautiful pictures.

When we have been lucky enough to get a good look at a supernova, the evidence of massive blow-off is pretty clear. I didn't think any astrophysicist doubted it.

Barbarian on the demonstration of accuracy of radioisotope dating:
Among others, Argon/Argon methods got the date of the destruction of Pompeii to a very high accuracy. Carbon 14 has been tightly correlated to known ages of varves in a number of lakes.

That is of little consequence when considering the variation in starting ratio's when dating known rock, and those things that use to be living. It's just not realistic to place any confidence in these methods.

Seeing as it works, I doubt if many scientists would go with that kind of thinking. Since the physics are reasonably well understood, and since the tests done on material of known age are very accurate, it seems rather pointless to ascribe it all to luck.

Particularly so when all the applicable methods give essentially the same answers. That requires belief in even greater luck. At some point, one has to conclude that it is as the evidence shows.

Barbarian on the "evolutonary time scale":
First, this was done by creationists before Darwin, so there could be no expectations of an "evolutionary time scale". Second, the index fossils are merely a useful way of determining the era, without saying what the actual age would be. That, as I pointed out, could not have been accurately determined before radioisotope dating.

The evolutionary time scale was invented by evolutionists, not creationists. Index fossils do not give age. There is no other way of telling its age, especially when radioisotope is pretty much not more than a joke.

Again, it's not realistic to ascribe all that accuracy to luck.

Thus someone has to then add their bias (whether for creation or evolution) into the sum, when calculating the age of the rock.

I don't see how. One can't change the ratios of isotopes by expectations.

If one believes in evolution then, then one dates the rock according to the evolutionary time scale because one is unable to know the starting conditions of the radioisotopes when the rock was formed rock.

I thought isochrons made that unnecessary. A lot of physicsts have assured me that is true.

Therefore one would take the radioisotope age that most closely matches the expected age of a near by fossil.

How do geologists do it, when thare aren't fossils? Here's some information:

http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm

At a guess, if one is a creationist, then one would realise that one doesn't know the starting radioisotope conditions, and realising that evidence shows that radioisitopes never underestimate (I don't know of a case where they do)

Fungal growth in organic matter, percolation of younger material from other strata. I'm sure that there are others.

Thus the creationist and evolutionist will come out with differing values.

It would seem that the analysis would show what it did, unaffected by one's expectations.

Yes. One can "date" a rock relatively to neighbouring igneous rock that can be "dated" using radioisotope analysis. But since there is no reliable radioisotope method of dating igneous rock, no rock can be reliably dated.

Well, that's what you've set out to prove. So you can't assume it, if you want to avoid circularity.

Barbarian observes:
The consensus of physicists is that it can.

No, wrong. It is not the job of a physicist to date a rock.

Boltwood, in consultation with Rutherford, first worked out the age of the Earth, using radioisotopes. Were they not physicists?

A physicist only provides the method for dating using known starting conditions, and half lifes of materials. If the starting conditions are unknown, then there is no possible way of accurately calculating the age.

Not long ago, C-14 dating was calibrated with varves of known age in a Japanese lake. It turned out to be very accurate.

Here's a site that discusses how isochrons can check on the question of initial ratios:

http://www.skepticfiles.org/evo2/radiodat.htm

Therefore no physicist in his (or her) right mind (if they know that the starting conditions are unknown) would place any confidence in any result given. Thus such a claim can not be made and I'd like to know where you heard such rubbish.

I think the concept of an isochron curve was the brainchild of a physicist, but I could be wrong. At any rate, it certainly works.

Barbarian observes:
I'm very impressed by the fact that so many diverse methods give us the same answers.

Then you are easily impressed.

In science, verification by several independent sources of evidence is considered compelling.

Personally, when I see dating methods all agreeing a date that is known to be completely wrong, I decide that I'd need to be insane to put any trust in such methods.

You're making an assumption that it is completely wrong. On the other hand, when we do apply the methods to known dates, it works.

Barbarian observes:
Creationism can't explain this,

Creanists can explain this without any problems, and in fact, much of the explanation was evident from the extract that I included from ICR.

I didn't see the part where they explained why diverse methods all give us the same answers.

Barbarian observes:
but it seems obvious in terms of mainstream science.

No. Placing a date on something when one does not know the starting conditions, and also knows that the method is very unreliable, is not science, since it is not objective, but biased.

If it gives accurate answers, one cannot "know" that it is unreliable. One can hope that although it gives accurate answers for known dates, it might not do so for unknown ones. But it's nothing but a hope, with no evidence for it.

So we come back to dating rocks relative to how old we believe the fossils to be contained in the rocks.

Barbarian observes:
Some might. But scientists don't.

Really? I can name you a number that do.

O.K. Tell me about them.

Dispite popular, belief. Scientists are not obective, but each is in their own way biased, and they apply their bias when interpreting. I see it often.

Everyone is biased. However, we can still do research and discover things we did not expect. If you're right, we never would have discovered evolution, for example.

Barbarian observes:
They rely on radioisotope dating, which have some spectacular successes.

Any true scientist that relies on an answer when the unknown is related to an exponantial should be shot. Those in my office (they are evolutionists) are whole heartedly (and in some cases enthusicastically) agreeing with me - even laughing at the prospect of relying on such a thing. However, this doesn't change the fact that some sadly do rely on such methods, despite evidence that shows how unreliable they are.

Since those of us who accept the evidence are of all religious persuasions, perhaps those who reject the evidence are the ones with an agenda to promote.

Radioisotope dating cannot reliably give us any information about the date of rocks, and thus the age of the earth.

Barbarian observes:
No, that's been refuted by the Argon/Argon analysis of the rocks at Pompeii.

Are you seriously saying that because this particular analysis worked, using the same method that certainly doesn't work in many other examples, that the method should then be accepted as reliable?

I never said any method certainly doesn't work. The evidence is, as we see with the Pompeii analysis, is that it does work. Ascribing a direct hit to luck seems to me to be unreasonable.