Help Me Understand

[rexbeccarox]

[TheRocketSurgeon]

[TheRocketSurgeon]

[Thumpalumpacus]

[...] Neil Shubin, the discoverer of Tiktaalik and author of Your Inner Fish.

A brilliant read.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

[...] Neil Shubin, the discoverer of Tiktaalik and author of Your Inner Fish.

A brilliant read.

It's what sold me on liking him so much. He just has a wit and a way with words; it made me look at some things with a fresh eye, and with a smile, a rare combination.  I cannot recommend his book enough.  His interviews are often just as remarkable... especially with Colbert, who kinda overruns him a bit because he's relatively soft-spoken, but for good comedic effect.

[Thumpalumpacus]

As for radiometric dating, I'll have to get home and on my computer. It's a little too complex to handle on my phone without clear references handy.

Given that we have several different checks on the accuracy of radiometric dating, the fact that a few percent of those samples return anomalous dates is quickly discovered -- that is exactly where the data touted by YECers comes from: double-checking.

Firstly, many rocks are susceptible to multiple types of radiometric dating. In the vast majority of cases, the different decay cycles agree with each other. In order to argue that one method is wrong, you would have to argue that all the other methods used on a given rock were not only wrong, but somehow produced the same error.

Secondly, we can observe radiometric decay in progress by viewing supernovae. Such stellar explosions produce copious amount of decaying elements, and by spectrographic analysis over time, we can mark the decay of one element into another. Not surprisingly, since all elements heavier than lithium we created in the bowels of such an explosion, we can see the decay rates of radiometric yardsticks used here on Earth out in space, where they aren't affected by climate of terrestrial geology. The decay rates we see in supernovae support what is seen here on Earth.

Thirdly, it is true that anomalous geology can affect decay rates. However, if our understanding of decay rates were so badly off, what would we expect to see with the dates extrapolated? What are the odds that every mistake the world over just happened to produce an older age, and moreover, roughly the same error? If would seem more reasonable to me that the dates would be more widely scattershot, given the varied geology from which samples are collected. After all, if, say, vulcanism produces pressures and heat which advances the decay of potassium into argon, why should K-Ar errors from non-volcanic regions mirror that error, in the absence of such influences?

eta: By the way, Roadrunner, thanks for getting me to dig back into the matter. It's been a couple of decades since college geology, and the rereading was good brainfood. Thanks.

[Thumpalumpacus]

A brilliant read.

It's what sold me on liking him so much. He just has a wit and a way with words; it made me look at some things with a fresh eye, and with a smile, a rare combination.  I cannot recommend his book enough.  His interviews are often just as remarkable... especially with Colbert, who kinda overruns him a bit because he's relatively soft-spoken, but for good comedic effect.

He conveys a wealth of information with a panache that, as a writer, I can admire for its craft as well as insight.

[robvalue]

It's perfectly reasonable to have doubts about any particular scientific theory. It's healthy, in fact, to investigate problems people say it has.

No theory is presented as cast-iron 100% accurate no matter what new information may emerge. Every single one represents our best attempt to model reality, and will be subject to further modification given new findings. It's even possible (though somewhat unlikely) that new findings would show the entire basis for the theory to be flawed, and that a new hypothesis needs building up from scratch. This is all part of the scientific process.

What is not reasonable is to conclude that because there are (what you consider to be) some problems with the theory, that you not only disregard it but insert your own entirely unsupported ideas in its place. If a theory is wrong, we need new sensible, testable hypotheses. We don't need fall-back positions of made-up stuff in place of simply admitting we don't know yet.

This is the problem where creationists (I don't know if roadrunner is one or not) present a false dichotomy between evolution and goddidit. Wrong. Either the theory of evolution is well supported, or else it is not. That's as far as it goes. For one thing, if you're going to insert a story in its place, any story that anyone makes up is as good as another.

[RoadRunner79]

[TheRocketSurgeon]