"Radiometric Dating a Christian Perspective"

Some might already be familiar with the online article "Radiometric Dating a Christian Perspective." For those who don't, it's a long read, but a "must read" for anyone who wants to argue against radiometric dating and "long ages, because the truth is there are a ton of myths and misconceptions about radiometric dating. So before debating the subject, people should at least be better informed about radiometric dating and how it really works. 

One of the most important take aways is that we have over 40 different radiometric dating methods *plus* additional NON-radiometric dating methods that independently confirm the Earth is older than 10,000 years old. This is a hallmark of good science: when different methods and measurements come to the same conclusion *independently* of each other that is a strong argument for the reliability of the results.

(Different radiometric dating methods independently confirm the age of the oldest rocks in Greenland within the margins of error)

Sure, radiometric dating is based in part on a number of assumptions such as that the daughter isotope (product) is all the result of the parent isotope, and not another source such as by leaching or contamination or a different natural source. But what people fail to realize is that we have ways to test the validity of those assumptions with every rock sample.

(Good rock sample where assumptions check out)

(Bad rock sample where assumptions don't check out)

Another important point (that I've never seen anyone else point out) is the problem of radioactive isotopes with a *short* half-life. If the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old, then we should see an abundance of isotopes with short half lives in rocks, but with the exception of cosmogenic isotopes that can be replenished we don't see this. 

Plus, we have NON-radiometric dating techniques that lead to the same conclusion (also discussed in the article). For example, the dendrochronology record (of tree rings) goes back to over 10,000 years, and the record from ice cores goes back to at least 100,000 years. 

On top of this, YEC solutions simply don't work. For example, even if radioactive decay was somehow accelerated during a one year global Flood, there could be no flood, because the heat generated from such a massive amount of accelerated decay would vaporize the oceans (*and that's a conclusion from the YEC RATE Project).

The article also includes an Appendix that answers 20 common objections to radiometric dating.

Again, it is a "must read" for anyone who wants to dispute the accuracy of radiometric dating.   

Excellent article that explains the subject at a non-expert level that even I can understand. 😄

This paragraph caught my attention:-

"Another important point (that I've never seen anyone else point out) is the problem of radioactive isotopes with a *short* half-life. If the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old, then we should see an abundance of isotopes with short half lives in rocks, but with the exception of cosmogenic isotopes that can be replenished we don't see this"

Never given that much thought but it's yet another fact that fully supports an old earth and strongly refutes the claim of a young one.

Very true. And like you said "it's yet another..." No number of complaints about assumptions or cherry picking anomalous readings refutes the high reliability of independent confirmation 

Those who believe all they know is all they need to know to not be wrong 😑 have a very high opinion of their knowledge, and they must believe nothing is outside of their opinions that will ever show them to be in error.

@TruthMuse No worries then, since scientists don't subscribe to such a view and all scientific conclusions are tentative and can be modified in accordance with new data. In my personal experience, it's professional scientists who I find tend to be more humble in this regard and the first ones who will tell you they don't know (the more deeply you study a subject the more you realize how much you don't know and how much there still is to learn, more than can be learned in a lifetime). By contrast, I find those who know little about a subject (or 'just enough to be dangerous,' as the saying goes) tend to be the ones who are so self-assured and confident (falsely so) about what they think they know. (I wonder if @stephen_33 has generally found this to be true, too)

Good, because what we see and know isn't all there is so "going against the facts" isn't something that is difficult to prove when looking at what people believe to be true billions, millions, or even thousands of years ago.

Inference is a perfectly valid method of forming conclusions about what has most probably occurred in the past, even the distant past. It's ridiculous to suggest that we can't draw reliable conclusions about any event that we havn't actually witnessed.

If that's what you're saying?

If I hear the sound of hooves passing my house I can be fairly confident it's a horse (or maybe a donkey). It's not impossible that it's a zebra of course but inferring that it's a horse is likely to be the correct conclusion in the great majority of cases.

No, it isn't what I am saying. When doing extended-life tests on the next-generation CPU those parts are subjected to some stresses all designed to theoretically mimic normal use over time so the parts sold have an expected life span. We know exactly what those parts in those experiments have gone through, we set aside part of the same batch of units at the beginning of the experiment which could take months to complete that are not subjected to the stresses we are putting those units of the experiment, those are the control units. As the parts are stressed and tested both sets of units are tested at the same time if there is a shift in performance and both sets are affected the same way, we know it has nothing to do with the parts, but if the stressed parts and the controls are now acting differently we learn something else.

We don't know much about our tests as it relates to the distant past, are the readings we get due to time or something else? So seeing a rate today doesn't mean it was always that rate, it is no different than clocking a car on the highway seeing the speed at the time of the measuring doesn't mean we can look back in time and know where it was, we are very limited.

I agree in some parts of the world that could be very true.

The context of this topic concerns the age of rocks on Earth and by implication the age of the planet itself, so let me answer your #9 with a topical analogy - you arrive in a zone that's suffered an earthquake. You notice a clock on a public building that stopped at one o'clock (say).

You can't with much confidence conclude that the earthquake itself stopped the clock or that it stopped at the time of the earthquake. But then you notice a second and a third stopped clock each showing the same time. Surely then you can infer with a high degree of confidence that the earthquake took place at that time?

That is what scientists do to a large extent. They don't place great trust in a single result but wait for more and more corroborating evidence to support their hypothesis.

It's a rigorous and thoroughly scrutinised process that has concluded that our solar system is many thousands of millions of years old.

And what you think you know isn't either, so why don't you start by reading the article "Radiometric Dating a Christian Perspective" instead of just starting with your mind already made up.

I have worried about various rates for much of my life identifying errors in a CPU has been the focus of most of my life as one of the largest pieces of understanding the next Gen processor's interworkings. I have given you already my thoughts about this several times over on why rates we see in the here and now, truths are limited to the here and now. You tell me you see something now, does not mean the rates are consistent through time, and most certainly doesn't tell you to squat about how long something was reacting at that rate unless you know the starting position. It isn't much different than seeing a 50-hour candle burning, it is halfway burned down, does not mean the fire has been burning for 25 hours, we only know it's burning now.

Yes, they can look at a stopped clock and observe that, had they been in my house a little while ago, they have come to the same conclusion thinking that was always the way it worked. I have a clock that has two faces on in my living room, the other in the kitchen and it sits between an archway between the two rooms, It is difficult to get to so when the stinking batteries went out they could have said oh look a stopped clock they must have had an earthquake because that stopped those other clocks.

Yes, you've done a great job telling us your subjective opinions (and how you think your knowledge of CPUs tells you everything you need to know about all subjects in the world) while not actually reading the article. You should listen to your own words about having a "very high opinion of [your] knowledge, and must believe nothing is outside of [your own] opinions that will ever show [you] to be in error."

It tells me that when you look at things in the here and now and project them into the past, you are assuming so much it isn't funny.

Like I said, you've done a great job telling us your subjective opinions (and how you think your knowledge of CPUs tells you everything you need to know about all subjects in the world) while not actually reading the article. You should listen to your own words about having a "very high opinion of [your] knowledge, and must believe nothing is outside of [your own] opinions that will ever show [you] to be in error."

It simply boils down to realizing that the things I have been pointing to will not change with time, more or less time doesn’t change code written to do complex functional work will ALWAYS requires a coder, in addition the more time there is the more complex the code needs to be, the more it does the more intelligent the coder required needs to be.

Rates and measurements over time can have a myriad of different things occur to alter the outcome, you assume much!

Yes, we know, it all boils down to your subjective opinions and 'voice of authority' on all subjects outside your own area of expertise. No need to read the article for this OP by an actual expert on the subject. Afterall, what can you learn from an expert with a career and lifetime of experience in this field (obviously nothing). And there's no need. We can just come to you, since you are all-knowing on these subjects for which you have no knowledge or experience, and you can set these experts straight by the mere pronouncement of your 'say-so.'

Do you think your subjective opinions are any different than mine? To you certain things are factual and that settles it?