I agree that the information on dating rocks can be found out. It seems there is a discrepency though about the actual validity of reliable dating. Those adherring to a long age of evolution will agree readily that the numbers are correct and reliable and cite why in a very scientific way. But, they also often fail to be forthright about the problems encountered in the dating procedure. Many of the claims by young-earthers have valid claims but are generally rejected because of their religious stance or belief system.
]]>Rob: One last comment:
Science is completely forthright. All of the techniques, procedures, potential limitations, and ways to overcome potential limitations, of radiometric dating (and all the many other dating schemes) have been openly published and debated at length in the scientific literature — both in numerous journals and in the many books that have been published summarizing research in the field. Most of these journals and books are available in any good university library.
As I emphasized before, you are certainly welcome to form your own views on this topic, but …
]]>What would be cool is for them to cross an elephant and Rhino and get an “eleph-ino”
]]>It’s been good discussing this issue. I respect your position and opinion. My stance on dating procedures is somewhat religiously biased, I will admit that, it just bothers me that science is not more forthright on explaining procedure and the associated problems inherrent in such procedures. Its the “assumption” part that makes me question just how reliable it is.
]]>Suffice it to say that the vast majority of scientists (even LDS scientists) who have familiarized themselves with the mathematics, physics, experimental procedures and results of published studies agree that the earth is many millions of years old, and that this conclusion is beyond reasonable doubt from a scientific point of view.
As I emphasized above, if you do not wish to accept this conclusion, for any reason, that is your privilege. For example, if you reject the above conclusion for religious reasons, that is your right, and I would be the first to step up to defend your right to think the way you wish.
I wish you well in any case. Thanks for your discussion, DHB
]]>Perhaps this is where we can agree to disagree. I do not doubt the ability to check ratios of atoms in rocks. I doubt the ability to align up all of the presumptions correctly and have a basis of fact that needs to be in place to date it “accuratly”. Just because scientists agree on the assumptions does not make it factual. You know I find it very interesting that Tim made me aware of the fact that I left off the rest of a sentence in the previous writing I posted. But when you add the two together it pretty much sums up how modern scientist agree on that which they call to be “reliable results”. here it is again-
“It is obvious that radiometric technique may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists but their overall interpretation supports the concept of a long history of geological evolution.”
If they can be off sometimes by “hundreds of millions of years” and then conclude that they agree the interpretation supports the long history of geological evolution, I am left to conclude that it is anything but precise. I have always been skepticle of dating methods because it requires too much conjecture. And both sides are using it- both ID and Evolution. Even old-age creationists use it. This issue isn’t about sides (evolution or ID), it’s about unreliable data plain and simple.
]]>This is an example of the “trees” fallacy — finding faults with the bark of one or two trees, then trying to insist the forest really isn’t there…
Let me emphasize again that a very large percentage of practicing scientists (at least 99%), and even many intelligent design and creationist writers, acknowledge that the earth and fossils are many millions of years old. To cling to the possibility that somehow all of the thousands of carefully measured geologic dates are simultaneously in error by several orders of magnitude is to dig yourself into a very lonely hole, one populated only by a handful of bible-thumping fundamentalists. Even among active professional LDS scientists, the vote is virtually unanimous — if there are exceptions, they are in a very small minority.
If you do not wish to seriously study the matter and become familiar with the huge number of studies analyzing the reliability of radiometric dating, or the huge number of studies using radiometric dating, that is fine. If you simply do not wish to accept the consensus scientific conclusion, that is fine. But don’t pretend that there a large sector of the scientific community that doubts the old-age conclusion. There isn’t. You will have to find some other way to find a harmony between science and religion.
]]>