Radiometric Dating is Accurate

1. Con claims that the restriction of the debate to scientific argument "is invalid because both systems [religion and science] are faith-based enterprises." Con did not state what it is about science he claims to be as great a leap of faith as religion. What is it? It is the case that science does reject "God the Trickster" theories in which, for example, the world might have bee created a week ago with all of the memories and evidence created concurrently. Is it that the kind of faith that Con is asserting scientists have? It is a fundamental error to suppose that having any faith at all makes science equivalent to dogmatic religion. There is more faith and less faith, and more and less reasonable grounds for faith. The validity of scientific theories lies in there immense power to make accurate predictions. Faith is therefore justified. Moreover, scientific predictions are endlessly cross-checked using independent methods, and if an inconsistency is found the theory is abandoned or revised. That is different from dogmatic religious faith that never makes verifiable predictions and is never revised based upon contradictions with observation. Since all religions are based upon faith, does Con consider all religions to be equally valid? Con seems to be asserting that anything involving faith is equally valid. This includes, for examples, religions demanding human sacrifice to appease volcano gods. If all religions are not equally valid, what is it that makes some more valid than others? Does agreement with physical observations count? Volcanoes do not erupt when humans fail to make sacrifices as those religions predict. Does volcano worship nonetheless remain on a par with science as equal acts of faith? 2. Con argues, "For the same reason, the THEORY of evolution is now and will never be more than a theory. And you cannot use one theory to prove another, it's circular logic." Since I never made any reference to the theory of evolution, and in particular never used it as a basis for determining the accuracy of radiometric dating, Con is asserting a non sequitur. 3. Con argues, "just because carbon behaves in a certain manner for 41 years or even for 300 years (or however long we've been observing it) doesn't mean that it has behaved that way for it's alleged billions of years of existence." I stated that there are about two dozen isotope pairs used in radiometric dating. What is the basis for Con asserting that Carbon 14 is used for dating beyond about 45,000 years? Con may also dispute my assertion that two dozen different isotopes are used, but he ought to provide grounds for disputing it. The decay rates of the various isotope pairs cross-check each other. So it's not just carbon that must be behaving erratically, but uranium, thorium, cesium, strontium, and all the others used for dating. Moreover, there can no pattern in how each is misbehaving. For example, U235 is now decaying with a half-life of over 700 million years. For the earth to be, say, 6000 years old, U235 must have once been decaying several million times faster. C14 would have had to have undergone a different history of change of decay, speeding up by a factor of a few hundred. Similarly, all the other isotope pairs must have had different erratic histories, but if all the clocks were running at different rates, then there would be no agreement on the dating of objects by different isotopes. One cannot claim that clocks running at rates differing by factors of tens of thousands nonetheless always agree with each other. The decay rates of the various isotopes is also cross-checked against tree-rings, coral formations, and the other physical phenomena I listed. Therefore rates of tree growth and all of the other physical factors unrelated to radioactive decay must have speed up in erratic ways to agree with radioactive decay. For example, trees must have had about four growth cycles per year to match C14 dating, with the trees growing four times as fast in each cycle. However, there would have had to have been about 50 snow seasons per year to adjust the ice core data, with fifty times as much snow in each cycle. But if both of those things happened, then the ice core data would no longer agree with tree ring data. Sediment deposits, coral growth, and other observations must similarly have different seasonal rates, none agreeing with the others. As isotopes decay they release energy. If isotopes once decayed a hundred or a million times faster, the energy would have been released that much faster. The extra heat would have made the earth uninhabitable. Consequently, it is not just the rates at which trees grow and snow falls that must have change, laws related to conservation of energy must have changed, so that it was possible for energy to disappear. One cross-check on the age of the earth is rate at which heat is flowing out of the molten core. If the earth were a few thousand years only, heat must have flowed out roughly a million times faster than it now does. That extra heat would have made the earth uninhabitable. Therefore heat energy must have magically disappeared in earlier times. In summary, what Con is claiming is not merely that there has been a change in the rate of C14 decay, but that all of the elements used for isotopes behaved differently, that energy once disappeared, that there used to be four to fifty seasons per year, and basically none of the laws of nature were then as now. This introduces the impossibility that dozens of independent clocks used for dating all running at different rates agreeing upon the times at which objects where formed and events occurred. But all the natural clocks do agree, quite well. 4. Con states, "According to the concept of potentiality, scientists are finding Carbon 14 behaving in a certain way or in a certain place because they are looking for it in a certain place or for it to behave in a certain way." If this is so, then any independent observer, free of the prejudice suggested, can use the method to get different results. Has anyone in fact used C14, or any of the other two dozen isotope pairs, "correctly" as Con supposes? The methods are now routine, like using a ruler to measure a person's height. Con is essentially claiming, analogously, that the only reason that rulers yield the typical range of height measurements of people is that they are expected to do so. If unbiased users applied rulers, we would find that people are typically only a quarter inch high. If that is so, then, in the RD world, who has used RD in an unbiased way to produce the radically different measurements claimed? 5. Con asserts, "because humans have neither the lifespan nor the patience if they HAD the longevity to properly and scientifically prove the accuracy of RD, it cannot be asserted with confidence that it is in fact an accurate estimate of the true age of the earth." Is it really true that nothing can be known outside of a single human lifespan? We know, for example, that the Civil War happened because humans have written about it. They transcribed the events on to enduring media: books, photographs, and letters. Artifacts like Civil War guns and uniforms corroborate the transcriptions. So when we put it all together, we have multiple records that provide cross-checks of the events, even though the last witness has died. Similarly, if we had nothing but a single C14 dating example, we would have justifiable doubts. But we have in fact a very large number with multiple unrelated corroborations of alternative methods that provide the assurance we need that RD is accurate. In general, we prefer not-subjective evidence over subject evidence. The photographs and artifacts of the Civil War are less like to be embellished than the human accounts. There is no reason to suppose than human witnesses of RD dating is required, because we have objective physical evidence. The resolution is affirmed.