1) If the dates come back with a wide range of dates, then there is either too much (or too little) material to get an accurate date... the rocks likely much older (or much younger) than any given date.
2) If the dates that come back with a date more or less than a degree of magnitude of the half-life (1-tenth the half life, or 10x the half-life) it means that the margin of error can be significantly larger. (the margin for error is even worse if the date is more degrees of magnitude further away from the half-life)
So now lets consider what Dr Steven A. Austin did. He sent in a request of Potassium-Argon dating. Which has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. So if the date coming back was anything less than 130 million years, it would have large error bars.
If it was less than 13 million years, it would have HUGE error bars... might as well be inconclusive.
And If it was less than 1.3 million years... why bother.... it can't possibly be accurate... and if you date it multiple times, you will likely get HUGE discrepancies between the rocks.
Dr Stevens specifically requested Potassium-Argon dating on something he knew was a few decades old at most. So he knew it wouldn't be reliable.
So when we dated the 10-year old rock... Surprise, surprise, it had HUGE discrepancies. and Surprise, surprise... it was way less than 130 million years old... it was way less than 13 million years old... most of the dates were even less than 1.3 million years old! (Though for a half-life of 1.3 Billion years... being 'off' by ~400 thousand years ... is only off by 0.03% *SHOCKING!*)
The correct conclusion to draw at this point is:
- "These rocks must be very young, to get a more accurate date i would need to use a different radiometric dating method with a much-smaller half-life."
For example, Uranium-thorium with a 80,000 year half-life. (still accurate for 8,000-year old rocks, though 800-years would be pushing it, and 80 years would be unreliable) would be a better choice.
Dr Stevens didn't do this though. All he wanted was the very-large errors and knew lay-people wouldn't understand why it was wrong.
The error bars were short enough that they did not overlap for the five reports he got back.
If Geochron had a problem, they should have caught it before they sent out the report. They did not. Which means they can't tell the difference between a young rock and an old rock.
I used to be a hospital laboratory administrator. Had I made an error like that on a proficiency-test sample, the College of American Pathologists would have shut me down for my pains.
Furthermore: Geochron did not say, "These rocks must be very young; we beg leave to suggest you use another dating method." Wouldn't they have known right away if they couldn't even get a date on it?
Submitted by trutherator (not verified) on
(1) The 6,000+ age of the earth is not a "guess". Maybe the one bishop "guessed" about supportive evidence, I have never directly read his writing or a translation of it, but the 6,000+ age is based on the genealogies in the Bible. Those ages are very specific and served a double purpose. One purpose was --a-- to establish the direct lineage of the Messiah back to both Abraham (in Matthew) and to Adam (in Luke); --b--record the historical fact of the Flood and the witnesses thereof.
(2) Your terminology that says "little more than the Textus Receipts" to work with is quite a miss by a mile. The "Textus Receptus" is called that because it was the text that was "received" by every generation from the First Century, in great contrast to the self-contradictory to the more recent discoveries of the so-called "oldest" Alexandrian documents that differ as much from each other than they do from the Textus Receptus. There is a reason that the TR is also called the "Majority Text", because from early on believers regarded it as trustworthy.
For one thing, sometimes Book #2 is older than Book #1 because Book#1 is used up faster from frequency of usage. Studies show that today the "Textus Receptus" based KJB is the most used of the translations in Christian households today. That's why you will find, if you research it, they are also the most beat-up and they wear out faster.
The King James Bible wording in Genesis One makes it clear. The days are numbered as ordinals, not cardinals. It was first day, second day, not "a first day", "a second day", and so on.
I invite you to research the matter of versions further. It also makes a BIG difference in faithfulness to the Creation week historical narrative. And as God's communication is Yeah, yeah, nay nay, and God is not the author of confusion.... No private interpretation..
3 Comments
Submitted by FaithAndReason (not verified) on
I'm just going to comment on Radiometric dating.
1) If the dates come back with a wide range of dates, then there is either too much (or too little) material to get an accurate date... the rocks likely much older (or much younger) than any given date.
2) If the dates that come back with a date more or less than a degree of magnitude of the half-life (1-tenth the half life, or 10x the half-life) it means that the margin of error can be significantly larger. (the margin for error is even worse if the date is more degrees of magnitude further away from the half-life)
So now lets consider what Dr Steven A. Austin did. He sent in a request of Potassium-Argon dating. Which has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. So if the date coming back was anything less than 130 million years, it would have large error bars.
If it was less than 13 million years, it would have HUGE error bars... might as well be inconclusive.
And If it was less than 1.3 million years... why bother.... it can't possibly be accurate... and if you date it multiple times, you will likely get HUGE discrepancies between the rocks.
Dr Stevens specifically requested Potassium-Argon dating on something he knew was a few decades old at most. So he knew it wouldn't be reliable.
So when we dated the 10-year old rock... Surprise, surprise, it had HUGE discrepancies. and Surprise, surprise... it was way less than 130 million years old... it was way less than 13 million years old... most of the dates were even less than 1.3 million years old! (Though for a half-life of 1.3 Billion years... being 'off' by ~400 thousand years ... is only off by 0.03% *SHOCKING!*)
The correct conclusion to draw at this point is:
- "These rocks must be very young, to get a more accurate date i would need to use a different radiometric dating method with a much-smaller half-life."
For example, Uranium-thorium with a 80,000 year half-life. (still accurate for 8,000-year old rocks, though 800-years would be pushing it, and 80 years would be unreliable) would be a better choice.
Dr Stevens didn't do this though. All he wanted was the very-large errors and knew lay-people wouldn't understand why it was wrong.
Submitted by Temlakos on
You evidently did not read Dr. Austin's paper.
The error bars were short enough that they did not overlap for the five reports he got back.
If Geochron had a problem, they should have caught it before they sent out the report. They did not. Which means they can't tell the difference between a young rock and an old rock.
I used to be a hospital laboratory administrator. Had I made an error like that on a proficiency-test sample, the College of American Pathologists would have shut me down for my pains.
Furthermore: Geochron did not say, "These rocks must be very young; we beg leave to suggest you use another dating method." Wouldn't they have known right away if they couldn't even get a date on it?
Submitted by trutherator (not verified) on
(1) The 6,000+ age of the earth is not a "guess". Maybe the one bishop "guessed" about supportive evidence, I have never directly read his writing or a translation of it, but the 6,000+ age is based on the genealogies in the Bible. Those ages are very specific and served a double purpose. One purpose was --a-- to establish the direct lineage of the Messiah back to both Abraham (in Matthew) and to Adam (in Luke); --b--record the historical fact of the Flood and the witnesses thereof.
(2) Your terminology that says "little more than the Textus Receipts" to work with is quite a miss by a mile. The "Textus Receptus" is called that because it was the text that was "received" by every generation from the First Century, in great contrast to the self-contradictory to the more recent discoveries of the so-called "oldest" Alexandrian documents that differ as much from each other than they do from the Textus Receptus. There is a reason that the TR is also called the "Majority Text", because from early on believers regarded it as trustworthy.
For one thing, sometimes Book #2 is older than Book #1 because Book#1 is used up faster from frequency of usage. Studies show that today the "Textus Receptus" based KJB is the most used of the translations in Christian households today. That's why you will find, if you research it, they are also the most beat-up and they wear out faster.
The King James Bible wording in Genesis One makes it clear. The days are numbered as ordinals, not cardinals. It was first day, second day, not "a first day", "a second day", and so on.
I invite you to research the matter of versions further. It also makes a BIG difference in faithfulness to the Creation week historical narrative. And as God's communication is Yeah, yeah, nay nay, and God is not the author of confusion.... No private interpretation..