Need help with discussion on dating of rocks and such.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-03-2014, 06:27 AM
Need help with discussion on dating of rocks and such.
I have just started a discussion with a family member who was raised with creation viewpoints. They have stated that many of their doubts of scientists revolve around errors in dating artifacts, time in space, etc. how can we accurately date events and objects to millions and billions of years?

We are just lightly discussing this topic, and I am not one to hammer someone just to prove a point. I would much rather take a gentle approach - teach how I know something and why I think that way.

I get the feeling the battle I am up against is a perceived history that scientists have been fooled or errors occurred with items of a known age being identified as ancient, therefore scientists can't age anything correctly.


Can you point me to some sources or ideas on how to answer this intelligently.

TIA


"Life is a daring adventure or it is nothing"--Helen Keller
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2014, 06:44 AM
RE: Need help with discussion on dating of rocks and such.
(10-03-2014 06:27 AM)Bows and Arrows Wrote:  I have just started a discussion with a family member who was raised with creation viewpoints. They have stated that many of their doubts of scientists revolve around errors in dating artifacts, time in space, etc. how can we accurately date events and objects to millions and billions of years?

We are just lightly discussing this topic, and I am not one to hammer someone just to prove a point. I would much rather take a gentle approach - teach how I know something and why I think that way.

I get the feeling the battle I am up against is a perceived history that scientists have been fooled or errors occurred with items of a known age being identified as ancient, therefore scientists can't age anything correctly.


Can you point me to some sources or ideas on how to answer this intelligently.

TIA

The Wikipedia article is good.

Keep in mind that there are multiple, overlapping methods of dating things and they all agree with each other.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
10-03-2014, 06:53 AM
RE: Need help with discussion on dating of rocks and such.
(10-03-2014 06:44 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-03-2014 06:27 AM)Bows and Arrows Wrote:  I have just started a discussion with a family member who was raised with creation viewpoints. They have stated that many of their doubts of scientists revolve around errors in dating artifacts, time in space, etc. how can we accurately date events and objects to millions and billions of years?

We are just lightly discussing this topic, and I am not one to hammer someone just to prove a point. I would much rather take a gentle approach - teach how I know something and why I think that way.

I get the feeling the battle I am up against is a perceived history that scientists have been fooled or errors occurred with items of a known age being identified as ancient, therefore scientists can't age anything correctly.


Can you point me to some sources or ideas on how to answer this intelligently.

TIA

The Wikipedia article is good.

Keep in mind that there are multiple, overlapping methods of dating things and they all agree with each other.

The probability that all the various methods are (independently) wrong, yet somehow produce the SAME "wrong" dates is ZERO.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
10-03-2014, 06:54 AM (This post was last modified: 10-03-2014 07:06 AM by Elder Cunningham.)
RE: Need help with discussion on dating of rocks and such.
The standard technique for dating rocks is by radiometric dating. This tends not to be with carbon isotopes, but with isotopes such as uranium or potassium. Several different methods may be used on the same rock, thereby confirming the age from multiple sources.

In addition many sedimentary rocks can be easily identified by what are called index fossils. These are fossils of creatures that both lived for a short time in history and are distinct and easily identified. Once their time in the geological record has been established you can tell the age of the rock by the index fossils within it. One way to falsify this is if the rock fragments that form the sediment the fossil is in are younger than the fossil is known to be. Index fossils are effective for hundreds of millions of years of dating.

An example of radiometric dating concurring with other dating methods is perhaps best illustrated by the age of the earth. There are at least five indicators that identify the earth as its current age. Firstly, solar physics tell us the sun has been burning for just over 4.5 billion years. Thermodynamics concurs with this as the age of the earth as the rate it should have cooled to its current temperature from a molten ball with the estimated radioactive material is consistent with this being the age of the earth. The oldest known crystal, a zircon, has been dated radiometrically to 4.4 billion years, giving an upper age limit. Meteorites that can be identified as originally coming from small objects radiometrically date to 4.5 billion years, again consistent with the other discoveries. Finally moon rocks recovered during the Apollo program are generally dated from 4.4 to 3.4 billion years old, with the 4.4 billion year samples consistent with the mineralogy that would be expected to comprise the original lunar crust. When you have that many dating techniques pointing to the same age, you know something's right.

Hate the belief, love the believer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2014, 07:04 AM (This post was last modified: 10-03-2014 07:10 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Need help with discussion on dating of rocks and such.
Besides the radiometric dating methods, there are ice cores and dendritic (tree ring) dating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology
Then there is also :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_sample
http://dendro.cornell.edu/articles/unlu2009.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tephrochronology

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2014, 07:05 AM
RE: Need help with discussion on dating of rocks and such.
I don't think it's an issue of 'how' as it is an issue of debunking this kind of shit

Creation and dating


"Life is a daring adventure or it is nothing"--Helen Keller
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2014, 08:03 AM
RE: Need help with discussion on dating of rocks and such.
(10-03-2014 07:05 AM)Bows and Arrows Wrote:  I don't think it's an issue of 'how' as it is an issue of debunking this kind of shit

Creation and dating

http://creation.com/dating-in-conflict

" In the same rock, right alongside the fossil mussels, are fragments of coalified wood.
Some time after I took my samples, I discovered the same sandstone, appropriately described as coming from Mägenwil, exhibited in the ‘Geologisch-Mineralogische Austellung der ETH’ in Zürich—naturally, also labelled ‘20 million years old’.
That means the wood must also be at least that old."

Idiot. No. It "means" nothing of the sort. It "means" the wood ended up being deposited there. Fucking idiots, creating strawmen.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2014, 09:14 AM
RE: Need help with discussion on dating of rocks and such.
(10-03-2014 07:05 AM)Bows and Arrows Wrote:  I don't think it's an issue of 'how' as it is an issue of debunking this kind of shit

Creation and dating

Have you considered presenting them with a geology hammer?


To elaborate, I mean for reasons more akin to the following:



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2014, 11:38 AM
RE: Need help with discussion on dating of rocks and such.
Is this the whole, "Do you know how scientists date fossils? They look at the rocks! Do you know how they date the rocks? They look at the fossils!" herp derp crap that AiG tries to spout off?

Elder Cunningham said it right as did everyone else. Chas' post too. Good stuff.

Radiometric dating is so insanely correct it's laughable to deny it.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2014, 01:07 PM
RE: Need help with discussion on dating of rocks and such.
(10-03-2014 06:27 AM)Bows and Arrows Wrote:  I have just started a discussion with a family member who was raised with creation viewpoints. They have stated that many of their doubts of scientists revolve around errors in dating artifacts, time in space, etc. how can we accurately date events and objects to millions and billions of years?

We are just lightly discussing this topic, and I am not one to hammer someone just to prove a point. I would much rather take a gentle approach - teach how I know something and why I think that way.

I get the feeling the battle I am up against is a perceived history that scientists have been fooled or errors occurred with items of a known age being identified as ancient, therefore scientists can't age anything correctly.


Can you point me to some sources or ideas on how to answer this intelligently.

TIA

Radiometric dating relies on the fact that unstable radioactive elements decay at a predictable, constant rate. Scientist also use multiple other methods to check the accuracy such as geologic layer deposition and ice layer deposition in the Antarctic. But I have found that every creationist will say that these methods assume a constant rate of decay or tree ring growth or layer deposition. They'll just say that it could have been different in the past and that is throwing off the age estimate and that the Earth is really only 6,000 years old. Explaining how the dates are arrived at and verified with probably not do any good.

So agree with them (for the sake of argument). Tell them that if radioactive decay could have been faster in the past then that means it also could have been a lot slower which means the Earth could be much older than billions of years. Continental drift could have been much faster in the past? Sure and it also could have been much slower making the Earth much older than 4.57 billion years. Maybe trillions of years. They assume that any change favors them and their interpretation of the bible. If they want to prove the bible by throwing doubt on science then throw the doubt right back at them. The argument goes both ways. I don't think you will convince them but you might open up their minds a little.

They simply will not accept any evidence that proves the bible wrong but you can show them that by discrediting science they are not proving the bible is right.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: