Eddlad:


I will be quick,
How possible will it be for radiometric dating to falsely predict with accuracy beyond certain years. Say beyond 2000 years it starts "guessing".
We would really not know, no one is that old to tell it's a lie. Can we just hope it's correct cause has done it before?
Won't be the first time it got something wrong or experienced a 'partially correct truth'.

Just saying.

Carbon dating is not the only form of radiometric dating. They're are other chemical isotopes of elements that are used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C2693982592

Endeavour to read this.

Antiparticle,

I must laugh at the way you criticize the Bible. You expect to see words like "Milky Way" and "galaxy" and "Andromeda" in the Bible? Jesus said that after the great tribulation, the stars shall fall(Matt. 24:29). This prophecy was fulfilled in the great meteoric shower of November 13, 1833. It was the most extensive display of falling stars on record. It was estimated that a single observer could see an average of 60 000 meteors per hour.

I take it that you have not taken your time to analyse the too many assumptions made while determining the age of rocks. That calls the whole process into serious question.

I never implied that radioactive dating and radioactivity were not related. However, they are not the same.

No. The assumptions are such that the whole process is not to be trusted. I will list the assumptions when you tell me how the earth was determined to be more than 6000 years old.

Let's start from the basics: who told you that a Big Bang occurred?

How do you explain other astronomical observations that directly challenge Big Bang's single explosion assertion, such as

a) Blue shift movement, meaning some celestial objects moving toward us, directly opposing the explosion's propelling force.

b) Some stars in the Milky Way appear older than the universe.

raphieMontella:

doctoralien and antiparticle...please sorry for interfering....
But my Good news bible at home...has that *foot note*...
In truth..the gospel of mark has 3 different endings in the good news version...so what antiparticle is saying is not restricted to the NIV as you think it is..
Cheers..

How do explain the fact that the NIV mysteriously omits verse from Luke, John, Acts?

In the Big Bang theory it is not the receding motion
of matter, but expanding space that is used to
explain the redshift with distance. Thus they argue that the wavelength of light is longer due to 'stretching' space. The problems;

1 This is not a Doppler effect. A Doppler effect is for motion of matter in space, not for the expansion of space itself. Thus the Big Bang theory is not founded on the Doppler effect but a theoretical concept of expanding space.

2 This then assumes that space exists (to be able to expand), yet in other areas of physics they claim there is no absolute space. e.g. The electromagnetic wave is claimed to not require a physical medium. This was necessary to accommodate Einstein's special relativity where there was no absolute reference frame for motion (space), instead all motion is relative to other matter.

CoolUsername:


Carbon dating is not the only form of radiometric dating. They're are other chemical isotopes of elements that are used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C2693982592

Endeavour to read this.

My post isn't restricted to carbon dating alone, am merely asking if there is the chance for measurements to be false beyond certain years.

Eddlad:


My post isn't restricted to carbon dating alone, am merely asking if there is the chance for measurements to be false beyond certain years.

Uranium-235 has a half-life of 700 million years. Uranium-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Rubidium-87 has a half-life of 50 billion years. Samarium-147 has a half life of 106 billion years. So I doubt that older dates are a problem, because every timescale has a suitable isotope for dating.

DoctorAlien:
Antiparticle,

I must laugh at the way you criticize the Bible. You expect to see words like "Milky Way" and "galaxy" and "Andromeda" in the Bible? Jesus said that after the great tribulation, the stars shall fall(Matt. 24:29). This prophecy was fulfilled in the great meteoric shower of November 13, 1833. It was the most extensive display of falling stars on record. It was estimated that a single observer could see an average of 60 000 meteors per hour.

Thanks for the response. It is both incorrect and dubious to claim that the prophecy was fulfilled in 1833. Let me explain.

First and foremost, meteor showers have nothing to do with the falling of stars. Secondly, even if the Year 1833 meteor showers were what Jesus was referring to as "stars" (we both know this isn't what meteor showers are, but let's make this assumption for the sake of argument), claiming that it happened because of Jesus' prophecy 1800 years earlier is not statistically robust.

For example: If a "prophet" prophesies that I will die one day, well that prophecy will become accurate if we wait long enough because all humans die one day! Your claim that Jesus' prophecy was fulfilled is analogous to the prophet claiming his prophecy was accurate because I indeed died. You don't need a prophet to prophesy anybody's eventual death, as it is known that we will all die. In the same way, claiming that a meteor shower was a fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy is not statistically sound. Meteor showers happen all the time and you don't need an arbitrary prophecy to predict this. Physical scientists do a better job predicting meteor showers to the exact date, that is much more credible!

I await your clarification of Jesus's assertion that stars will fall onto the earth. Stars cannot fall onto the earth. Jesus demonstrated that he had very little (edited) knowledge about stars. If he did, he wouldn't have made that statement.

DoctorAlien:
I take it that you have not taken your time to analyse the too many assumptions made while determining the age of rocks. That calls the whole process into serious question.

I never implied that radioactive dating and radioactivity were not related. However, they are not the same.

No. The assumptions are such that the whole process is not to be trusted. I will list the assumptions when you tell me how the earth was determined to be more than 6000 years old.

Ok, radiometric dating uses the fractional proportion of a radioactive isotope left in a given sample. This process is applied on the oldest rocks found on earth, and also on meteors introduced into our atmosphere.

I am ready to leave the radiometric dating topic, since you haven't specifically explained your problems with the assumptions made. But you are welcome to do so if you choose.

How does radiometric dating take care of the fact that the rock under examination could have acquired more of either the parent isotope or the daughter isotope? This is just one of the flaws associated with radiometric dating.

I'm ready to move on too. You can drop any question you want me to answer.

DoctorAlien:
In the Big Bang theory it is not the receding motion
of matter, but expanding space that is used to
explain the redshift with distance. Thus they argue that the wavelength of light is longer due to 'stretching' space. The problems;

1 This is not a Doppler effect. A Doppler effect is for motion of matter in space, not for the expansion of space itself. Thus the Big Bang theory is not founded on the Doppler effect but a theoretical concept of expanding space.

I don't know if you read what I wrote; where did you see me write that the Big Bang theory was founded on the Doppler effect?? I used the redshifts to explain the observation of expanding space. The Doppler effect itself is not the Big Bang, and I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that I wrote that.

Anyways, let me explain one cosmological expression of the Doppler effect via redshifts: For two galaxies both millions of light years away (one slightly closer to earth than the other), we observe the farther galaxy to have an increased redshift than the closer galaxy. This is because the farther galaxy is moving faster and faster away from an observer millions of light years away than the second closer galaxy (also millions of light years) away. The increased redshift is an expression of the Doppler effect, and these different redshifts (for the closer and farther galaxies) are a further illustration of expanding space. Celestial objects closer to the outer edges of the universe recede away from us faster than closer ones. This is congruent with the idea of a rapidly expanding universe, but is in no way an exhaustive explanation. The cosmological microwave background is another data point legitimizing the Big Bang and how long ago it happened.

DoctorAlien:
2 This then assumes that space exists (to be able to expand), yet in other areas of physics they claim there is no absolute space. e.g. The electromagnetic wave is claimed to not require a physical medium. This was necessary to accommodate Einstein's special relativity where there was no absolute reference frame for motion (space), instead all motion is relative to other matter.

Ok, but what's your point? I think you are mixing up things here. When it is said that light (EM waves) does not require a physical medium to propagate, it means that it doesn't need any physical matter as a medium to propagate through. It used to be thought that light needed a hypothetical aether to propagate, but it was later found that it can indeed propagate through vacuum completely empty of matter.

Anyways, what is your rebuttal to the 13.8 billion-year estimation of the age of the universe via cosmological calculations? Even if you disagree with cosmological calculations, how do you explain the fact that we consistently observe galaxies that are millions of light years away? It took millions of years for the light from those galaxies to get here, thus implying a universe at least millions of years old (unless you believe in last thursdayism). The Hubble Telescope has even observed a galaxy 13.2 billions years away. What do you say about that?

Good question, I indeed thought about this.

Radiometric dating takes care of that possibility by using different element isotopes for the dating. Radioactive decay curves are exponential (and the instantaneous curve slopes differ for each element isotope used) so if there are mis-estimations in the parent isotope amounts, we would get different dating results when different element isotopes (e.g. using Uranium dating and comparing to Potassium-Argon dating) are used. It turns out however that the dating accuracy is still the same when you use Uranium and Potassium-Argon to date the oldest rocks.

DoctorAlien:
How does radiometric dating take care of the fact that the rock under examination could have acquired more of either the parent isotope or the daughter isotope? This is just one of the flaws associated with radiometric dating.

I'm ready to move on too. You can drop any question you want me to answer.

Ok, let's move on to [url=https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-tech/climate-core-how-scientists-study-ice-cores-reveal-earth%E2%80%99s-climate]ice cores drilled out of kilometers-deep ice sheets in Antarctica[/url], which help us infer earth climate patterns hundreds of thousands of years ago. This is another data point that debunks the notion of a 6000 years old earth.

What do you say about this?

This will be the last part of our "age of the earth/universe" conversation. I will move on after your response to this. My next topic will also be related to the credibility of the Bible.

You have failed to address the main issue: how do you account for the fact that much of the daughter isotope in a rock could have been acquired and therefore could not have resulted from decay? Or that much of the parent have been acquired by process of contamination?

To make matters worse, how do you explain the fact the basalt that flowed from the top of the Canyon yielded a samarium-neodymium age of 916 million years and a uranium-lead age of 2.6 billion years? Which of the ages is correct?

How do you account for the fact the chemical make-up of rocks is open to contamination by gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes because of waters flowing in the ground from rainfall and from the molten rocks beneath volcanoes? Or how do you account for the fact that as molten lava rises through a conduit from deep inside the earth to be erupted through a volcano, pieces of the conduit wallrocks and their isotopes can mix into the lava and contaminate it?

How do you account for the fact that the less than 50-year-old lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, yield a rubidium-strontium "age" of 133 million years, a samarium-neodymium "age" of197 million years, and a uranium-lead "age" of 3.908 billion years?

The answer to this is extremely simple. If radiometric dating is inaccurate for dating the earth, then all carefully selected samples used for dating the earth won't result in dates that converge towards ~4.5 billion years. If radiometric dating is as inaccurate as you say, all the key samples used to date the earth won't give dates in the billions of years. I am ready to move on from the radiometric dating topic, I have sufficiently addressed it. I take it that you have a disagreement about the 13.8 billion-year age estimate of the universe as well? Also, please address my post about ice cores. Thx.

DoctorAlien:
You have failed to address the main issue: how do you account for the fact that much of the daughter isotope in a rock could have been acquired and therefore could not have resulted from decay? Or that much of the parent have been acquired by process of contamination?

To make matters worse, how do you explain the fact the basalt that flowed from the top of the Canyon yielded a samarium-neodymium age of 916 million years and a uranium-lead age of 2.6 billion years? Which of the ages is correct?

We know that the deeper the you peer into the universe, the farther back into time you look. If the Universe is 13.8 billion years old, and we see as far back 13.2 billion(we've even seen farther back than this) years ago, we should see closer to the Big Bang or even the Big Bang itself. Has anybody seen the Big Bang or any evidence of it in space?

If we've seen farther than 13.2 billion years ago, then we should the early pre-formed universe. We shouldn't see fully formed planets and stars. However, we see planets and galaxies just like our own. How do you explain this?

Antiparticle:
The answer to this is extremely simple. If radiometric dating is inaccurate for dating the earth, then all carefully selected samples used for dating the earth won't result in dates that converge towards ~4.5 billion years. If radiometric dating is as inaccurate as you say, all the key samples used to date the earth won't give dates in the billions of years. I am ready to move on from the radiometric dating topic, I have sufficiently addressed it. I take it that you have a disagreement about the 13.8 billion-year age estimate of the universe as well? Also, please address my post about ice cores. Thx.

You are carefully trying to shift the goal post. What do you have to say about the fact that scientists assume that the rocks they examine were not contaminated?

On the Cosmic Microwave Background:

Because the universe itself has been found to be extremely clumpy (with great walls of galaxies, and great voids in between) then, if the cosmic microwave radiation came about as a result of the ‘big bang’, this background radiation should also be clumpy. In other words, the temperature of this radiation should be uneven—there should be hot spots and cold spots. However, this radiation has been found to be extremely uniform--the same everywhere.

How do you explain this?

Also, how do you explain blueshift?

On the article on the ice cores drilled in Antartica: It was fraught with the usual "could have" and "may have" and all those shady words that Big Bang theorists like to use:

Ice cores may reveal whether Antarctica's western ice sheet melted fully the last time Earth's climate warmed to the temperatures the planet is predicted to reach in the next two centuries. If it did, it's likely to again, which would raise sea levels significantly enough to threaten many seaside cities.

"We have some evidence that may have happened, but we aren't sure," says Erich Osterberg, who studies ice cores as an assistant professor in the Department of Earth Science at
Dartmouth College.

Quick questions:

1. How did they determine the age of the ice?

2. How were they sure that the dust and air in the ice didn't enter there recently?

3. Could landslides and earthquakes not have happened 9000 years ago and buried those layers deep in the ground making them appear hundreds of thousands of years old?

Let me address this post of yours.

DoctorAlien:
How do you explain other astronomical observations that directly challenge Big Bang's single explosion assertion, such as
a) Blue shift movement, meaning some celestial objects moving toward us, directly opposing the explosion's propelling force.

The notion that blueshifted celestial objects challenge the Big Bang assertion is based on a false premise. We observe cosmological redshifts for celestial objects very far away (millions of light years away) from us, and this is consistent with the Big Bang. This doesn't imply that blueshifts in localized cosmological vicinities contradict the Big Bang. It doesn't. For example, the fact that the earth and the sun are tightly bound together in our localized cosmological space does not automatically imply that redshifts for far-away galaxies don't happen. One is a "universal" effect (redshifts, for objects large lengthscales away from us), while the other is a "localized" effect (blueshifts and other effects).

There are other areas in physics where these seemingly contradictory (but actually non-contradictory) sort of effects are found; it is analogous to the concept of near field and far fields in full-wave electromagnetism. Do some reading on "near fields" vs "far fields" to get insight into localized versus far-field effects in general. The antenna in your phone exhibits near field effects and far field effects, both of which have different characteristics yet are non-contradictory.

DoctorAlien:
b) Some stars in the Milky Way appear older than the universe.

Wrong. No star was conclusively found to be older than the universe. It just so happens that the margin of error for the calculation made it appear older than the universe. This is the specific star that you are talking about. The age was calculated to be 14.5 billion years old plus or minus 0.8 billion years.

But even if a star was found to be older than the universe, this doesn't in any way support your arbitrary assertion that the universe is 6000 years old. It only creates opportunities for astrophysicists to refine their methodology. What you are doing is similar to claiming that all of medical science is wrong just because one or more doctors misdiagnosed a patient. This is absurd and disingenuous.

Edited

The blueshift refutes the Big Bang theory. Scientists argue that observed celestial bodies moving away from us(redshift) are as a result of the blast. What about the ones moving towards us? Did they not come from the blast?

LOL. How did they arrive at the conclusion that the universe is 13.8 billion years old?

Suffice it to say that the Big Bang theory disregards the second law of thermodynamics which states that the Universe tends to disorder rather than order. If indeed the Big Bang occurred, there should be just particles of matter distributed in the Universe, and not highly ordered structures like galaxies and the solar system(with intelligent life.).

I don't know if you read my previous post closely enough. If they were contaminated, the age estimations would be different for different dating methods! And there are cases where this has been observed. Yet, physical scientists do their best to identify rocks with the minimal estimation possible, which is what is done for an incredible majority of samples used. Without contamination, the dated age is the same when different radiometric dating isotopes are used. Several rocks scattered around extreme ends of the earth (as well as from meteorites) have shown a similar ~4.6 billion year age for our solar system. This is inarguable and incontrovertible.

DoctorAlien:
You are carefully trying to shift the goal post. What do you have to say about the fact that scientists assume that the rocks they examine were not contaminated?

I just explained the blueshifts to you bro. Are you debating honestly?

DoctorAlien:
The blueshift refutes the Big Bang theory. Scientists argue that observed celestial bodies moving away from us(redshift) are as a result of the blast. What about the ones moving towards us? Did they not come from the blast?

LOL. How did they arrive at the conclusion that the universe is 13.8 billion years old?

Once again, you are mistaken. The second law of thermodynamics does not apply to before the Big Bang. We don't know what the laws of physics were before the Big Bang.

DoctorAlien:
Suffice it to say that the Big Bang theory disregards the second law of thermodynamics which states that the Universe tends to disorder rather than order. If indeed the Big Bang occurred, there should be just particles of matter distributed in the Universe, and not highly ordered structures like galaxies and the solar system(with intelligent life.).

Antiparticle:
I don't know if you read my previous post closely enough. If they were contaminated, the age estimations would be different for different dating methods! And there are cases where this has been observed. Yet, physical scientists do their best to identify rocks with the minimal estimation possible, which is what is done for an incredible majority of samples used. Without contamination, the dated age is the same when different radiometric dating isotopes are used. Several rocks scattered around extreme ends of the earth (as well as from meteorites) have shown a similar ~4.6 billion year age for our solar system. This is inarguable and incontrovertible.

"Scientists" and Big-Bangists can publish any lie they want just to support their claims. We know that there have been many cases where recent materials were given astronomical ages by the "reliable" radiometric dating method.

Antiparticle:
Once again, you are mistaken. The second law of thermodynamics does not apply to before the Big Bang. We don't know what the laws of physics were before the Big Bang.

LOL. When did the law of thermodynamics and indeed the laws of Physics start to apply?

Also, what existed before the Big Bang?

Antiparticle:
I just explained the blueshifts to you bro. Are you debating honestly?

You never explained why we observe blueshift, which is contrary to the provisions of the Big Bang theory.