For everyone else, TheFuzz slapped a CNN link on my Facebook wall today of an article that discussed the recent discovery of the world’s oldest diamonds.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/08/23/earth.diamonds.reut/index.html
Since this isn’t something anyone can just dump in a hit n’ run reply, on here it goes. Either read on, or ignore. This is directed at Fuzznuts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are two main points primarily illustrated in this article. One can be covered in a single fell swoop, the second is actually a red herring that I’ll engage in anyway.
1 - If they hadn’t the slightest clue, you’d never know it.
Found trapped in zircon crystals in the Jack Hills region, the small gems are the oldest identified fragments of the Earth’s crust and their existence suggests the Earth may have cooled faster than previously thought, experts said on Wednesday.
What this article actually says, is that scientists had an established methodology of analysis to determine the age of the earth that—at the time—was absolutely correct, but in light of new evidence they are wrong. This certainly isn’t breaking any precedents, nor do they show any sign of slowing this despicable habit of tailoring findings to suit their flawed theories… but it’d be much nicer if they simply said, “We don’t know.” They flatly refuse to do that, which leads to yet another string of fallacious postulates and fundamental misconceptions that will be undoubtedly debunked by more findings in the near and distant future.
The fact of the matter is, those zircon crystals did cool off faster than previously thought… and much, much faster than these scientists still believe (try a few thousand years, not a few billion). The history of science shows us to be extremely adept at observing results, but spectacular failures in explaining why. We’ve observed that every element on earth shrinks when cooled, but nobody can explain why frozen H20 expands, or why it’s only that combination that does. You won’t see that in any science journals.
2 - The red herring: Radiometric Dating
Radioactive dating showed the crystals from Western Australia varied in age from 3.06 billion to 4.25 billion years, making them almost 1 billion years older than the previous oldest-known diamonds.
The very concept of radiometric dating is so laughably ridiculous, I’m somewhat surprised it hasn’t been debunked and shunned by the scientific community at-large. It continues to exist for two reasons: Because nobody has another idea to replace it yet, and because this standard of measurement is actually the pivotal foundation of evolutionary theory and the age of the earth. It’s political, which is never a good thing.
It works by measuring the radioactive decay in carbon-14 atoms over a short-term period of time, the results of which are then extrapolated and multiplied to simulate long-term effects. It assumes two fundamental givens: That a single unit of measurement doesn’t change proportions, and that the surrounding environment remains constant. This actually taps into a philosophical divide between scientists: Ultimately you believe the only constant thing about our universe is its state of change and flux, or you believe it remains static and relatively unchanged. For the results of radiometric dating to retain their accuracy, we have to assume no variables, no changes, no adverse states and no reactions. This is absurd on its face, particularly when you research and discover how many other elements interact with carbon-14 that we don’t yet understand.
Let’s use a modern example by counting the beats per minute (BPM) of an audio track. DJs typically count beats on the fly in 10 or 15 second intervals, and multiply by 6 or 4 to come up with a relatively close guesstimate of the constant state of the song. This works in small sets, but if you count 22 beats in a 10 second span and miss half a downbeat, you might incorrectly assume the track is 132 bpm instead of the actual 136 (where you’d have to count 22.6 in the span). The required environment for this process necessitates delicate instrumentation and zero interference, which is impossible. But these dating procedures aren’t measuring a single track of audio, it’s like asking what the bpm of BT’s entire career is. That kind of question is fundamentally stupid enough to warrant physical harm of the asker. You aren’t even factoring in the state of flux in the original song itself, since you don’t know if the tempo ever changes. In the full, extended version of Movement In Still Life, it most certainly does. Ableton would never need warp markers if we had no state of flux in audio tracks, but we do.
Likewise for radiometric dating. For it to work, we have to accept that atoms remain static and unchanged over supposed billions of years, while combating an inherent state of interference. It’s sloppy and inaccurate beyond belief.
To make matters worse, we’re using carbon-based units of measurement to measure carbon decay, both of which are equally affected by time and ultimately will divide into themselves. If a single Rageous unit equals me running a mile in six minutes, the actual time to complete is irrelevant. One mile equals one unit, and two miles equals two units. And here we go again… it’s assuming my six-minute-mile pace remains constant over five or ten miles, that I don’t run on any hills or terrain, that it doesn’t rain or become too hot, that someone doesn’t bump into me or knock me off course, that I don’t develop blisters, that I don’t throw up, that I don’t become dehydrated, and so on. It’s just plain silly.
The only way to accurately determine the age of the earth is to investigate the age of the universe, the rate of which the speed of light is slowing down, and how much faster it used to be. You will never discover it by dividing non-sequiturs into themselves.
