The Earth is > 10,000 Years Old

Preface I am going to defend this resolution almost exclusively from radiometric dating. As I see much more value in assessing one method at length than affirming multiple methods but not adequately supporting them. Thus I will be detailing uranium-lead dating, which while not the gold standard now in radiometric dating, has simple to understand assumptions and very powerful controls in place on the variables involved. 1. A Radioactive Dating Method Proves Life Existed >10,000 years ago My job here is rather easy here, since 10,000 years is over 100,000x younger than the age of some fossilised life that is demonstrated by these techniques, simply affirming radiometric dating works within a 10^5 margin of error is sufficient to uphold the resolution. Obviously this margin is absolutely enormous. Therefore I will establish my argument: 1. A radiometric dating method demonstrates an old Earth if they a.) Compute an age >10,000 years and b.) Has sound assumptions 2. Radiometric dating methods compute ages >10,000 years 3. A radiometric dating method has sound assumptions C. A radiometric dating method demonstrates an old Earth (>10,000 years) P1 is a deductive mathematical framework by which substance ages are calculated assuming rates of decay, initial and final amounts of the relevant elements, and also assumptions regarding contamination. P2 us trivially shown by citing a cursory search on Google Scholar for the terms “radiometric dating million” yielding over 38,000 results. The first page of results upon checking do all include dates with results over a million years old. [1] Therefore, if I can uphold P3, then the conclusion necessarily follows and the resolution is affirmed. 2. Radiometric dating has sound assumptions For this I am going to argue for a very specific dating method, which is Uranium-Lead dating. This measures the decay of uranium through to lead, and can be used on both major isotopes of uranium (U-235 & U-238) which decay to two different isotopes of lead (Pb-206 and Pb-207 respectively). Thus the assumptions are going to be tied to the methods used involved in dating materials containing these chemical isotopes. The age of a sample is computed via. a similar method by which a compound interest amount is reverse-calculated since radioactive samples decay exponentially. The math indisputably sound, but the assumptions made are the ones Pro can contest: NNow = NOrige-λt 1. NNowis the number of Uranium atoms measured now 2. NOrig is the number of Uranium atoms originally in the sample 3. λ is the decay rate of Uranium 4. tis the age of the mineral, to be determined NNow is measured directly with modern instruments (via. mass spectrometry, etc.), which I seriously doubt Pro will/can contest. Therefore if I affirm the last 2 assumptions, then the dates made from radiometric dating are sound. The following chart is a representation of the change of the concentration of the parent uranium isotope (it’s consumption by radioactive decay) along with the change in concentration of lead isotope (by its formation from the uranium decay chain): As we can see, there is a direct relationship between radiogenic lead and radiogenic uranium, and a depiction of the individual particles is shown in the image below, for clarification. Thus, over time the uranium turns into lead, and it is this predictable and steady decay that we use for our radioactive “clocks”. 2.1 Original number of Uranium atoms in the sample The number of atoms in the original composition of dated material can be calculated from the number of daughter products found. For example, U238 decays invariably to Pb204, IF we can make the assumption that the original amount of Pb206 is zero, then logically allof the Lead (Pb) would come from the decay of U238. If the amount of decayed U238 can be calculated then we have a simple formula for finding out the original amount of U238: Initial Amount 238U = Current Amount 238U + Decayed Amount 238U Decayed Amount 238U = Current Amount 206Pb This formula makes 1 final assumption however, which is that the quantity of 238U/206Pb is not affected by external factors, such as contamination etc. and also that no other radioactive events also generate 206Pb. We know the last is true in the case of 206Pb from an exhaustive analysis of all other natural radioactive elements. 206Pb is only generated from the 238U decay chain.[4] The two assumptions made here, that 1.) the original amount of 206Pb is zero for the sample, and 2.) that contamination is not an issue are both simultaneously controlled for by the use of zircon crystals for radiometric dating (more on this later), as well at other materials. I will concentrate on zircon crystals the purposes of this debate. 2.2 Radioactive Decay Rates With the other assumptions affirmed, then this is the only grounds upon which Con can seriously attack the dates obtained by radiometric dating. Con would need to affirm that somehow, the radioactive rates were somehow over 100,000x faster in the past than they are now. Radioactivity is a phenomena that probabilistic and determined by quantum mechanics. Such decay occurs via overcoming the strong nuclear force through quantum tunnelling. Given the tremendous proximity of neighbouring protons & neutrons of the nucleus, the events outside of the nucleus are negligible compared to the forces that act within the nucleus. As such radioactive decay rates are virtually unaffected by temperature changes, the chemical bonding of the atom, pressure, etc. since these negligibly affect the environment of the nucleus (the nucleus of an atom is the size of a human fist in St. Paul’s cathedral). As such there are only a handful of studies that actually managed to affect the radioactivity rates of elements.[3] For example, one study managed to increase the rate of 187Re decay, but could only achieve this by heating the sample to over 200 million Celsius (!!). For reference, the temperature of the centre of the sun is ~ 15 million degrees Celsius. Other studies have found pretty much the same thing, such as with 176Lu (also 200 million Celsius). It goes without saying that these conditions aren’t even conceivably possible without sterilising/vaporising the planet into oblivion.[6-9] The only other evidence of possible increased decay rates are from neutrinos, to which some studies have alluded to a seasonal decay rate chance (of ~0.1%). Later studies have shown the opposite however, and the rates measured are highly suspect to systematic errors. Moreover, such perturbations are at least seven orders of magnitude lower than would be required to account for the data. An increase on this magnitude would also, certainly sterilise life on Earth, and possibly vaporise the planet itself outright. [10] 3. Zircon Crystals Zircon is a material (ZrSiO4), which naturally excludes trace lead in its crystallisation process. It is possible for uranium and thorium to substitute for zirconium, since they are of a similar size and have similar chemistry. Lead on the other hand is completely different to either. Prof. Bill Composton affirms: “First of all, uranium atoms fit easily into the zircon site in the crystal lattice. They have the same ionic radius as the zirconium, so when the zircon is crystallising, any atoms of uranium that are in the melt will slide into the growing mineral. In contrast, lead doesn't fit well. It has a different ionic radius and a different charge balance. So the mineral zircon strongly excludes lead..” “It is now quite clear that most zircons quantitatively (completely) exclude Pb when they crystallize from magma and that all the Pb contained in the zircon crystal lattice is from the decay of U.” As such, the use of zircon crystals allows for control of the initial amounts of lead, giving zero or near-zero amounts. This observation is unanimous throughout the literature. Note that I do not actually need to affirm perfect exclusion of lead, only that significantly more lead is excluded than uranium, as that is enough with the margins of error being so large for this de bate (fiver orders of magnitude). Hence even if lead was only excluded 10 times less than uranium, it would only lead to ages being ~900 million years older than computed (since U238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years, and some rocks with fossils date to over 3 billion years), however our evidence shows that the exclusion is much more efficient than that.[11-14] Moreover, the use of zircon crystals allows control over environmental factors, due to their exceptional chemical and physical durability: “Also, zircon is tough physically and is chemically stable, so it doesn't dissolve during low-grade metamorphism and it stands up to being weathered out of an igneous rock and trundled down the rivers into beach sands, where it is incorporated in younger rocks”[15] Summary From two rather straightforward assumptions, a precise age can be determined for materials the Earth is composed from. These measurements show the Earth is over five orders of magnitude older than is required by the resolution. Thus, comparably massive refutations are demanded of Con to square the circle. Best of luck. References 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. http://tinyurl.com...; 6. http://tinyurl.com... 7. http://tinyurl.com... 8. http://tinyurl.com... 9. http://tinyurl.com... 10. http://tinyurl.com... 11. http://tinyurl.com... 12. http://tinyurl.com... 13. http://tinyurl.com... 14. http://tinyurl.com...