How does one determine, using the scientific method, that the earth is billions of years old?

[Right Divider]

Sorry, no.

Sorry, yes.

The chance that there would be agreement by chance alone is tiny. And, when we have multiple occurrence of agreement, it is virtually impossible.

The methods all use similar unknown and unknowable assumptions. Therefore, their agreement is meaningless.

The Mississippi flows at rate that can be measured.

That is good.

We can estimate how far a body can drift over a particular period of time and find the body on this basis.

Wow... what a revelation!

This is a gross example. But, we do not need to know where and how the water flow started.

All of that is observable.

Isotope decay is infinitely more predictable than a river.

You are ignorant of conditions that can accelerate decay a BILLION fold.

It is as reliable as gravity.

No, it is not.

Then, we cannot establish ANYTHING in physics. How did gravity start?

You are confused.

 

[marke]

How do 'scientists date rocks older than 60,000 years? By determining what their ages are supposed to be and then assigning those ages to them.

What are the 3 methods of dating rocks? – handlebar-online.com

www.handlebar-online.com

What method of rock dating is used in giving rocks actual date?​

Absolute dating
Geologists often need to know the age of material that they find. They use absolute dating methods, sometimes called numerical dating, to give rocks an actual date, or date range, in numbers of years.

How are scientists able to determine the age of fossils?​

Scientists use two kinds of dating techniques to work out the age of rocks and fossils. The first method is called relative dating. This considers the positions of the different rocks in sequence (in relation to each other) and the different types of fossil that are found in them. The second method is called absolute dating and is done by

There are several problems associated with common test methods used to date rocks assumed to be older than 60,000 years old, making to impossible to guarantee the test results are accurate or even nearly accurate. First, the following assumptions, not facts, must be entered into the testing to obtain results. The fact that assumptions must be made makes the accuracy of the test results unreliable.

Argon Geochronology Methods

geoinfo.nmt.edu

The K/Ar Dating technique​

General assumptions for the Potassium-Argon dating system​

Certain assumptions must be satisfied before the age of a rock or mineral can be calculated with the Potassium-Argon dating technique. These are:
The material in question is a closed system. In other words, no radiogenic 40Ar has escaped from the rock/mineral since it formed. In the case of a volcanic mineral, this means rapid cooling. Likewise, potassium has not been gained or lost.

• A correction is made for atmospheric argon (40Ar from the 40Ar/36Ar ratio = 295.5 subtracted).
• No non-atmospheric 40Ar was incorporated into the rock/mineral during or after its formation.
• The isotopes of potassium in the rock/mineral have not fractionated, except by 40K decay.
• The decay constants of 40K are accurately known.
• The quantities of 40Ar and potassium in the rock/mineral are accurately determined.

There are further problems that make the accuracy of the test results unreliable.

Problems and Limitations of the K/Ar dating technique​

Because the K/Ar dating technique relies on the determining the absolute abundances of both 40Ar and potassium, there is not a reliable way to determine if the assumptions are valid. Argon loss and excess argon are two common problems that may cause erroneous ages to be determined. Argon loss occurs when radiogenic 40Ar (40Ar*) produced within a rock/mineral escapes sometime after its formation. Alteration and high temperature can damage a rock/mineral lattice sufficiently to allow 40Ar* to be released. This can cause the calculated K/Ar age to be younger than the "true" age of the dated material. Conversely, excess argon (40ArE) can cause the calculated K/Ar age to be older than the "true" age of the dated material. Excess argon is simply 40Ar that is attributed to radiogenic 40Ar and/or atmospheric 40Ar. Excess argon may be derived from the mantle, as bubbles trapped in a melt, in the case of a magma. Or it could be a xenocryst/xenolith trapped in a magma/lava during emplacement.

 

[Skeeter]

The methods all use similar unknown and unknowable assumptions. Therefore, their agreement is meaningless.

Your insistence on knowing the unknowable is a dodge. Their agreement is critical. Why would they agree unless they are measuring the same thing?

All of that is observable.

But, we do not need to know it to make reliable estimates. I thought you agreed that sometimes in science we tolerate indirect observation.

You are confused.

You are thinking of yourself.

 

[Right Divider]

Your insistence on knowing the unknowable is a dodge.

No, it's not.

Their agreement is critical.

No, it's not.

Why would they agree unless they are measuring the same thing?

They somewhat agree because they use the same invalid assumptions. So again, their agreement is completely irrelevant.

But, we do not need to know it to make reliable estimates. I thought you agreed that sometimes in science we tolerate indirect observation.

With regard to your preferred model, there are not even indirect observations.

You are thinking of yourself.

Nope... all of the confusion is on your side.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Then, we cannot establish ANYTHING in physics.

Rogue waves defy all the, a-hem, known laws of physics.
Yet they exist.

How did gravity start?

In the mind of Newton as a downward force.
Einstein then later debunked that idea with the theory of relativity.
So wouldn't it first depend on which theory you're assuming?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Cleaned up the thread a bit. Please stay on topic.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I thought you agreed that sometimes in science we tolerate indirect observation.

That would be pseudo science.
Not the scientific method which is employed in experimentation to prove the cause of a naturally observed phenomena.

 

[Skeeter]

That would be pseudo science.

Nope. Pseudoscience is science done badly or dishonestly, like not using a control group or other control measures, claiming correlation alone to be causation, or using a paper's caveats and limitation sections to draw conclusions unsupported by the study.

The scientific method is employed in experimentation to prove the cause of a naturally observed phenomena.

Several observations can be used to infer processes that are otherwise unobservable. Studies of the earth's core result in explanation of processes not directly observable. Your claim is that such studies are pseudoscience.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Finding the age of the earth cannot be scientifically achieved as it cannot be naturally observed by an individual human.
Historical writings is all an individual has to go on.
History is another subject.

 

[Right Divider]

Nope. Pseudoscience is science done badly or dishonestly, like not using a control group or other control measures, claiming correlation alone to be causation, or using a paper's caveats and limitation sections to draw conclusions unsupported by the study.

Several observations can be used to infer processes that are otherwise unobservable. Studies of the earth's core result in explanation of processes not directly observable. Your claim is that such studies are pseudoscience.

Billions of years is pseudoscience.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Pseudoscience is science done badly or dishonestly,

Sit. Stay.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Billions of years is pseudoscience.

As is allowing any indirect observation.

 

[Skeeter]

As is allowing any indirect observation.

So, the study of how electrons behave isn't science? Fetch, boy.

 

[Skeeter]

Finding the age of the earth cannot be scientifically achieved as it cannot be naturally observed by an individual human.
Historical writings is all an individual has to go on.
History is another subject.

So, writings of a human are more reliable than evidence from the past ensconced in rock? Speak, boy, speak!

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

So, writings of a human are more reliable than evidence from the past ensconced in rock? Speak, boy, speak!

I didn't say one word about the reliability of human writings.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

So, the study of how electrons behave isn't science? Fetch, boy.

Electrons are observable.
The invisible field they operate in is not.
Therefore what it is is all speculation.

 

[Skeeter]

Electrons are observable.
The invisible field they operate in is not.
Therefore what it is is all speculation.

Drop it, boy, drop it. Is the study of electron fields pseudoscience?

 

[Right Divider]

Is the study of electron fields pseudoscience?

Electrons are observable.
Your evolution is not.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Drop it, boy, drop it. Is the study of electron fields pseudoscience?

Not as long as the study entails an experiment to determine the cause.
We're talking scientific method here.
Wake up.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Finding the age of the earth cannot be scientifically achieved as it cannot be naturally observed by an individual human.

Sure it can. Perhaps not an exact age, but we can get within 100 years on either side.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - A Scientific Answer:

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - A Biblical Answer:

Historical writings is all an individual has to go on.
History is another subject.