radiometric dating vs. fundamentalist preacher

[No_Foolin'?]

The vast majority of my "book" knowledge is in the social sciences, so I know precious little about anything having to do with the physical sciences.

So I need some help, because I'm in over my head here with a local preacher who believes the bible to be the inerrant word of God. He has much to say about the natural sciences (e.g. regarding evolution, the origin of the universe, etc.)
and among his arguments is that the earth is literally somewhere in the neighborhood of 7,000 years old.

Seems his main reason for believing this is that the bible says so, or at least this is his interpretation of what the bible says.

Anyways, the cornerstone of his argument against the sciences is what he sees as the unreliability of the methods used to date things, such as the fossil record for instance. Specifically, this preacher questions the validity of the results obtainined using both carbon-14 dating or radiometric dating.

From what I understand, these are the two principal methods that scientists use in their work.

My layman's assumption here is "How possibly can all of this scientific understanding that we (think?) we have rest on such faulty ground? Surely my friend is wrong about carbon-14 dating and radiometric dating". No?

How reliable are these methods? And if they're so unreliable, how can reasonable, thoughtful, and serious researchers trust the validity of their findings / theories?

Are we to accept their theories - take evolution, for example - only with a large dose of skepticism?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
How reliable are these methods? And if they're so unreliable, how can reasonable, thoughtful, and serious researchers trust the validity of their findings / theories?

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer is self-contained.
Read slowly starting with IF...

It'll all come clear.

luckyme

[Phil153]

Each method is accurate within certain time ranges. And if we just relied on radiometric dating, the evidence would be a fraction as strong as what is. But in reality, we have far more.

Examples:

- Ice cores from snow laid down over hundreds of thousands of years. The seasonal effects are very obvious.
- Geology - we know how fast the Himalayas are rising, how the plates have moved the built them, and we know that the roof of the world was once a sea bed.
- Weathering - Known weathering rates, such as the massive wind driven loess deposits in China, take many tens of thousands of years. Also under weathering is glaciation.
- Fossils - many of these exist in areas that haven't been in a warm zone for tens of thousands to millions of years.
- Coal and oil - millions of years of accumulated dead organisms and then millions of years of burial under kilometres of rock

etc

The world is old. There's no getting around it. The only possible explanation is that God created to world and the universe to look exactly like one that had been around for a billion years, complete with every little thing you'd expect. And if you're going to claim that, it's an equally valid claim that the devil wrote the bible to deceive man and keep him from true spirituality and awareness.

[No_Foolin'?]

Exactly. It seems - though I'm sure he'd deny it - that my preacher friend is trying hard to knock down the straw man of radiocarbon and radiometric dating techniques and is choosing to completely ignore these other, equally-persuasive sets of evidence.

I suspect his goal here is to create enough doubt in his audience's mind regarding only a single area of scientific methodology (i.e. the reliability of radiocarbon and / or radiometric dating techniques) so that he can then - erroneously - claim that no science can be deemed as ultimately trustworthy, thus dismissing in one fell swoop the need to address examples such as the ones you list, and at the same time reserving the right to dismiss any otherwise-scientifically-credible evidence that he may be presented with in the future.

Not that he is even doing any or all of this by conscious design. Likely not. He himself probably thinks this way. All-or-nothing. The bible is, after all, the inerrant word of God he will tell you. Not a single contradiction or untruth is therein contained.

[tame_deuces]

There is some confusion because radiocarbon dating is often confused with radiometric dating in general.

Previously radiocarbon dating could not extend that long into the past, but now it is measurably to something on the lines of 60000 years.

Other forms of radiometric dating can go much further back than this but have bigger boundaries for error (say you could say something was 4 million years old fairly safely, but you have a +/- 3000 year boundary of error etc), radiocarbon dating is fairly exact so it is often preferrable when you got some material falling unders its usable timeline, for example archeological findings. For recent findings you can establish it down to error boundaries of only a decade up or down.

Suffice to say that whatever criticisms your preacher is using are based on severe misunderstandings, old and now outdated knowledge.

The theories used are _extremely_ reliable, there is no way the earth is only 7000 years old. Anyone saying it is however so unsuspectible to knowledge that I don't think you will manage to convince them otherwise. It simply shows such a enormous ignorance to geology/physics.

[No_Foolin'?]

[ QUOTE ]
There is some confusion because radiocarbon dating is often confused with radiometric dating in general.

Previously radiocarbon dating could not extend that long into the past, but now it is measurably to something on the lines of 60000 years.

Other forms of radiometric dating can go much further back than this but have bigger boundaries for error (say you could say something was 4 million years old fairly safely, but you have a +/- 3000 year boundary of error etc), radiocarbon dating is fairly exact so it is often preferrable when you got some material falling unders its usable timeline, for example archeological findings. For recent findings you can establish it down to error boundaries of only a decade up or down.

Suffice to say that whatever criticisms your preacher is using are based on severe misunderstandings, old and now outdated knowledge.

The theories used are _extremely_ reliable, there is no way the earth is only 7000 years old. Anyone saying it is however so unsuspectible to knowledge that I don't think you will manage to convince them otherwise. It simply shows such a enormous ignorance to geology/physics.

[/ QUOTE ]


Here's the crux of his criticism. The following are his own words:

"Radiometric dating has been called, "one of the best known ways of assigning age to an object." The premise of this dating method is that some radioactive elements undergo decay to produce new elements, right? In order for this method to be properly used here are three things that must be known to be true: (1) The quantity of radioactive elements present when the matter was first formed must be known; (2) the rate of radioactive decay must be constant over time; (3) the matter must have been insulated from outside factors. You must note, however, that this information is almost always either unreliable or unavailable; hence those producing the tests are forced to do a lot of "guesswork." As one scientists, Dr. Nicholas Comninellis, said, 'it seems we do more guessing than actual dating.' "

Someone ignorant of science and scientific methods in general, much less someone ignorant of the technical aspects of specific dating methods used by scientists might find such a statement at the very least plausible, if not at least somewhat authoritative.

However, when compared with what you say above (not to mention compared to what most even marginally-educated people know generally about the accepted scientific consensus) the opinions of my preacher friend seem to be quite incorrect.

For example, let's focus on radiometric dating specifically. I can't see how it is possible that, on the one hand, radiometric dating techniques can have statistically discernible/verifiable "boundaries for error" and be "extremely reliable", yet on the other hand be susceptible to my friend's criticisms (1), (2), and (3).

Is this at all possible? Or would call this an example of the preacher basing his criticisms "on severe misunderstandings, old and now outdated knowledge." ?

[qwnu]

[ QUOTE ]
As one scientists, Dr. Nicholas Comninellis, said, 'it seems we do more guessing than actual dating.'

[/ QUOTE ]
A bit of googling will reveal that Dr. Comninellis is a medical doctor and young-earth creationist, and has published a book called Darwin's Demise.

[No_Foolin'?]

Thanks. Yes, I'll check this out later today. Medical doctor, eh? Why am I not surprised?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As one scientists, Dr. Nicholas Comninellis, said, 'it seems we do more guessing than actual dating.'

[/ QUOTE ]
A bit of googling will reveal that Dr. Comninellis is a medical doctor and young-earth creationist, and has published a book called Darwin's Demise.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a soon-to-be MD, it always saddens me when people talk about medical doctors like they are real Dr.s when it comes to science. Its funny because the old joke is that PhD's aren't REAL doctors, but when it comes to real science, MDs are sort of a joke. Obviously, there are plenty of smart, knowledgeable doctors. But there are a TON of doctors who are completely inept when it comes to science, and especially to concepts like evolution or geology or archaeology. There is just no requirement to be informed on stuff like that. The education process is about memorizing huge piles of information, and serving as a human algorithm. That and being nice to people. It never ceases to amaze me to hear the insane things that some of my classmates believe/understand.

I would be surprised if more than 50% of my class could define evolution accurately, much less speak intelligently on radiometric dating techniques and their flaws and limitations.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
There is just no requirement to be informed on stuff like that. The education process is about memorizing huge piles of information, and serving as a human algorithm. That and being nice to people.

[/ QUOTE ]

The success of computer 'expertsyystem' diagnostic programs testifies to that part of your statement. Without downgrading the psychological skills that make one a better doctor ( or even there technical skills), essentially their role is more related to a mechanic than an theoretical physicist. hmmm...the mechanics job is now very much being taken over by expert-system type programs also.

luckyme