From: bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Response to Bill Jefferys, part 5
Date: 17 Dec 92 20:46:37 GMT


This continues a discussion of the observed evidence as applied to the
old-earth and the young-earth theories. It is somewhat longer than the rest.
In fact, my whole response has been somewhat long.  I made it that way so as
to provide the evidence to back up my statements and to hopefully provide
sufficient detail that I won't be misunderstood.

#># me
#>  Bill
#   me

>The SIMPLEST THEORY that predicts (and therefore explains) all these DATA
>(simple in the sense of Occam's razor) is that physics is correct, and the
>radiometric dates are real dates.

Since the same physics applies to dates known to be wrong as to the dates that
are claimed to be accurate, the correctness of physics has absolutely nothing
to do with the matter.

When you consider any scientific theory, you can divide the evidence into
that that tends to support the theory and that that tends to oppose it.  Now
if you look at just the subset of the evidence which tends to support the
theory, the simplest explanation for that evidence is that the theory is
correct.  But you must judge a theory against *all* the evidence, not just a
subset.

>This is simple because it is consistent with well-established physics.

It has been well established that radioactive dating can give incorrect
results.  The theory that isochron dates are wrong is every bit as consistent
with physics as the theory that thery are correct.

>It explains why straight-line isochrons exist, it explains why the slope of
>isochrons appears to increase with age as inferred from independent methods,
>it explains why there are no negative-slope isochrons, and it is the only
>explanation that I am aware of that explains why straight-line isochrons even
>exist at all!

I've presented a theory that says the isochron ages may be wrong.  This theory
has observations to show:

     1. Contamination or data presentation techniques can cause straight-line
        isocrons. [3, 4, 7]

     2. Isochrons can show excess ages of 70 million to 3 billion years.
        Thus, in general, the slope of isochrons does NOT appear to increase
        with age inferred from independent methods. [3]

With the exception of the absence of negative slopes, which I am not sure
about (for reasons I discussed above), my theory explains the same things as
does the theory that the dates are accurate.

Based on present rates of erosion, the entire mass of the continents could be
worn away in just under 15 million years.  Continent-building could maintain
the continents indefinitely, but we would expect the "average" rock we see to
be less than 15 million years old.  Obviously, some rocks could last longer
than average.  But we would expect a plot of the number (or percentage) of
rock samples as a function of age to peak at something less than 15 million
years and tail off shaply with age.  I don't know, but I will hazard a guess
that a plot of reported dates vs. age would not have this shape, that it
would show a majority of dates older than 15 million years.

The theory that the measured dates are wrong and that the rocks are less
than 15 million years old  explains the above observation well.  The theory
that the dates are accurate is left to say that "somehow" many rock samples
have survied for much longer than expected.  In the case, the theory that
the dates are wrong explains *more*.

If the earth is at least 3.9 billion years old, the solar system is at least
that old also.  And observations of short-period comets in the solar system
show that the latter can be true only if there is a continuous source for
such comets.  As I've mentioned before, astronomers don't know if there is a
continuous source of comets sufficient to explain what we see. [8]  In other
words, we don't know whether or not observations of the solar system are
consistent with the commonly accepted age of the earth.

My theory has an unknown. I admit this.  While I can point to physical
evidence that isotopic ratios can be an unreliable guide to age, I also
must say that I don't know all the details of why dates measure as they do.
Bill wants to reject my theory because of this unknown.  However, his theory
ALSO has unknowns, as I have just shown. He wants me to accept the unknown in
his theory while at the same time he rejects the unknown in mine.

Also, notice that Bill says the old-earth theory, with its unknowns, should be
treated as the *only* theory worth discussing.  I say that the young-earth
theory should be considered as a *possibility*, to be treated equally with
alternative theories.  Bill makes a much stronger claim of certainty for his
theory than I do for mine.  Thus, he should give greater evidence for the
unknown areas is his theory than he asks me to do for the unknown areas in
mine.

>There can be only one SCIENTIFIC counter to this argument. You must come up
>with a comprehensive THEORY that explains all of these data MORE SIMPLY than
>the one I have given.

I agree in principle, but disagree on several points.  "These data" which he
lists are the points in favor of isochron dating.  And it is simply not true
that the best theory is the one which explains the evidence in favor of
isochron dating.  Theories must be judged on the basis oh how they explain all
of the evidence on the age of the earth, including that which conflicts with
isochron dating.  My second disagreement is that we need not consider only
the theory which explains the data more simply. (Besides which, the concept
cannot really be defined, since which theory is the most simple depends on
what data is being looked at.)  Rather, we should consider all theories which
explain the data according to known physics.

>I CHALLENGE you to do so.

When you compare the young-earth theory to the evidece, you find some evidence
for which it provides the simplest explanation and other evidence for which it
provides an ezxplanation, although not the simplest.  Similarly, when you
compare the old-earth theory to the evidece, you find some evidence for
which it provides the simplest explanation and other evidence for which it
provides an ezxplanation, although not the simplest.  Both theories meet the
*same* scientific standards.  Thus, *both* should be considered as alternative
possibilities for tha age of the earth.

I have presented positive data which tends to indicate that the earth may be
young.  I have also presented data which shows, even if the earth is young,
how we could obtain dates that are older than the earth is. This data is
not dreamed up by me from my imagination.  Nor is is taken from the pages of
a religious book.  Rather, it is based on observations reported in standard
scientific sources.

This is the point I want to stress.  The standard claim is that we can be
certain that the earth is billions of years old.  I claim that observations
have been made which show the standard claim to be false.  My claim could be
right or wrong.  However, since it is based on observations, it is *by
definition* a scientific.  To rebutt my claim, it is both necessary and
sufficient to show that the evidence disproves what I say.  All the words
which have been written, and which may yet be written, with regard to my
"hidden adgendas," "bias," "bigotry," etc. accomplish nothing as far as
rebuttal goes, except to make me suspicious that those who write only about
these extraneous things do not have a valid rebuttal.

>Your handwaving,

I am not the one doing handwaving.  There is a funamental difference between
scitific statements which rest on observations -- such as the composition of
water of the existence of superconductivity -- and scientific theories -- 
such as that an isochron with a certain slope means the rock is a certain age.
The handwaving is being done by those who would treat the latter theoretical
concept, which hasn't been verified against actual data (and which has been
contradicted by data), with the same certainty as as data which has repeatedly
been verified with obserations.  There handwaving is being done by those who
insist that their particular theory be the only one considered.  The
handwaving is being done by those (not necessarily including Bill in this
case) who, despite the fact that I have based the young-earth theory on
non-creationist scientific references, insist that it is based only on bias
and bigotry.

>your "well, you haven't PROVED that isochrons give real dates"

As I have dealt with before in this posting, I do not say this.  I don't say
"proved" and certainly not "PROVED."

>are not scientific arguments.

Whether or not arguments which I do not make are scientific has nothing to do
with my arguments.

What I do say, and illustrate, is that the theory that the earth is billions
of years old does not meet the scientific stadards (which are used in all
areas except in earth history and evolution) for concepts which are treated
as fact.  Since I am measuring the theory against scientific standards, I am
*by definition* making a scientific argument.

>(excepting, perhaps, to yourself and others of your ilk who don't understand
>what science is about).

What is my ilk? :-) :-)

Of course I know what science is about.  Science is about using facts and data
to decide issues and make statements of what is and isn't.  Science is about
refraining from making statements where there is no data.  Science is about
considering *all* data, even if it conflicts with the theory you belive in.
Science is NOT about having to agree with a particular conclusion even when
there is data pointing in a different direction.

>The evidence you have given on the accuracy of K-Ar dating is not relevant to
>isochron dating. The problems of K-Ar dating do NOT apply to isochron dating
>because the two methods use entirely different principles.

K-Ar and isochron dating rely on exactly the same principle.  Both of these
methods, and other radioactive methods, rely implicitly on the principle that
the ratios between radioactive parent and daughter isotopes are determined
by the age of the sample.

>The fact that both involve radioactive decay is a superficial and irrelevant
>detail.

Irrelevant details could be changed or eliminated with no, or at most minimal,
effect on the methods.  So if radioactive decay were eliminated, what would be
the effect on the K-Ar method?  It would cease to exist.  The effect on the
isochron method?  It would cease to exist.  Something which, if changed,
would destroy these methods is by definition *central* to both.

#Bill and others talk about theory and generalities.  But sorry. I have
#presented multiple cases in which the assumptions have been applied to
#specific samples and they have yielded dates, at least in one case with
#no indication anything was wrong.  Yet those dates (in these cases) are
#known to be wrong.  Direct experimental indication that assumptions are
#wrong IS a reason to doubt them.

>You have never, to my knowledge, supplied a single example of a correct
>application of the ISOCHRON method that has yielded incorrect dates for
>straight-line isochrons (see Dalrymple's comment above).

At the time Bill wrote this, this was true, with the exception of reference
[5].  I have recently given exactly such examples.

Please note, however, that neither Bill nor anyone else has supplied a single
example of what to them is the correct application of the isochron method
that has given known *correct* dates for straight-line isochrons.  Since they
have not supported their theory with the data requested of me, if I were to
use their standards, I would be free to treat their theory as they treat
mine.

#>which are consequences of basic, well-understood, and well-tested physics
#>and chemistry.

#Except that the tests show that the assumptions can be wrong.

>What tests? Please provide a CITATION to the refereed literature that shows
>that the assumptions involved in isochron dating can be wrong when the
>conditions mentioned by Dalrymple are satisfied.

See the references just below.  And if you want me to believe that isocron
dating can be trused to always be accurate, please provide a citation to the
refereed literature that shows that the assumptions involved in isochron
dating are known [*] to be correct when the conditions mentioned by Dalrymple
are satisfied.

[*] to the degree of confidence needed to exclude alternate theories.

References:

[1] Eric Durrance (University of Exeter), _Radioactivity in Geology:
    Principles and Applications_

[2] G. Brent Dalrymple, Ph. D., "Radiometric Dating, Geologic Time, and the
    age of the Earth: A Reply to 'Scientific' Creationism," February, 1982,
    published by U.S Geological Survey.

[3] C. Brooks, D.E. James, and S.R. Hart, "Ancient Lithosphere: Its Role in
    Young Continental Volcanism," _Science_ Volume 193, September 17, 1976,
    pages 1086-1094

[4] Carter, Evensen, Hamilton, and O'Nions, "Neodymium and Strontium Isotope
    Evidence for Crustal Contamination of Continental Volcanos," _Science_,
    vol 202, November 17, 1978, pages 743-747

[5] Zartmen, Norton, and Stern, "Ancient Granite Gneiss in the Black Hills,
    South Dakota," _Science_, July 31, 1964, pg 479-481

[6] _Scientists Confront Creationism_, page 70, paperback edition

[7] Felix Chayes, "Use of Correlation Statistics with Rubidium-Strontium
    Systemics, _Science_, vol 196, June 10, 1977, pages 1234-1235

[1] Edger Everhart (University of Denver), chapter entitled "Evaluation of
    Long- and Short-periord Orbits," in _Comets_, edited by Laurel L.
    Wilkening, University of Arizona Press, 1982

   Bob Bales
   Tektronix, Inc.

I help Tektronix make their instruments. They don't help me make my opinions.