This thread is carried over from the following exchange.I couldn't open ethical atheist just now so hopefully others can link there later. But no matter because the person in question, Mosheh Thezion, has come here.Originally Posted by dakiniMy response was the following:Originally Posted by Mosheh ThezionSo to follow through and to respond to MT I put together the following references.Originally Posted by beskep
The problem as I said, MT, is when a person questions something such as the age of the Universe, but that person asks question after question, the other person gets tired of responding. The problem isn't that the answers aren't there, it's that a person such as yourself is asking questions as if you have a limited background in the science. You have too many questions which have more than adequate answers. It would help if you would do some reading first. (Being self educated in physics, perhaps a mere review is in order.)
So if you really want the answers to your questions, then start by educating yourself about the basics. Then can you carry on a real discussion of any holes or flaws in the science. Here is a compilation of the science you wish to discuss. If after reading this material, you still have questions that weren't answered there, then ask those questions on this board. We are very happy to debate these issues with you, but we can't educate you to the science of the age of the Universe one question at a time.
BTW, welcome to the BABB. We love discussions such as those you bring here. Don't be put off by my post. Do stay and challenge away, after you at least read the Talk Origins answers to your questions as well as responses here.
A talk.origins Age of the Earth Debate
[Last Update: February 27, 1992]
(includes carbon dating discussion)
Then read this because it is an excellent discussion from a
Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective
Dr. Roger C. Wiens
941 Estates Drive, Los Alamos, NM 87544
And here are lots of specific responses to specific Creationists claims.
Common Creationist Criticisms of Mainstream Dating Methods
Radiometric dating assumes that radioisotope decay rates are constant, but this assumption is not supported. All processes in nature vary according to different factors, and we should not expect radioactivity to be different.
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 139.
Potassium-argon dating of rocks from lava flows known to be modern gave ages millions to billions of years older.
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 146-147.
by Chris Stassen
Copyright © 1994-1998
[Last update, September 17, 1998]
Geochronology kata John Woodmorappe
by Steven H. Schimmrich
Copyright © 1997-2003
[Text last updated: February 12, 1998]
[Links updated: November 30, 2003]
Other Links(above page has links to the following):
John Woodmorappe has written a response to this essay.
Steven Schimmrich responds to Woodmorappe.
Young-Earth Arguments: A Second Look
Former creationist Glenn Morton examines several famous young-earth creationist arguments and provides data to illustrate their flaws. He plots Woodmorappe's collection of anomalous radiometric results and notices something remarkable.
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective
Roger Wiens of Caltech discusses the reasoning and science behind radiometric dating techniques.
Studies in Creationism and Flood Geology
This pamphlet from the Institute for Creation Research briefly synopsizes Woodmorappe's arguments against mainstream geochronology.
The Isochron Dating FAQ
Chris Stassen has written a detailed article explaining how and why isochron radiometric dating techniques work.
Hiding the Numbers to Defame Radiometric Dating
Woodmorappe wrote a 1999 book The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods in which he continued his attacks on radiometric dating. Dr. Kevin R. Henke demonstrates that Woodmorappe took many of his references in this book out-of-context.
Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale
Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?
by Andrew MacRae
Copyright © 1997-2004
[Text last updated: October 2, 1998]
[Links updated: September 12, 2004]
Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits
by Kathleen Hunt
Copyright © 2002
[posted: May 22, 2002]
Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS), a sensitive radiometric dating technique, is in some cases finding trace amounts of radioactive carbon-14 in coal deposits, amounts that seem to indicate an age of around 40,000 years. Though this result is still too old to fit into any young-earth creationist chronology, it would also seem to represent a problem for the established geologic timescale, as conventional thought holds that coal deposits were largely if not entirely formed during the Carboniferous period approximately 300 million years ago. Since the halflife of carbon-14 is 5,730 years, any that was present in the coal at the time of formation should have long since decayed to stable daughter products. The presence of 14C in coal therefore is an anomaly that requires explanation.
Talk.origins' Kathleen Hunt wrote an e-mail to a noted expert on AMS and 14C dating. The results of her correspondence are reproduced below:
How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims
by Dave E. Matson
Copyright © 1994-2002
A Criticism of the
ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project
by Chris Stassen
Copyright © 1994-2003
[Last Update: February 18, 2003]
Ice Core Dating
[Last Update: January 3, 1995]
And then there is a response written by a BABB member, Tim Thompson
A Radiometric Dating Resource List
updated & links checked, 29 April 2003
If these links answer your questions you might tell us. If they don't then keep asking and someone here will have an explanation or more links to good scientific information.