Global Climate Change

Guys, make an evolution thread.


I for one, do think humans are screwing around with the Earth. The worst part is that no one's doing much to stop it... Sadly, not even me.


Imagine if all the lights in NYC were to turn off for one minute, how much energy we'd save. That'd never happen though, but that would be cool.

Aardvark wrote:Because there's too much conflict with time frames and astrological terms.

Now what the fuck does astrology have to do with evolution?

Astronomy*

Nihil wrote:
When Rna is transcribed into mRna, we have observed that there are literal mistakes for every something like 10000 transcriptions, we even have a backup system that goes through and checks it. In this way evolution happens, slowly, because if these mistakes create favorable traits, usually in the way of proteins and other tissues and such, then it will be passed around the community due to natural selection.

^S-c-i-e-n-c-e science, right there, that you don't buy, hmmm... weird huh?

Nihil wrote:

again pointing to that video, aard do you have insurance, life insurance, health insurance? something like that? you don't KNOW if you will ever need it, you sure as hell hope you don't, but that doesn't mean you don't buy it, for your own protection.

consider active steps to slow down climate change like insurance, we don't konw necessarily, but we are taking steps that will help the earth and preserve life, so why not?

^answer that aard?

And how exactly does that prove evolution? It proves adaptation, change, but not something like the beginning of sentience.

You see you do know that you will get sick, and you do know you will die Nihil. These are two inescapable facts of life. We know this because it happens often. We don't know what pollution and global warming will really do, and the fact that our environment has repeatedly gone through phases of warm ups and cool downs suggests we are in fact just going through another one of those phases. You wanna help the Earth and be green, go ahead, but don't blackmail people into it by saying that the world's gonna end if they don't.

What the fuck does astronomy have to do with evolution?

It has to do with the time frame proposed. Evolution states that it takes millenia for each evolution to occur and that the Earth is millions of years old. But according to some studies the age is impossible given the current rate of collapse in our sun and the rotational degradation of our planet. If our planet was as old as Evolution states, the rotation would have been too fast to sustain life, and on a worse note the expansion of the sun would have engulfed Mercury and been near enough to Earth that it would be a lump of coal.

wait, i dont think its rotational degradation, dont you mean translation(or sth) degradation? The earth didnt have a intense rotation, it was formed by aglomerating mini parts from the formation of the solar system. One thing i know, is that astronomy supports the evolution theory, and what you are referring to, i think, is the rotation of the earth around the sun. The earth didnt start off with a huge speed rotation. it just coggled up mini bodies, till it got so thick, it formed a melted core, and thru many physical processes, it created surface, cooled down, and so on and so forth. I dont get where your bringing that expansion of the sun shit, but at the time of the solar formation, the rotation speed was super high. so high, that it could defy gravity, and pull objects away from the center of the disc. when the center of the disc accumulated parts that were closer to it, thru gravity(just like earths formation) it created the sun. there was no expansion. so really, i dont get it where ur coming with that. The orbit speed of the earth(i forget the name for it in english) was higher, but it didnt affect severely the proto Earth. there was no life at the time, only when the planet was cooled down, and stabilized, did the process of creation of life begin.

Also, astronomy, when dealing with past events, is a much, MUCH less exact science then evolution, because evolution can be shown, while those astronomical theories CANNOT be hardcored proven. in fact, they are just theories in the literal meaning of the word. they use logical points to try and find out what happened in the past, but they CAN be wrong, becuz there is no evidence of those. Astronomy<Evolution, so you should actually be questioning astronomy's theory BECAUSE of the evolution theory, not the other way around.

Those studies were used by evaluating the current rotational speed of the planet and how much it slows over time, as well as how much the sun has shrunk by years, averaged and ratioed. And I fail to see how evolution can be proven considering I haven't seen any living creatures have drastic changes, just minor ones on a microscopic scale, and considering how far back we can track histories there should at least be something obvious.

i can make the same argument about astronomy. Who are people to say that Earth's rotation was not affected by something irregular in the BILLIONS of years the planets exist? How do they know so well the complex process of a star? Those calculus are stupid cause they are calculating something exponentially, when they shouldnt. Planets and stars suffer a WHOLE lot of influences, and a study measured thru a few years cannot back track MILLIONS of them in astronomic movement. They can only ASSESS. Thats right, ASSESS. Evolution can be shown with fossils, patterns, GENETIC MATERIAL, wich is a hardcore proof. And Aard, i dont know hwo much knowledge you have of evolution, but even in that sector, it is not certain of how exactly we evolved from. Past events are VERY scarsed in proof, becuz almost all, like 90%, is assessment and mathematics without knowing all the variables. However, Evolution has genetic studies and processes that show mutations, even in a small degree. THAT is evolution. Mutation until improvement is found in a genetic pool.

The life of a star depends only on how much mass the star has. Stars that are 10 times the mass of the Sun will last about 100 million years. Stars with about the Sun's mass last about 13 billion years, and stars about one tenth the mass of our Sun last 100 billion years or longer.


03 February, 1998. Astronomers have been able to date the Sun by applying the theory of stellar structure and evolution to data that describe the interior of the Sun found through the study of solar oscillations. The Sun is dated at 4.5 billion years old, satisfyingly close to the 4.56 billion year age of the Solar System as found from the study of meteorites.

...The Sun is expected to become a red giant in approximately five billion years.

According to numerous, independent dating methods, the earth is known to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. Most young-earth arguments rely on inappropriate extrapolations from a few carefully selected and often erroneous data points. See the Age of the Earth FAQ and the Talk.Origins Archive's Young Earth FAQs.

Evolution has been observed, both directly and indirectly. It is true. See the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution Has Never Been Observed and 29 Evidences for Macroevolution.


i got some of these copy and pastes from here aard

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

follow some of the things i under lined, since they are links to answer your questions.







^S-c-i-e-n-c-e

also,


adaptation |ˌadapˈtā sh ən; ˌadəp-|
Biology a change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment : living in groups is an adaptation that increases the efficiency of hunting.
• the process of making such changes : biochemical adaptation in parasites.

adaptation is part of evolution

Aardvark wrote:
We don't know what pollution and global warming will really do, and the fact that our environment has repeatedly gone through phases of warm ups and cool downs suggests we are in fact just going through another one of those phases.

so why buy insurance against fires, you don't KNOW, that it will happen, but you want to be protected, what you are saying makes it sound like you KNOW that global climate change is not happening.

And you guys seem to miss my point. The whole reason I don't believe in Evolution, or really any origin theory, is because of conflicting evidence inside scientific studies. Your points against me actually reinforce my point. And Dray if you want to claim that they can't predict millions of years for astronomy when we have a huge base of samples then genetics would be just as subjected. Unless I see hardcore evidence, and I don't mean cell mutation and microscopic changes, I mean an actual major change in a current animal species or mankind, not some fossil you say because they are similar means they evolved.

You miss my point. I don't say do nothing, if you feel obligated and have the capacity to change to something "greener" feel free. But don't blackmail the population with one side of an argument to do something they may not have the funding to do by scaring them.

no... we just provided you with solid scientific evidence that just bashed your argument to pieces, XD

conflicting evidence, i just gave solid evidence, and dude, read the link don't make me carry it to u

fine i will then,

"Observation of Evolution"
Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

How Old Is The Earth, And How Do We Know?
The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.

Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface.

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point.

Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.

If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios, then the data points will always fall on a single line. And from the slope of the line we can compute the amount of time which has passed since the pool of matter became separated into individual objects. See the Isochron Dating FAQ or Faure (1986, chapter 18) for technical detail.

A young-Earther would object to all of the "assumptions" listed above. However, the test for these assumptions is the plot of the data itself. The actual underlying assumption is that, if those requirements have not been met, there is no reason for the data points to fall on a line.

The resulting plot has data points for each of five meteorites that contain varying levels of uranium, a single data point for all meteorites that do not, and one (solid circle) data point for modern terrestrial sediments. It looks like this:


Pb-Pb isochron of terrestrial and meteorite samples.
After Murthy and Patterson (1962) and York and Farquhar (1972) .
Scanned from Dalrymple (1986) with permission.

Most of the other measurements for the age of the Earth rest upon calculating an age for the solar system by dating objects which are expected to have formed with the planets but are not geologically active (and therefore cannot erase evidence of their formation), such as meteorites. Below is a table of radiometric ages derived from groups of meteorites:

Type Number
Dated Method Age (billions
of years)
Chondrites (CM, CV, H, L, LL, E) 13 Sm-Nd 4.21 +/- 0.76
Carbonaceous chondrites 4 Rb-Sr 4.37 +/- 0.34
Chondrites (undisturbed H, LL, E) 38 Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.02
Chondrites (H, L, LL, E) 50 Rb-Sr 4.43 +/- 0.04
H Chondrites (undisturbed) 17 Rb-Sr 4.52 +/- 0.04
H Chondrites 15 Rb-Sr 4.59 +/- 0.06
L Chondrites (relatively undisturbed) 6 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.12
L Chondrites 5 Rb-Sr 4.38 +/- 0.12
LL Chondrites (undisturbed) 13 Rb-Sr 4.49 +/- 0.02
LL Chondrites 10 Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06
E Chondrites (undisturbed) 8 Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.04
E Chondrites 8 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.13
Eucrites (polymict) 23 Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.19
Eucrites 11 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.30
Eucrites 13 Lu-Hf 4.57 +/- 0.19
Diogenites 5 Rb-Sr 4.45 +/- 0.18
Iron (plus iron from St. Severin) 8 Re-Os 4.57 +/- 0.21
After Dalrymple (1991, p. 291); duplicate studies on identical meteorite types omitted.
As shown in the table, there is excellent agreement on about 4.5 billion years, between several meteorites and by several different dating methods. Note that young-Earthers cannot accuse us of selective use of data -- the above table includes a significant fraction of all meteorites on which isotope dating has been attempted. According to Dalrymple (1991, p. 286) , less than 100 meteorites have been subjected to isotope dating, and of those about 70 yield ages with low analytical error.

Further, the oldest age determinations of individual meteorites generally give concordant ages by multiple radiometric means, or multiple tests across different samples. For example:

Meteorite Dated Method Age (billions
of years)
Allende whole rock Ar-Ar 4.52 +/- 0.02

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.53 +/- 0.02

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.48 +/- 0.02

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.55 +/- 0.03

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.55 +/- 0.03

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.57 +/- 0.03

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.02

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.56 +/- 0.05

Guarena whole rock Ar-Ar 4.44 +/- 0.06

13 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.08

Shaw whole rock Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.06

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.40 +/- 0.06

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.29 +/- 0.06

Olivenza 18 samples Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.16

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.49 +/- 0.06

Saint Severin 4 samples Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.33

10 samples Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.15

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.04

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.38 +/- 0.04

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.42 +/- 0.04

Indarch 9 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.08

12 samples Rb-Sr 4.39 +/- 0.04

Juvinas 5 samples Sm-Nd 4.56 +/- 0.08

5 samples Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.07

Moama 3 samples Sm-Nd 4.46 +/- 0.03

4 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.05

Y-75011 9 samples Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.05

7 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.16

5 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06

4 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.33

Angra dos Reis 7 samples Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.04

3 samples Sm-Nd 4.56 +/- 0.04

Mundrabrilla silicates Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.06

silicates Ar-Ar 4.57 +/- 0.06

olivine Ar-Ar 4.54 +/- 0.04

plagioclase Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.04

Weekeroo Station 4 samples Rb-Sr 4.39 +/- 0.07

silicates Ar-Ar 4.54 +/- 0.03
After Dalrymple (1991, p. 286); meteorites dated by only a single means omitted.
Also note that the meteorite ages (both when dated mainly by Rb-Sr dating in groups, and by multiple means individually) are in exact agreement with the solar system "model lead age" produced earlier.

Common Young-Earth "Dating Methods"
Young-Earthers have several methods which they claim to give "upper limits" to the age of the Earth, much lower than the age calculated above (usually in the thousands of years). Those which appear the most frequently in talk.origins are reproduced below:

Accumulation of helium in the atmosphere
Decay of the Earth's magnetic field
Accumulation of meteoritic dust on the Moon
Accumulation of metals into the oceans
Note that these aren't necessarily the "best" or most difficult to refute of young-Earth arguments. However, they are quite popular in modern creation-"science" literature (even though they should not be!) and they are historically the ones posted to talk.origins more than any others.

1. Accumulation of Helium in the atmosphere
The young-Earth argument goes something like this: helium-4 is created by radioactive decay (alpha particles are helium nuclei) and is constantly added to the atmosphere. Helium is not light enough to escape the Earth's gravity (unlike hydrogen), and it will therefore accumulate over time. The current level of helium in the atmosphere would accumulate in less than two hundred thousand years, therefore the Earth is young. (I believe this argument was originally put forth by Mormon young-Earther Melvin Cook, in a letter to the editor which was published in Nature.)

But helium can and does escape from the atmosphere, at rates calculated to be nearly identical to rates of production. In order to obtain a young age from their calculations, young-Earthers handwave away mechanisms by which helium can escape. For example, Henry Morris says:

"There is no evidence at all that Helium 4 either does, or can, escape from the exosphere in significant amounts." ( Morris 1974, p. 151 )

But Morris is wrong. Surely one cannot "invent" a good dating mechanism by simply ignoring processes which work in the opposite direction of the process which the date is based upon. Dalrymple says:

"Banks and Holzer (12) have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of (2 to 4) x 106 ions/cm2 /sec of 4He, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 +/- 1.5) x 106 atoms/cm2/sec. Calculations for 3He lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the estimated production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic-field intensity while the field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern (112) estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss." ( Dalrymple 1984, p. 112 )

Dalrymple's references:

(12) Banks, P. M. & T. E. Holzer. 1969. "High-latitude plasma transport: the polar wind" in Journal of Geophysical Research 74, pp. 6317-6332.
(112) Sheldon, W. R. & J. W. Kern. 1972. "Atmospheric helium and geomagnetic field reversals" in Journal of Geophysical Research 77, pp. 6194-6201.
This argument also appears in the following creationist literature:

Baker (1976, pp. 25-26)
Brown (1989, pp. 16 and 52)
Jansma (1985, p. 61)
Whitcomb and Morris (1961, pp. 384-385)
Wysong (1976, pp. 161-163)
2. Decay of the Earth's magnetic field
The young-Earth argument: the dipole component of the magnetic field has decreased slightly over the time that it has been measured. Assuming the generally accepted "dynamo theory" for the existence of the Earth's magnetic field is wrong, the mechanism might instead be an initially created field which has been losing strength ever since the creation event. An exponential fit (assuming a half-life of 1400 years on 130 years' worth of measurements) yields an impossibly high magnetic field even 8000 years ago, therefore the Earth must be young. The main proponent of this argument was Thomas Barnes.

There are several things wrong with this "dating" mechanism. It's hard to just list them all. The primary four are:

While there is no complete model to the geodynamo (certain key properties of the core are unknown), there are reasonable starts and there are no good reasons for rejecting such an entity out of hand. If it is possible for energy to be added to the field, then the extrapolation is useless.

There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself, rendering any unidirectional extrapolation on total energy useless. Even some young-Earthers admit to that these days -- e.g., Humphreys (1988).

Much of the energy in the field is almost certainly not even visible external to the core. This means that the extrapolation rests on the assumption that fluctuations in the observable portion of the field accurately represent fluctuations in its total energy.
Barnes' extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore portions of the field that are internal to the core, Barnes' extrapolation also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests on extrapolation of a theoretical entity.
That last part is more important than it may sound. The Earth's magnetic field is often split in two components when measured. The "dipole" component is the part which approximates a theoretically perfect field around a single magnet, and the "nondipole" components are the ("messy") remainder. A study in the 1960s showed that the decrease in the dipole component since the turn of the century had been nearly completely compensated by an increase in the strength of the nondipole components of the field. (In other words, the measurements show that the field has been diverging from the shape that would be expected of a theoretical ideal magnet, more than the amount of energy has actually been changing.) Barnes' extrapolation therefore does not really rest on the change in energy of the field.

For information, see Dalrymple (1984, pp. 106-108) or Strahler (1987, pp. 150-155) .

This argument also appears in the following creationist literature:

Baker (1976, p. 25)
Brown (1989, pp. 17 and 53)
Jackson (1989, pp. 37-38)
Jansma (1985, pp. 61-62)
Morris (1974, pp. 157-158)
Wysong (1976, pp. 160-161)
3. Accumulation of meteoritic dust on the Moon
The most common form of this young-Earth argument is based on a single measurement of the rate of meteoritic dust influx to the Earth gave a value in the millions of tons per year. While this is negligible compared to the processes of erosion on the Earth (about a shoebox-full of dust per acre per year), there are no such processes on the Moon. Young-Earthers claim that the Moon must receive a similar amount of dust (perhaps 25% as much per unit surface area due to its lesser gravity), and there should be a very large dust layer (about a hundred feet thick) if the Moon is several billion years old.

Morris says, regarding the dust influx rate:

"The best measurements have been made by Hans Pettersson, who obtained the figure of 14 million tons per year1."
Morris (1974, p. 152) [italic emphasis added -CS]

Pettersson stood on a mountain top and collected dust there with a device intended for measuring smog levels. He measured the amount of nickel collected, and published calculations based on the assumption that all nickel that he collected was meteoritic in origin. That assumption was wrong and caused his published figures to be a vast overestimate.

Pettersson's calculation resulted in the a figure of about 15 million tons per year. In the very same paper, he indicated that he believed that value to be a "generous" over-estimate, and said that 5 million tons per year was a more likely figure.

Several measurements of higher precision were available from many sources by the time Morris wrote Scientific Creationism. These measurements give the value (for influx rate to the Earth) of about 20,000 to 40,000 tons per year. Multiple measurements (chemical signature of ocean sediments, satellite penetration detectors, microcratering rate of objects left exposed on the lunar surface) all agree on approximately the same value -- nearly three orders of magnitude lower than the value which Morris chose to use.

Morris chose to pick obsolete data with known problems, and call it the "best" measurement available. With the proper values, the expected depth of meteoritic dust on the Moon is less than one foot.

For further information, see Dalrymple (1984, pp. 108-111) or Strahler (1987, pp. 143-144) .

Addendum: "loose dust" vs. "meteoritic material"
Some folks in talk.origins occasionally sow further confusion by discussing the thickness of the "lunar soil" as if it represented the entire quantity of meteoritic material on the lunar surface. The lunar soil is a very thin layer (usually an inch or less) of loose powder present on the surface of the Moon.

However, the lunar soil is not the only meteoritic material on the lunar surface. The "soil" is merely the portion of powdery material which is kept loose by micrometeorite impacts. Below it is the regolith, which is a mixture of rock fragments and packed powdery material. The regolith averages about five meters deep on the lunar maria and ten meters on the lunar highlands.

In addition, lunar rocks are broken down by various processes (such as micrometeorite impacts and radiation). Quite a bit of the powdered material (even the loose portion) is not meteoritic in origin.

Addendum: Creationists disown the "Moon dust" argument
There is a recent creationist technical paper on this topic which admits that the depth of dust on the Moon is concordant with the mainstream age and history of the solar system. In the Abstract, Snelling and Rush (1993) conclude with:

"It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system."

Snelling and Rush's paper also refutes the oft-posted creationist "myth" about the expectation of a thick dust layer during to the Apollo mission. The Apollo mission had been preceded by several unmanned landings -- the Soviet Luna (six landers), American Ranger (five landers) and Surveyor (seven landers) series. The physical properties of the lunar surface were well-known years before man set foot on it.

Further, even prior to the unmanned landings mentioned above, Snelling and Rush document that there was no clear consensus in the astronomical community on the depth of dust to expect. So those making the argument do not even have the excuse that such an consensus existed prior to the unmanned landings.

Even though the creationists themselves have refuted this argument, (and refutations from the mainstream community have been around for ten to twenty years longer than that), the "Moon dust" argument continues to be propagated in their "popular" literature, and continues to appear in talk.origins on a regular basis:

Baker (1976, p. 25)
Brown (1989, pp. 17 and 53)
Jackson (1989, pp. 40-41)
Jansma (1985, pp. 62-63)
Whitcomb and Morris (1961, pp. 379-380)
Wysong (1976, pp. 166-168)
See the talkorigins.org archived feedback for February and April 1997, for additional examples.

4. Accumulation of metals into the oceans
In 1965, Chemical Oceanography published a list of some metals' "residency times" in the ocean. This calculation was performed by dividing the amount of various metals in the oceans by the rate at which rivers bring the metals into the oceans.

Several creationists have reproduced this table of numbers, claiming that these numbers gave "upper limits" for the age of the oceans (therefore the Earth) because the numbers represented the amount of time that it would take for the oceans to "fill up" to their present level of these various metals from zero.

First, let us examine the results of this "dating method." Most creationist works do not produce all of the numbers, only the ones whose values are "convenient." The following list is more complete:


Al - 100 years Ni - 9,000 years Sb - 350,000 years
Fe - 140 years Co - 18,000 years Mo - 500,000 years
Ti - 160 years Hg - 42,000 years Au - 560,000 years
Cr - 350 years Bi - 45,000 years Ag - 2,100,000 years
Th - 350 years Cu - 50,000 years K - 11,000,000 years
Mn - 1,400 years Ba - 84,000 years Sr - 19,000,000 years
W - 1,000 years Sn - 100,000 years Li - 20,000,000 years
Pb - 2,000 years Zn - 180,000 years Mg - 45,000,000 years
Si - 8,000 years Rb - 270,000 years Na - 260,000,000 years
Now, let us critically examine this method as a method of finding an age for the Earth.

The method ignores known mechanisms which remove metals from the oceans:

Many of the listed metals are in fact known to be at or near equilibrium; that is, the rates for their entering and leaving the ocean are the same to within uncertainty of measurement. (Some of the chemistry of the ocean floor is not well-understood, which unfortunately leaves a fairly large uncertainty.) One cannot derive a date from a process where equilibrium is within the range of uncertainty -- it could go on forever without changing concentration of the ocean.

Even the metals which are not known to be at equilibrium are known to be relatively close to it. I have seen a similar calculation on uranium, failing to note that the uncertainty in the efflux estimate is larger than its distance from equilibrium. To calculate a true upper limit, we must calculate the maximum upper limit, using all values at the appropriate extreme of their measurement uncertainty. We must perform the calculations on the highest possible efflux rate, and the lowest possible influx rate. If equilibrium is within reach of those values, no upper limit on age can be derived.

In addition, even if we knew exactly the rates at which metals were removed from the oceans, and even if these rates did not match the influx rates, these numbers are still wrong. It would probably require solving a differential equation, and any reasonable approximation must "figure in" the efflux rate. Any creationist who presents these values as an "upper limit" has missed this factor entirely. These published values are only "upper limits" when the efflux rate is zero (which is known to be false for all the metals). Any efflux decreases the rate at which the metals build up, invalidating the alleged "limit."


The method simply does not work. Ignoring the three problems above, the results are scattered randomly (five are under 1,000 years; five are 1,000-9,999 years; five are 10,000-99,999 years; six are 100,000-999,999 years; and six are 1,000,000 years or above). Also, the only two results that agree are 350 years, and Aluminum gives 100 years. If this is a valid method, then the age of the Earth must be less than the lowest "upper limit" in the table. Nobody in the debate would agree on a 100-year-old Earth.

These "dating methods" do not actually date anything, which prevents independent confirmation. (Is a 19 million year "limit" [Sr] a "confirmation" of a 42,000 year "limit" [Hg]?) Independent confirmation is very important for dating methods -- scientists generally do not place much confidence in a date that is only computed from a single measurement.

These methods depend on uniformity of a process which is almost certainly not uniform. There is no reason to believe that influx rates have been constant throughout time. There is reason to expect that, due to a relatively large amount of exposed land, today's erosion (and therefore influx) rates are higher than typical past rates.

There is no "check" built into these methods. There is no way to tell if the calculated result is good or not. The best methods used by geologists to perform dating have a built-in check which identifies undatable samples. The only way a creationist can "tell" which of these methods produce bad values is to throw out the results that he doesn't like.
One might wonder why creationist authors have found it worthy of publishing. Yet, it is quite common. This argument also appears in the following creationist literature:

Baker (1976, p. 25)
Brown (1989, p. 16)
Morris (1974, pp. 153-156)
Morris & Parker (1987, pp. 284-284 and 290-291)
Wysong (1976, pp. 162, 163)
Conclusion
Obviously, these are a pretty popular set of "dating" mechanisms; they appear frequently in creationist literature from the 1960s through the late 1980s (and can be found on many creationist web sites even today). They appear in talk.origins more often than any other young-Earth arguments. They are all built upon a distortion of the data.

A curious and unbiased observer could quite reasonably refuse to even listen to the creationists until they "clean house" and stop pushing these arguments. If I found "Piltdown Man" in a modern biology text as evidence for human evolution, I'd throw the book away. (If I applied the same standards to the fairly large collection of creationist materials that I own, none would remain.)

Common Creationist Criticisms of Mainstream Dating Methods
Most creationist criticisms of radiometric dating can be categorized into a few groups. These include:

Reference to a case where the given method did not work .
Claims that the assumptions of a method may be violated :
Constancy of radioactive decay rates .
Contamination is likely to occur .
1. Reference to a case where the given method did not work
This is perhaps the most common objection of all. Creationists point to instances where a given method produced a result that is clearly wrong, and then argue that therefore all such dates may be ignored. Such an argument fails on two counts:

First, an instance where a method fails to work does not imply that it does not ever work. The question is not whether there are "undatable" objects, but rather whether or not all objects cannot be dated by a given method. The fact that one wristwatch has failed to keep time properly cannot be used as a justification for discarding all watches.
How many creationists would see the same time on five different clocks and then feel free to ignore it? Yet, when five radiometric dating methods agree on the age of one of the Earth's oldest rock formations ( Dalrymple 1986, p. 44 ), it is dismissed without a thought.

Second, these arguments fail to address the fact that radiometric dating produces results in line with "evolutionary" expectations about 95% of the time (Dalrymple 1992, personal correspondence). The claim that the methods produce bad results essentially at random does not explain why these "bad results" are so consistently in line with mainstream science.
2. Claims that the assumptions of a method may be violated
Certain requirements are involved with all radiometric dating methods. These generally include constancy of decay rate and lack of contamination (gain or loss of parent or daughter isotope). Creationists often attack these requirements as "unjustified assumptions," though they are really neither "unjustified" nor "assumptions" in most cases.

2.1 Constancy of radioactive decay rates.
Rates of radiometric decay (the ones relevant to radiometric dating) are thought to be based on rather fundamental properties of matter, such as the probability per unit time that a certain particle can "tunnel" out of the nucleus of the atom. The nucleus is well-insulated and therefore is relatively immune to larger-scale effects such as pressure or temperature.

Significant changes to rates of radiometric decay of isotopes relevant to geological dating have never been observed under any conditions. Emery (1972) is a comprehensive survey of experimental results and theoretical limits on variation of decay rates. Note that the largest changes reported by Emery are both irrelevant (they do not involve isotopes or modes of decay used for this FAQ), and minuscule (decay rate changed by of order 1%) compared to the change needed to compress the apparent age of the Earth into the young-Earthers' timescale.

A short digression on mechanisms for radioactive decay, taken from USEnet article by Steve Carlip (subsequently edited in response to Steve's request):

For the case of alpha decay, [...] the simple underlying mechanism is quantum mechanical tunneling through a potential barrier. You will find a simple explanation in any elementary quantum mechanics textbook; for example, Ohanion's Principles of Quantum Mechanics has a nice example of alpha decay on page 89. The fact that the process is probabilistic, and the exponential dependence on time, are straightforward consequences of quantum mechanics. (The time dependence is a case of "Fermi's golden rule" --- see, for example, page 292 of Ohanion.)

An exact computation of decay rates is, of course, much more complicated, since it requires a detailed understanding of the shape of the potential barrier. In principle, this is computable from quantum chromodynamics, but in practice the computation is much too complex to be done in the near future. There are, however, reliable approximations available, and in addition the shape of the potential can be measured experimentally.

For beta decay, the underlying fundamental theory is different; one begins with electroweak theory (for which Glashow, Weinberg and Salam won their Nobel prize) rather than quantum chromodynamics.

As described above, the process of radioactive decay is predicated on rather fundamental properties of matter. In order to explain old isotopic ages on a young Earth by means of accelerated decay, an increase of six to ten orders of magnitude in rates of decay would be needed (depending on whether the acceleration was spread out over the entire pre-Flood period, or accomplished entirely during the Flood).

Such a huge change in fundamental properties would have plenty of noticeable effects on processes other than radioactive decay (taken from <16381@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> by Steve Carlip):

So there has been a lot of creative work on how to look for evidence of such changes.

A nice (technical) summary is given by Sisterna and Vucetich (1991) . Among the phenomena they look at are:

searches for changes in the radius of Mercury, the Moon, and Mars (these would change because of changes in the strength of interactions within the materials that they are formed from);
searches for long term ("secular") changes in the orbits of the Moon and the Earth --- measured by looking at such diverse phenomena as ancient solar eclipses and coral growth patterns;
ranging data for the distance from Earth to Mars, using the Viking spacecraft;
data on the orbital motion of a binary pulsar PSR 1913+16;
observations of long-lived isotopes that decay by beta decay (Re 187, K 40, Rb 87) and comparisons to isotopes that decay by different mechanisms;
the Oklo natural nuclear reactor (mentioned in another posting);
experimental searches for differences in gravitational attraction between different elements (Eotvos-type experiments);
absorption lines of quasars (fine structure and hyperfine splittings);
laboratory searches for changes in the mass difference between the K0 meson and its antiparticle.
While it is not obvious, each of these observations is sensitive to changes in the physical constants that control radioactive decay. For example, a change in the strength of weak interactions (which govern beta decay) would have different effects on the binding energy, and therefore the gravitational attraction, of different elements. Similarly, such changes in binding energy would affect orbital motion, while (more directly) changes in interaction strengths would affect the spectra we observe in distant stars.

The observations are a mixture of very sensitive laboratory tests, which do not go very far back in time but are able to detect extremely small changes, and astronomical observations, which are somewhat less precise but which look back in time. (Remember that processes we observe in a star a million light years away are telling us about physics a million years ago.) While any single observation is subject to debate about methodology, the combined results of such a large number of independent tests are hard to argue with.

The overall result is that no one has found any evidence of changes in fundamental constants, to an accuracy of about one part in 1011 per year.

To summarize: both experimental evidence and theoretical considerations preclude significant changes to rates of radioactive decay. The limits placed are somewhere between ten and twenty orders of magnitude below the changes which would be necessary to accommodate the apparent age of the Earth within the young-Earth timescale (by means of accelerated decay).

2.2 Contamination may have occurred.
This is addressed in the most detail in the Isochron Dating FAQ , for all of the methods discussed in the "age of the Earth" part of this FAQ are isochron (or equivalent) methods, which have a check built in that detect most forms of contamination.

It is true that some dating methods (e.g., K-Ar and carbon-14) do not have a built-in check for contamination, and if there has been contamination these methods will produce a meaningless age. For this reason, the results of such dating methods are not treated with as much confidence.

Also, similarly to item (1) above, pleas to contamination do not address the fact that radiometric results are nearly always in agreement with old-Earth expectations. If the methods were producing completely "haywire" results essentially at random, such a pattern of concordant results would not be expected.


(this goes along with my point of earth not being old enough, or something like that in my post before, rebuttal, w/e thingy XD)

Suggested Further Reading
An excellent, detailed exposition of the means by which the Earth's age is known, as well as the history of attempts to estimate that value, is given in Dalrymple (1991) . This book is a must-read for anyone who wishes to critique mainstream methods for dating the Earth. A review of this book in the young-Earth creationist journal Origins ( Brown 1992 ) includes the following text:

"Dalrymple makes a good case for an age of about 4.5 billion years for the material of which the Earth, Moon, and meteorites are composed. [...] His treatment in The Age of the Earth has made it much more difficult to plausibly explain radiometric data on the basis of a creation of the entire Solar System, or the physical matter in planet Earth, within the last few thousand years. In my opinion, the defense of such a position is a losing battle."

(Note: R.H. Brown believes life on Earth and the geological column to be young, but argues that a proper reading of Genesis allows the Earth itself to be much older.)

For those who wish to develop more than a layman's understanding of radiometric dating, Faure (1986) is the prime textbook/handbook on the topic.

There are several shorter works which describe creationist "dating" methods and/or creationist challenges to mainstream dating methods. The best in my opinion is Dalrymple (1986) . Brush (1982) and Dalrymple (1984) are also very good.

Writings by old-Earth creationists demonstrate that argument for an old Earth is quite possible without "assumption of evolution." The best few are Stoner (1992) , Wonderly (1987) , and Young (1982) . In addition, Wonderly (1981) , Newman & Eckelmann (1977) , and Wonderly (1977) are also good.

And, of course Strahler (1987) covers the entire creation/evolution controversy (including all of the topics discussed here) in a reasonable level of detail and with lots of references.

References
Baker, Sylvia, 1976. Evolution: Bone of Contention, New Jersey, Evangelical Press. 35 pp. ISBN 0-85234-226-8
Back to Helium , Magnetic decay , Moon dust , or Metals in oceans .

Brown, Robert H., 1992. "An Age-Old Question -- Review of The Age of the Earth by Brent Dalrymple" in Origins Volume 19, No. 2, pp. 87-90. ( http://www.grisda.org/origins/19087.htm - Editor)
Back to reference to this book review .

Brown, Walter T., Jr., 1989. In The Beginning..., Arizona, Center for Scientific Creation. 122 pp.
Back to Helium , Magnetic decay , Moon dust , or Metals in oceans .

Brush, Steven G., 1982, "Finding the age of the Earth by physics or by faith?" in Journal of Geological Education 30, pp. 34-58.
Back to reference to this work .

Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1991. The Age of the Earth, California, Stanford University Press. 474 pp. ISBN 0-8047-1569-6
Back to meteorites (oldest or multiple dating methods ) or further reading .

Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1986. Radiometric Dating, Geologic Time, And The Age Of The Earth: A Reply To "Scientific" Creationism, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-110. 76 pp.
Back to model lead age , multiple dating methods , or further reading .

Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1984. "How Old Is the Earth? A Reply to ``Scientific Creationism''", in Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, AAAS 1, Part 3, California, AAAS. pp. 66-131. [Editor's note (January 12, 2006): This article is now online at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/how_old_earth.html.]
Back to Helium , Magnetic decay , Moon dust , or further reading .

Emery, G. T., 1972. "Perturbation of nuclear decay rates" in Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science 22 , pp. 165-202.
Back to reference to this work .

Faure, Gunter, 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology 2nd edition, New York, John Wiley & Sons. 589 pp. ISBN 0-471-86412-9
Back to isochron dating , or further reading .

Humphreys, D. Russell, 1988. "Has the Earth's magnetic field ever flipped?" in Creation Research Society Quarterly 25, No. 3, pp. 130-137.
Back to reference to this work .

Jackson, Wayne, 1989. Creation, Evolution, and the Age of the Earth, California, Courier Publications. 57 pp.
Back to Magnetic decay or Moon dust .

Jansma, Sidney J., Jr., 1985. Six Days, Michigan, Jansma.
Back to Helium , Magnetic decay , or Moon dust .

Morris, Henry, and Gary Parker, 1987. What is Creation Science?, California, Master Books. 336 pp. ISBN 0-89051-081-4
Back to reference to this work .

Morris, Henry, 1974. Scientific Creationism, California, Creation- Life Publishers. 217 pp. ISBN 0-89051-001-6
Back to Helium , Magnetic decay , Moon dust , or Metals in oceans .

Murthy, V. R., and C. C. Patterson, 1962. "Primary isochron of zero age for meteorites and the Earth" in Journal of Geophysical Research 67, p. 1161.
Back to reference to this work .

Newman, Robert C., and Herman J. Eckelmann, Jr., 1977. Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth , Pennsylvania, IBRI. 154 pp. ISBN 0-944788-97-1
Back to reference to this work .

Sisterna, P., and H. Vucetich, 1990. "Time variation of fundamental constants: Bounds from geophysical and astronomical data" in Physical Review D (Particles and Fields) 41, no. 4, pp. 1034-1046.
Back to reference to this work .

Snelling, Andrew A., and David E. Rush, 1993. "Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System" in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 7, No. 1, pp. 2-42. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v7/i1/moondust.asp
Back to reference to this work .

Stoner, Don, 1992. A New Look at an Old Earth: What the Creation Institutes Are Not Telling You about Genesis, California, Schroeder Publishing. 192 pp. ISBN 1-881446-00-X.
Back to reference to this work .

Strahler, Arthur N., 1987. Science and Earth History: The Creation/Evolution Controversy , New York, Prometheus. 552 pp. ISBN 0-87975-414-1
Back to Magnetic decay , Moon dust , or further reading .

Whitcomb, John C., and Henry M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood, New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. 518 pp. ISBN 0-87552-338-2
Back to Helium or Moon dust .

Wonderly, Daniel E., 1987. Neglect of Geologic Data: Sedimentary Strata Compared with Young-Earth Creationist Writings, Pennsylvania, IBRI. 130 pp. ISBN 0-944788-00-9
Back to reference to this work .

Wonderly, Daniel E., 1981. Coral Reefs and Related Carbonate Structures as Indicators of Great Age, Pennsylvania, IBRI. 19 pp.
Back to reference to this work .

Wonderly, Daniel E., 1977. God's Time-Records in Ancient Sediments, Michigan, Crystal Press. 258 pp. ISBN 0-930402-01-4
Back to reference to this work .

Wysong, R. L., 1976. The Creation-Evolution Controversy, Michigan, Inquiry Press. 455 pp. ISBN 0-918112-01-X
Back to Helium , Magnetic decay , Moon dust , or Metals in oceans .

York, D., and R. M. Farquhar, 1972. The Earth's Age and Geochronology, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 178 pp.
Back to reference to this work .

Young, Davis A., 1982. Christianity and the Age of the Earth, California, Artisan. 188 pp. ISBN 0-934666-27-X
Back to reference to this work .

Theory of Evolution

If it was proven it would be called a scientific law, not a theory.

But fine you want me to prove reasons why I don't believe it, I will. I didn't want to do this because it makes for a very long post. Now most of the links are a Creationist point of view, which makes sense considering it's the primary opponent to Evolution, and while I don't believe Creationism has the answers either the articles do raise many interesting points, and I'll give you a few now:

Source #1: http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

"But what about mutations then? What are they and how can they be beneficial? Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process. They effect one nucleotide base at a time and are called point mutations. Once in every 10,000 to 100,000 copies there is a mistake made. Our bodies have a compare – correct process that is very efficient. In fact it is 1016 times better than the best computer code, but once in every 1,000,000,000 or 10,000,000,000 copies a mutation “gets out” so to speak. That is equal to a professional typist making a mistake in 50,000,000 pages of typescript. You see mutations are predominately bad and the cell tries to make sure they don’t happen."

"Evolutionists tell us our planet was spun of from some kind of collision, or was some kind of rocky collapse or something spun out of the sun. Pick your favorite. And they say the earth was molten for millions and millions of years. This should have sterilized the early earth of just about anything organic. So where did the organic substances come from. Evolutionists believe they came from spontaneous generation maybe, or maybe outer space! We’ll just see if any of these make any sense.

Some evolutionists say that amino acids just formed out of seawater. If they did then mass action would have wiped them out. Richard E. Dickerson said:

'It is therefore hard to see how polymerization could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization rather than polymerization.' Richard E. Dickerson, 'Chemical Evolution and the Origen of Life.' Scientific American, September 1978, p. 75

Another problem with the primitive atmosphere is the presence of oxygen. Oxygen would destroy much of the organic compounds so the evolutionists came up with a reducing atmosphere or one without O2 and with CH4 as the main carbon carrier.

The trouble with this primitive atmosphere concept is that once life did occur, the reducing atmosphere would kill it as life needs oxygen. Evolutionists try to say that plants produced the oxygen, but plants need oxygen for respiration. There would have to been a very rapid change from reducing to oxidizing atmosphere once life appeared for life to have occurred in this manner. There is no mechanism or process that could do that quickly. The current plant oxygenizing of the atmosphere today couldn’t do that in less than 5000 years. Primitive life would not have even the capability as there wouldn’t be nearly as many of the plants in the brand new world."

"Professor Leviton, a professor of Ecology and Evolution at the State University, is amazed that the fossil record does not show evolution in the light of his experiments of supposed rapid evolutionary change in aquatic worms resistance to toxic cadmium in “only” three generations.
But once you take off the evolutionary presuppositions the supposed paradox vanishes. This is one of the fundamental misunderstandings between creationists and evolutionists. I spoke about it in the introduction as well. Microevolution is not evolution! Many who do not understand simple genetics think that billions of microevolution changes eventually add up to a macro evolutionary change and that is not true.

What the experiment was: Worms from a cadmium free site were exposed to a site with cadmium laden sediments. Some worms survived and they were bred with other survivors and in three generation they had a worm population that was cadmium resistant.

But the only worms that survived the site with the cadmium laden sediments were worms that already had a resistant allele. They bred those together and reinforced the resistant allele and created a population of worms all with the resistant allele. That is not evolution! The allele already existed in the genome and was merely selected out. We do the same with dogs and cats etc. in selected breeding. This type of breeding does not add any new information to the genome that is not already there. This is not a new species of worm!"

"Radiometric dating is based on the premise that there are radioactive isotopes in nature that decay at a regular rate from the parent element to the daughter element. If we know three things we can use them to date items that contain those isotopes.
The original concentration of the parent isotope.
The concentration of the daughter element or isotope
The beta decay rate

For instance all living things contain carbon-14, or 14C, or radio carbon that decays to normal carbon 12C. 14C decays to 12C at a particular rate defined as half-life. One half-life of 14C is 5,730 years or half of the 14C is 12C in that amount of time. In 11,460 years another half will be gone leaving only a quarter of the 14C and so on. Because of the speed of 14C decay rate the range of dates that can be derived before any detectable 14C is left, is about 50,000 years. Anything over that has a bit of speculation built in.

There are other radiometric dating methods too. For example potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. All these methods are used in igneous rocks and are normally given as the time since solidification.

But these methods are not as infallible as the evolutionists would have us think. Let us look again at the three things we need to know to set a date.

The original concentration of the parent isotope. We must know how much of the parent was originally there and that there was no parent injected in during the time we are measuring.
The daughter concentration must not be compromised by an injection of daughter element or isotope during the time line.
The decay rate must be constant.

But evidence proves that all these assumption are fraught with error. It is well know that argon gas does intrude into igneous rock and skew dates in the most popular K-Ar dating method. In fact all the parent and daughter elements are water soluble and are known to leach into and out of igneous rocks thus potentially skewing the dates derived from their ratios."

These are only a few excerpts from a very long article to point out some I thought particularly intriguing. Although I found the entire things to be interesting.

Source #2: http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm

"Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years. - Barnes, Thomas, ICR Technical Monograph #4, Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field (2nd edition, 1983) "

"Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously.10 This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form. - Gentry, Robert, Creation's Tiny Mystery (Knoxville, Tenn.: Earth Science Assoc.,1988)"

This one is much more propaganday, but I still found some of it interesting.

Source #3: http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/fiftyreasons.htm


"Some arguments for evolution is that if you give it enough time anything could happen. But unbeknownst to most, evolution doesn't have enough time. Billions or trillions of years is not even close to how much time would be needed. Rick Ramashing and Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the probability for one cell to evolve by chance. The atheist/agnostic team found to their disbelief that it is 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000th power years just for one cell to evolve. Hoyle said, "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.' Does evolution have enough time? No. - Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer), 'Hoyle on the Evolution'. Nature, vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105."

This one has a bit more controversy in it, but it proves my point better. That reports conflict.

Satisfied? Scientific conflict is my reason for not believing.

that is evolution, better traits ferried by natural selection, boom, there you go, evolution right there, even though sometimes these traits dont' turn out right, like sickle cell anemia and such,





Here again is somethign that repudiates your argument,
The outgassings of the Earth were stripped away by solar wind early in the history of the planet until a steady state was established, the first atmosphere. Based on today's volcanic evidence, this atmosphere would have contained 80% water vapor, 10% carbon dioxide, 5 to 7% hydrogen sulfide, and smaller amounts of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, methane and inert gases.
A major rainfall led to the buildup of a vast ocean, enriching the other agents, first carbon dioxide and later nitrogen and inert gases. A major part of carbon dioxide exhalations were soon dissolved in water and built up carbonaceous sediments.


lol, we can hardly find complete fossils today, what surprises you about not being able to find older ones today?

What the experiment was: Worms from a cadmium free site were exposed to a site with cadmium laden sediments. Some worms survived and they were bred with other survivors and in three generation they had a worm population that was cadmium resistant.

But the only worms that survived the site with the cadmium laden sediments were worms that already had a resistant allele. They bred those together and reinforced the resistant allele and created a population of worms all with the resistant allele. That is not evolution! The allele already existed in the genome and was merely selected out. We do the same with dogs and cats etc. in selected breeding. This type of breeding does not add any new information to the genome that is not already there. This is not a new species of worm!"

^evolution in action, in smaller communities evolution takes place faster, simple logic really, in addition, that gene was prevalent in the species, and due to natural selection that gene prospered.

my own quote from my last post!!

2.2 Contamination may have occurred.
This is addressed in the most detail in the Isochron Dating FAQ , for all of the methods discussed in the "age of the Earth" part of this FAQ are isochron (or equivalent) methods, which have a check built in that detect most forms of contamination.

It is true that some dating methods (e.g., K-Ar and carbon-14) do not have a built-in check for contamination, and if there has been contamination these methods will produce a meaningless age. For this reason, the results of such dating methods are not treated with as much confidence.


so here is almost all of the article for you to read and to find out that your argument is, therefore, invalid

Generic Radiometric Dating

The simplest form of isotopic age computation involves substituting three measurements into an equation of four variables, and solving for the fourth. The equation is the one which describes radioactive decay:






The variables in the equation are:

Pnow - The quantity of the parent isotope that remains now. This is measured directly.
Porig - The quantity of the parent isotope that was originally present. This is computed from the current quantity of parent isotope plus the accumulated quantity of daughter isotope.
halflife - The half-life of the parent isotope. Standard values are used, based on direct measurements. (Constancy of decay rate is covered in the Age of the Earth FAQ.)
age - The value computed from the equation and the other three quantities, is the amount of time which has passed.


Solving the equation for "age," and incorporating the computation of the original quantity of parent isotope, we get:








Potential problems for generic dating

Some assumptions have been made in the discussion of generic dating, for the sake of keeping the computation simple. Such assumptions will not always be accurate in the real world. These include:



The amount of daughter isotope at the time of formation of the sample is zero (or known independently and can be compensated for).
No parent isotope or daughter isotope has entered or left the sample since its time of formation.


If one of these assumptions has been violated, the simple computation above yields an incorrect age.

Note that the mere existence of these assumptions do not render the simpler dating methods entirely useless. In many cases, there are independent cues (such as geologic setting or the chemistry of the specimen) which can suggest that such assumptions are entirely reasonable. However, the methods must be used with care -- and one should be cautious about investing much confidence in the resulting age... especially in absence of cross-checks by different methods, or if presented without sufficient information to judge the context in which it was obtained.

Isochron methods avoid the problems which can potentially result from both of the above assumptions.



Isochron methodology

Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which is the amount of a different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay. (For brevity's sake, hereafter I will refer to the parent isotope as P, the daughter isotope as D, and the non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter, as Di). In addition, it requires that these measurements be taken from several different objects which all formed at the same time from a common pool of materials. (Rocks which include several different minerals are excellent for this.)

Each group of measurements is plotted as a data point on a graph. The X-axis of the graph is the ratio of P to Di. The Y-axis of the graph is the ratio of D to Di. For example, an Rb/Sr isochron plot looks like this:




P = 87Rb; D = 87Sr; Di = 86Sr.
Figure 1. Example isochron plot.


What does it mean?

The intent of the plot is to assess a correlation between:

The level of P (X-value of the data points), and
Any enrichment in D (Y-value of the data points):





Figure 2. Meaning of the plot axes.


If the data points on the plot are colinear, and the line has a positive slope, it shows an extremely strong correlation between:

The amount of P in each sample, and
The extent to which it is enriched in D, relative to Di.
This is a necessary and expected consequence, if the additional D is a product of the decay of P in a closed system over time. It is not easily explained, in the general case, in any other way.

Why isochron data are colinear

The data points would be expected to start out on a line if certain initial conditions were met. Consider some molten rock in which isotopes and elements are distributed in a reasonably homogeneous manner. Its composition would be represented as a single point on the isochron plot:


Figure 3. Global composition of the melt.
As the rock cools, minerals form. They "choose" atoms for inclusion by their chemical properties.

Since D and Di are isotopes of the same element, they have identical chemical properties*. Minerals may include varying quantities of that element, but all will inherit the same D/Di ratio as the source material. This results in an identical Y-value for the data points representing each mineral (matching the Y-value of the source material).

* Note that the above is somewhat simplified. There are minor differences between isotopes of the same element, and in relatively rare circumstances it is possible to obtain some amount of differentiation between them. This is known as isotope fractionation. The effect is almost always a very small departure from homogeneous distribution of the isotopes -- perhaps enough to introduce an error of 0.002 half-lives in a non-isochron age. (It can happen... but it is rare and the effect is not large enough to account for extremely old ages on supposedly young formations.)
In contrast, P is a different element with different chemical properties. It will therefore be distributed unequally relative to D & Di as minerals form. This results in a range of X-values for the data points representing individual minerals.

Since the data points have the same Y-value and a range of X-values, they initially fall on a horizontal line:


Figure 4. Differential migration of elements as minerals form.
A horizontal line represents "zero age." *

* More precisely, a horizontal line represents an age which is indistinguishable from zero. In most cases, any age less than about 10-3 P half-lives will include zero within its range of uncertainty. (The range of uncertainty varies, and may be as much as an order of magnitude different from the approximate value above. It depends on the accuracy of the measurements and the fit of the data to the line in each individual case.) For example, with Rb/Sr isochron dating, any age less than a few tens of millions of years is usually indistinguishable from zero. That encompasses the entire young-Earth timescale thousands of times over.
As more time passes and a significant amount of radioactive decay occurs, the quantity of P decreases by a noticeable amount in each sample, while the quantity of D increases by the same amount. This results in a movement of the data points to the left (decreasing P) and upwards (increasing D). Since each atom of P decays to one atom of D, the data point for each sample will move along a path with a slope of -1.

Decay occurs in a proportional manner (that is, when 20% of the P in one sample has decayed, 20% of the P in every sample will have decayed). As a result, the data points with the most P (the right-most ones on the plot) move the greatest distance per unit time. The data points remain colinear as time passes, but the slope of the line increases:


Figure 5. Movement of data points as decay occurs.
Other Links:
Watching a Rock Age on an Isochron Diagram
Jon Fleming has made an animated diagram showing the process illustrated in Figure 5.
The slope of the line is the ratio of enriched D to remaining P. It can be used in place of "Dnow/Pnow" in the decay equation.

Miscellaneous notes

Age "uncertainty"

When a "simple" dating method is performed, the result is a single number. There is no good way to tell how close the computed result is likely to be to the actual age.

An additional nice feature of isochron ages is that an "uncertainty" in the age is automatically computed from the fit of the data to a line. A routine statistical operation on the set of data yields both a slope of the best-fit line (an age) and a variance in the slope (an uncertainty in the age). The better the fit of the data to the line, the lower the uncertainty.

For further information on fitting of lines to data (also known as regression analysis), see:

Gonick (1993, pp. 187-210), an excellent non-technical introduction to generic regression analysis.
York (1969), a short technical overview of a technique specially designed for assessing isochron fits.
Note that the methods used by isotope geologists (as described by York) are much more complicated than those described by Gonick. This will be discussed in more detail in the section on Gill's paper below. The "generic" method described by Gonick is easier to understand, but it does not handle such necessities as: (1) varying levels of uncertainty in the X- versus Y-measurements of the data; (2) computing an uncertainty in slope and Y-intercept from the data; and (3) testing whether the "fit" of the data to the line is good enough to imply that the isochron yields a valid age. Unfortunately, one must wade through some hefty math in order to understand the procedures used to fit isochron lines to data.
General comments on "dating assumptions"

All radiometric dating methods require, in order to produce accurate ages, certain initial conditions and lack of contamination over time. The wonderful property of isochron methods is: if one of these requirements is violated, it is nearly certain that the data will indicate the problem by failure to plot on a line. (This topic will be discussed in much more detail below.) Where the simple methods will produce an incorrect age, isochron methods will generally indicate the unsuitability of the object for dating.

Avoidance of generic dating's problems

Now that the mechanics of plotting an isochron have been described, we will discuss the potential problems of the "simple" dating method with respect to isochron methods.

Initial daughter product

The amount of initial D is not required or assumed to be zero. The greater the initial D-to-Di ratio, the further the initial horizontal line sits above the X-axis. But the computed age is not affected.

If one of the samples happened to contain no P (it would plot where the isochron line intercepts the Y-axis), then its quantity of D wouldn't change over time -- because it would have no parent atoms to produce daughter atoms. Whether there's a data point on the Y-axis or not, the Y-intercept of the line doesn't change as the slope of the isochron line does (as shown in Figure 5). Therefore, the Y-intercept of the isochron line gives the initial global ratio of D to Di.

For each sample, it would be possible to measure the amount of the Di, and (using the ratio identified by the Y-intercept of the isochron plot) calculate the amount of D that was present when the sample formed. That quantity of D could be subtracted out of each sample, and it would then be possible to derive a simple age (by the equation introduced in the first section of this document) for each sample. Each such age would match the result given by the isochron.

Contamination - parent isotope

Gain or loss of P changes the X-values of the data points:


Figure 6. Gain or loss of P.
In order to make the figures easy to read (and quick to draw), the examples in this paper include few data points. While isochrons are performed with that few data points, the best ones include a larger quantity of data. If the isochron line has a distinctly non-zero slope, and a fairly large number of data points, the nearly inevitable result of contamination (failure of the system to remain closed) will be that the fit of the data to a line will be destroyed.

For example, consider an event which removes P. The data points will tend to move varying distances, for the different minerals will have varying resistance to loss of P, as well as varying levels of Di:


Figure 7. Loss of P in all samples
The end result is that the data are nearly certain not to remain colinear:


Figure 8. Loss of P destroys the fit to a line.
Even in our simple four-data-point example isochron, a change to two of the samples...


Figure 9. Migration of parent in two data points.
... would require exact changes to the remaining two samples in order for the data to remain colinear:


Figure 10. Specific loss of P required to yield a different colinear plot. The two samples must each change by the indicated amount -- no more and no less -- if the data are to remain colinear.
Note: In the special case where the isochron line has a zero slope (indicating zero age), then gain or loss of P may move the data points, but they will all still fall on the same horizontal line. In other words, random gain or loss of P does not affect a zero-age isochron. This is an important point. If the Earth were as young as young-Earth creationists insist, then the "contamination" which they suggest to invalidate dating methods would have no noticeable effect on the results.

Contamination - daughter isotope

In the case of Rb/Sr isochron dating, the most common form of isotope migration is a preferential loss of radiogenic daughter (87Sr). Faure (1986, p. 123) notes:

Moreover, the daughter atoms produced by decay in a mineral are isotopes of different elements and have different ionic charges and radii compared with their parents. The energy released during the decay may produce dislocations or even destroy the crystal lattice locally, thus making it all the more easy for the radiogenic daughters to escape.
[...]
The observed behavior of the minerals can generally be treated as though it had been caused solely by the migration of radiogenic 87Sr among the constituent minerals of a rock.
This will change the vertical position of the data points:


Figure 11. Gain or loss of D.
As with gain or loss of P, in the general case it is highly unlikely that the result will be an isochron with colinear data points:


Figure 12. Gain/loss of D destroys fit to an isochron.
Exceptions for loss of daughter

There are two exceptions, where it is possible for migration of D to result in an isochron with reasonably colinear data points:

If the D is completely homogenized, then the isochron age is reset to zero. When this happens, any later dating attempt will yield the age of that metamorphic event rather than the original time of crystallization:


Figure 13. Complete homogenization of radiogenic daughter resets the isochron age to zero.
If the D is partially homogenized in a reasonably regular manner, the isochron age can be partially reset and the samples will date to sometime in between the original time of crystallization and the time of metamorphism. This is a very rare occurrence, but examples are known:

Figure 14. Partial homogenization of radiogenic daughter (in some exceptional cases) results in an apparently valid isochron of reduced age.
These exceptions should be of little comfort to young-Earthers, for (1) they are uncommon (extremely uncommon in the case of partial resetting); and (2) the result in both cases is an isochron age which is too young to represent the time of formation. Young-Earthers necessarily insist that all ancient isochron ages are really much too old.

So, are isochron methods foolproof?

In the real world, nothing is perfect. There are some isochron results which are obviously incorrect. The significance of isochron plots is a bit counter-intuitive in some cases. And there are known processes which can yield an incorrect isochron age. Does this leave room to discard isochron dating as entirely unreliable? Not really...

The large majority of isochron dating results are in accordance with the mainstream age and history of the Earth. If the results were essentially random numbers, that would not be the expected distribution of results. See the tables of meteorite isochron ages in The Age of the Earth FAQ for example.

"Counter-intuitive" ages -- for example results which indicate an event earlier than the time of crystallization of the sampled object -- are usually produced by inappropriate selection of samples, and can be avoided in most cases. For one example, see my Critique of ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project.

The processes which could produce incorrect isochron ages require special circumstances, and are not universally applicable across the wide range of rock and mineral types on which isochron dating (by several different radioactive isotopes) has been successfully performed.
Next we shall examine in detail some specific examples.

Violation of cogenetic requirement

One of the requirements for isochron dating is that the samples be cogenetic, meaning that they all formed at about the same time from a common pool of material in which the relevant elements and isotopes were distributed reasonably homogeneously. (As described in Figure 4, this is how the data are caused to be colinear.)

Usually it is easy to determine whether or not this requirement is met. The check is not just the isochron plot itself (which can in most cases indicate such a problem by failure of the data to fall on a line), but in addition the physical location and geological relationships of the samples selected for dating.

If this requirement is violated, it is sometimes still possible to obtain an isochron plot with reasonably colinear data points. The significance of the computed age, however, will likely not be the last time of crystallization of each sample. It might instead be the original time at which the samples became separated from a common pool of matter, or the age of that source material itself. The resulting age is meaningful, but it does not have the meaning which one might expect for the dating result (i.e., time of crystallization of the dated sample itself).

Consider an old body of rock (as evidenced by its good fit to an isochron with distinctly non-zero slope) with minerals which melt at different temperatures. In this example, the minerals with the lowest melting-point having the lowest P-to-Di and D-to-Di ratios:


Figure 15. An old rock, minerals annotated with melting temperatures
The rock is heated slowly, and at various times the molten portions are moved to the surface in a series of lava flows. The earliest flows will have an isotopic composition close to that of the minerals with the lowest melting points; the latest flows will have an isotopic composition close to that of the minerals with the highest melting points.

The individual lava flows are not cogenetic. They did not separate at about the same time from an isotopically homogeneous pool of matter.

For the sake of simplicity, we will assume three lava flows each with a composition matching the data points of the previous figure:


Figure 16. The isotopic composition of the various lava flows
It is likely that at least a small amount chemical differentiation will have occurred in each melt, and that as a result the minerals of each individual lava flow will exhibit a much younger isochron (the actual age of each flow):


Figure 17. Mineral isochrons (red) of the various flows give several different young ages.
The data points for the overall composition of each flow fall on an isochron line representing the original crystallization time of the source material, which is much greater than the age of any of the flows. This sort of inherited age is well-understood, discussed thoroughly in the literature, and usually easily avoided by proper selection of samples.

Note also that chemical differentiation at the time of the latest melting (resulting in the round data points in Figure 17) induces significant scatter into the isochron plot if any measure other than whole-rock is made:


Figure 18. Data points of individual mineral samples show scatter due to chemical differentiation at the last time of melting.
Mixing of two sources

It is also possible to obtain an isochron with colinear data, whose age has no significance whatsoever. The only reasonably common way is by mixing of materials.

Consider two entirely independent sources of material, A and B, each with a different isotopic composition:

Source
material P
(ppm) D
(ppm) Di
(ppm) P
---
Di D
---
Di
A 18 37 39 0.462 0.949
B 10 17 11 0.909 1.545
Table 1. Composition of two sources
Each could be plotted as a data point on an isochron diagram:


Figure 19. Position of source material on an isochron plot.
If these sources were mixed together into a single rock, in such a way that the different samples of the rock ended up with different proportions of A and B, without chemical differentiation, the end result would be something like this:

Sample
source P
(ppm) D
(ppm) Di
(ppm) P
---
Di D
---
Di
A 18 37 39 0.462 0.949
¾ A + ¼ B 16 32 32 0.500 1.000
½ A + ½ B 14 27 25 0.519 1.080
¼ A + ¾ B 12 22 18 0.667 1.222
B 10 17 11 0.909 1.545
Table 2. Samples of a mixture, with varying portions of A and B in each.
When plotted on an isochron diagram, the mixed data points are all colinear with A and B:


Figure 20. Isochron plot of two mixed sources
Mixing would appear to be a pernicious problem. Since A and B can be completely unrelated to each other, their individual compositions could plot to a fairly wide range of locations on the graph. The line AB could have any slope at all.

That fact also allows us to make a rough estimate of the percentage of isochrons that give colinear plots due to mixing. "Meaningful" (or "valid") isochrons must have a zero or positive slope; "mixing" isochrons can have any slope. If isochrons of negative slope (which must be mixing lines) were reasonably common, then we might suspect mixing to be an explanation for a significant fraction of all apparently valid "old" isochrons as well. That is not the case, however.

In addition, there is a relatively simple test which can detect mixing in most cases. The test is a plot with the same Y-axis as the isochron plot, but an X-axis of the reciprocal of total daughter element (D + Di).

For the sample data used above, the plotted values would be:

Sample
source P
(ppm) D
(ppm) Di
(ppm) 1
------
(D+Di)
(ppm-1) D
---
Di
A 18 37 39 0.0132 0.949
¾ A + ¼ B 16 32 32 0.0156 1.000
½ A + ½ B 14 27 25 0.0192 1.080
¼ A + ¾ B 12 22 18 0.0250 1.222
B 10 17 11 0.0357 1.545
Table 3. Data for mixing plot
The resulting mixing plot looks like this:


Figure 21. Plot to detect mixing.
If the resulting data points are colinear, then the isochron is likely a result of mixing and probably has no real age significance.

Actually the mixing data can fall on a somewhat more complicated curve. Faure (1986, Equations 9.5 through 9.10 on p. 142) contains a precise derivation. There are simplifying assumptions which are true in most cases and yield a line on the mixing plot.
However, when the mixing plot data fail to fall on a line:


Figure 22. Mixing plot, detecting no mixing.
... then the isochron is probably not a result of mixing, and the computed age is very likely meaningful.



Zheng's paper

Lately it seems that some creationists have latched onto Zheng (1989), and reference this paper as if it disproved isochron dating and made room for a young Earth. The paper is a discussion of potential problems of Rb/Sr isochron dating, with examples of instances where these problems are known to have occurred.

However, the paper is not terribly helpful to the young-Earth cause. Zheng discusses four ways in which an incorrect isochron could result:

Protracted fractional crystallization
Requires a slow cooling period on order of ten million years, which is not possible on a young Earth. Also, the effect is very slight: in the only example which Zheng produces (first entry in Table II on p. 14), the "incorrect" age (437 ± 10 Ma) is not very different from the actual age (415 ± 10 Ma).

Inherited (for example, by partial melting)
Discussed previously; requires special circumstances and almost always induces a fair amount of scatter in the isochron plot. Requires ancient source material (the "inherited" age matches the age of the source), which is not available on a young Earth.

Mixing isochron
Discussed previously; in most cases detected by the mixing plot test.

Apparent isochron by metamorphism
Discussed previously; requires special circumstances and results in an age in between original time of crystallization and the metamorphic event that partially reset the isochron. Requires ancient source material, which is not available on a young Earth.
While each of these processes can be invoked to explain a few confusing or conflicting dating results, none could reasonably be expected to account for all (or even most) isochron dating results which are incompatible with a young Earth.

Summary of isochron problems

There are known processes which can result in incorrect isochron ages, and examples of each are known in the field. If one were to assume that a good-fitting isochron implies a reliable result, one would be correct approximately nine times out of ten. However, accuracy can be improved further with...

Additional tests on the same data involved in the isochron plot (such as that for mixing).
Cross-checks between different isotopes with different chemical properties.
Attention to the geologic setting from which the samples were obtained.
As Brent Dalrymple said:

Most [inaccurate ages] are caught by appropriate safeguards, like standards and repetition, but some go unrecognized until long after the data have been published. In short, radiometric dating methods give reliable results most of the time, but not always.
[...]
With sufficient cross checks, care and experience, we don't really get fooled very often and when we do it is usually not for long.
(1992, p. 1)
Gill's paper

Recently Gill (1996) has published in the creationist technical literature, claiming that all Rb-Sr isochron ages can be explained away as meaningless "false" correlations. The abstract reads:

A mathematical answer is presented for the frequent occurrence of false of "fictious" Rb-Sr isochrons. The reason for these inconsistencies is that a simple linear regression procedure is mathematically invalid if two or more independent variables influence a single dependent variable. In many data sets for the "isochron" procedure, there are two independent variables involved. First, there is the desired radioactive relation between the amount of the rubidium parent and the strontium daughter. Second, since the atomic strontium concentration in the samples is a variable, then the isotopic Sr-87 content of the atom [sic] is also a variable. In such a situation, the "Isochron" regression is mathematically invalid, so both its slope and intercept are erroneous.
I recommend that interested parties obtain and read this paper. I see four major problems with the creationist claims -- sufficient to invalidate the creationist paper rather than (as Gill desires) the Rb-Sr dating procedure.

1. Mathematics versus chemistry:

The behavior of isochron data is constrained in two ways -- both by what is mathematically possible on the plot, as well as by what is physically possible given the chemistry of the relevant elements. Gill's theoretical treatment concentrates solely on mathematical behavior, while ignoring the underlying chemistry. It therefore runs the risk of reaching false conclusions by assuming behaviors which are mathematically possible -- but chemically unlikely or impossible.

Gill's paper does make this sort of bad assumption: that 86Sr and 87Sr concentrations are essentially independent:

No such simple relationship exists when the divisor [86Sr]is a variable.
[...]
Once the division by a variable is done for the input to the regression, the error is unpredictable and irrevocable.
That is the linchpin of Gill's argument. If that assumption is not accurate, then Gill's argument falls apart. As discussed earlier in this FAQ, isotopic homogenization occurs in molten rock (and even at temperatures short of melting in many cases) where the relevant elements migrate freely. Once homogenization has occurred, the quantities of 86Sr and 87Sr are no longer independent and cannot be made so.

2. Percentage of problematic Rb-Sr ages:

Gill suggests that a large percentage of Rb-Sr isochron ages are incorrect even from mainstream science's point of view:

The geological literature is filled with references to Rb-Sr isochron ages that are questionable, and even impossible. Woodmorappe (1979, pp. 125-129) cites about 65 references to the problem. Fause (1977, pp. 97-105) devotes his chapter seven to possible causes of "fictitious" isochrons. Zheng (1989, pp. 15-16) also cites 42 references.
Gill's allegations are untrue. False isochrons due to mixing may be somewhat common (incidentally, that is the real topic of Faure's chapter seven). However, these can be (as discussed in the mixing section of this FAQ) detected easily and eliminated from consideration. Of the remainder, however, the overwhelming majority are well-aligned with the results that would be expected given the mainstream age and history of the Earth.

A very large number of Rb/Sr isochrons have been performed. We cannot be impressed by numbers of supposed bad dates in the low tens; they represent a tiny fraction of the reported results, and (in both creationist and non-creationist papers on potential problems with the method) represent only the "anomalous" values collected from a much larger body of data. Some of the papers include obvious cases of mixing as well as cases where the data set is too small or too ill-fitting to be taken seriously.

In order to perform a reasonable assessment of the percentage of Rb-Sr isochron ages which are "inconvenient" to mainstream science, we would count those which: (1) do not fail the test for mixing, (2) include more than four data points, and (3) show an excellent correlation (say, an age uncertainty of less than 0.1Ga is computed from the data). It would be impractical to attempt such an exercise on all of the Rb-Sr isochron ages that have ever been reported. However, it is quite possible to fully examine the literature of some sub-set of the data.

Brent Dalrymple (1991, Chapters 5 and 6) reports a large number of Rb-Sr isochron ages for meteorites and Moon rocks. These are fairly good candidates for such a survey, because: (1) they tend to have geologically simple histories, and therefore the interpretation of the results is more straightforward; (2) there aren't large quantities of these objects to be dated (this makes a survey of the data easier, and also eliminates the common creationist claim that there might be a much larger number of "inconvenient" results that are not published).

3. Gill's example is contrived:

Much of Gill's paper discusses a single example, which is contrived. He translates four colinear data points in such a a way that the leftmost two are crowded down 3/4 of the way towards the origin, and the rightmost two are crowded down 1/2 of the way towards the origin.

The result is essentially two "groups" of data (the point of a pair are moved closer together by Gill's translation). Since any two things will be colinear, the two groups are colinear. Since the data points in each group are fairly close to each other, there's not much scatter about the line. However, had Gill chosen to divide the first and last points by four (instead of the first two), or chosen four different divisors, the fit to a line of his changed would be much worse than the original fit.

4. Gill ignores the isochron assessment techniques actually in use:

Gill's simple linear regressions are not the exact the technique used to assess isochron fits. There are fairly complex means of assessing the fit versus the expected errors of measurement; even when ("by eye") the data appear to be fairly colinear, it does not mean that the procedure will indicate a likely valid isochron.

It's difficult to assess Gill's own example as if it were realistic, because his values are not real isotope measurements and are just pulled out of thin air. While a correlation of 0.993 may sound impressive, several example isochron diagrams pulled out of the technical literature had much better fits (0.997 to 0.998).

Some talk.origins questions

The following are interesting questions that were asked in talk.origins about isochron dating. The names of the "questioners" have not been included because permission to use their names has not been obtained.

How do you tell the difference between radiogenic and non-radiogenic 87Sr?
For the Rb/Sr isochron method, the ratio of 87Sr to 86Sr at time of formation is not needed as an input to the equation. Instead, it is given by the Y-intercept of the isochron line. It is a by-product of the age computation... provided that the data are colinear.

What is isochron dating? a method, an equation, a graph ...?
An "isochron" is a set of data points in a plot which all fall on a line representing a single age ("isochron" comes from: "isos" equal + "chronos" time). The term "errorchron" has been coined for a set of data which are not colinear. The best-fit line itself is also sometimes called an "isochron." The plot on which these data points appear is sometimes called an "isochron diagram" or "isochron plot."

A dating method which uses such a plot to determine age is called an "isochron dating method." When "isochron dating" is mentioned in this FAQ, the intent is to cover the methodology which is common to all "isochron dating methods."

Isochron methodology is applied with the following isotopes:

P D Di half-life (*109 yr)
87Rb 87Sr 86Sr 48.8
40K * 40Ar 36Ar 1.25
147Sm 143Nd 144Nd 106
176Lu 176Hf 177Hf 35.9
187Re 187Os 186Os 43
232Th * 208Pb 204Pb 14
238U * 206Pb 204Pb 4.47
* Most dating with these isotopes is not performed via the exact isochron methodology described here.
Table 4. Isotopes used for isochron dating

How is the half life of an element determined? For something that takes 60 billion years to partially decay, how is an exact measure of the decay rate determined in a few hours?
Half-life assessments don't necessarily take only "a few hours." Davis et al. (1977) measured the decay rate of 87Rb (48.9 ± 0.4 billion years) by counting the accumulation of 87Sr over a period of nineteen years.

The statistical uncertainty in an assessment of decay rate is a function of the number of decays counted. "A few hours" (on order of 10-15 half-lives of a long-lived isotope) is a relatively short span of time, but this is more than compensated by the fact that even a milligram of any relevant radioactive isotope contains at least 1018 atoms.

Even in a small sample of a long-lived isotope, there will be a constant stream of decays. If the sample's size can be measured accurately, and the number of decays can be counted accurately, then the half-life can be computed accurately. That's the basis for the "direct counting experiments" from which half-lives are calculated.

The line is telling us that no matter what size sample we take we always have the same ratio of parent to daughter.
[...]
So let's say that when the rocks were formed, certain amounts of both the parent and daughter were present. But in the process of forming, everything got evenly distributed. You would get your nice straight isochron line, but still not know the age of your sample.
The assertion would be correct if the isochron plot were quantity of parent (P) versus quantity of daughter (D). But the graph is instead P/Di vs D/Di. Since Di will vary over different minerals, the isochron data can plot on a line when P vs D would not.

It's easy to understand how different minerals in a rock could get different P/Di ratios. P and Di have different chemical properties. P will fit better into some minerals than Di (and vice versa). This explains why data points don't all fall on the same X-value.

However, it's less easy to understand how different minerals in a rock could end up with different D/Di ratios. What the isochron plot can discover, if the result is a good fit to a line with positive slope, is that there is an extremely strong correlation between (1) enrichment in D, and (2) level of P. Since D is produced from P by radioactive decay, the correlation strongly suggests both (1) the age of the sample and (2) that it has been relatively free of contamination since formation.

If an area is homogeneously mixed, then you will always get the same ratio of everything you grab. And they will all be equally related to each other.
[...]
In a few thousand years the decay is insignificant, so the isochron line would just represent uniform mixing during formation.
The situation which you describe wouldn't result in an age. If there were no chemical separation of P vs (D and Di) at time of formation, then all plotted data will fall on a single point on the isochron diagram. (That point would initially be the composition of the source material, as in Figure 3.) No best-fit line can be derived from a single point and therefore no age would result.


^S-c-i-e-n-c-e

Oh failzor.

Nihil wrote:
so here is almost all of the article for you to read and to find out that your argument is, therefore, invalid

no fail,

also please contribute to the conversation next time Drist if you are going to post.

K?

You realize I'm not going to read your posts when they're ridiculously long. Sum it up like I did because I'm not going to spend ten minutes reading one post. And the beginning argument of your post is exactly why I don't debate this point. Where did the solar wind come from? How exactly would it change a hunk of lifeless rock into something able to support life? And if evolution is correct why are our bodies so resistant to change?

Because change only comes when you persistantly need it. If they were easy to change, any slight thing, like going on a trip to the artic, would change me genetically to endure cold, when i dont need it. also, it would facilitate malignal mutations. There is no need to mutate and evolve becuz of a one time event. You must understand that each individual is unimportant in the view of nature, only seeking to improve the overall species.some mutations fail, like failed experiments. and Nature tries and tries until it succeeds.

ok, sry,

solar wind comes from the sun, stars, in early time, it would have probably come from an infant sun, or possibly some comets or other extraterrestrial objects passing by.

there is a predecessor to Rna, something that turns into rna, but i forget their name, that is the answer to ur second question up there,

and our bodies aren't in a recent time or newsweek article, well, about half a year, it stated that scientists had found even MORE diversity now that we have settled, even though they expected diversity, as in evolution, to slow down because we stopped being nomads.

in asia, there is a growing trend of a developing gene that reduces, or nullifies, dare i say it, body odor

^most importantly right there, evolution

oh, and a little biology, think about it like this

The First Life

In general, organisms over time in the evolutionary chain have grown and become more complex in their nature, i.e. the first origins of life were likely small, simple and not diversified.

One understanding of the origins of life is that it would have been very unlikely that parasites were the beginnings of life. As parasites require biological hosts to reproduce and thus survive as a species, they would have been unable to successfully continue their species during this time period. In light of this, viruses and other parasites would have developed later on in the evolutionary chain.

It is believed that heterotrophs were the first beginnings of life on Earth, inhabiting the sea and absorbing the organic material that was being created by the reactions of Earth at the time (i.e. the creation of amino acids). The building blocks of life created these organisms and also acted as a food source.

This is where the idea of a food chain becomes relevant. When these first autotrophs died, the organic material that they consist of would break down and add to the 'organic soup' that was feeding these organisms at the time.

Alias, it is believed that heterotrophic bacteria was the first signs of life on Earth

so, also, carbon and stuff comes from meteorites, and stuff, and the volcanic eruptions can help to produce an atmosphere.

here is your answer to earth not being old enough

2.2 Contamination may have occurred.
This is addressed in the most detail in the Isochron Dating FAQ , for all of the methods discussed in the "age of the Earth" part of this FAQ are isochron (or equivalent) methods, which have a check built in that detect most forms of contamination.

It is true that some dating methods (e.g., K-Ar and carbon-14) do not have a built-in check for contamination, and if there has been contamination these methods will produce a meaningless age. For this reason, the results of such dating methods are not treated with as much confidence.

Also, similarly to item (1) above, pleas to contamination do not address the fact that radiometric results are nearly always in agreement with old-Earth expectations. If the methods were producing completely "haywire" results essentially at random, such a pattern of concordant results would not be expected.



go to

http://www.talkorigins.org/

for all the answers to your question in scientific depth that i cannot provide by myself in its entirety

@ Dray:Sorry don't buy it. Even a minor mutation to adjust to the place you live would prove helpful. The fact that our body rejects so many of these tells me it's not meant to do it at all.

@ Nihil: Much better now I can respond. A solar wind wouldn't stimulate life, on the contrary the high radiation on heat would fry what little bit of microscopic life might have ever been. THAT is common sense. As for the Africa people, yes it's obvious there's change there, but adapting and evolving are different, no matter what your dictionaries say. Adapting is maintaining most while changing only what must be changed to survive, evolving is a complete change, which is something Creationist argue as well. If our bodies only adapt to survive, why would there be so many creatures of massively different sizes, shapes, and attributes?

You guys know you won't actually ever change my mind right? I've heard too many arguments in favor of one or the other with conflicting evidence to believe any current origin theory.

carbon can be created thru nuclear fusion.

its because you refuse to believe the people trained in their jobs,

also i just proved that people were evolving, that is not adaption, body odor is not adaption fool!!

body odor prohibition is evolution, see?

don't be stubborn, be open, you have challenged a lot of my thoughts, but i have been able to refute those challenges at every turn, because science is on my side.

AND GO TO THAT SITE

for all the answers on top first post on this page

also, aard, to nullify ur radiation thing, cockroaches...its a sensitive complex organism, now imagine a simpler one, wich would have much higher adaptation to radiation then cockroaches do. also, the solar wind came BEFORE life, creating the settings for life, and when the environment was producing organic material, organisms were created.

also, im sorry if u dont buy it, but its a quite efficient process of Nature. if every mutation was allowed, there would be much more deaths in a species. our high resistance to mutation is due to us being already complex and adapted. primitive organisms were not at all resistant to mutation. this resistance grows as the organism gets more complex, and his body becomes more fragile to genetic changes. and i said a ONE TIME trip aard. a person who goes to live to brazil or to the artic changes. this is common sense.