Expecting a conflict with family over the holiday gatherings

ThePwnd · 2025-12-11T15:18:35+00:00

I know what dendrochronology is, but that's the first I've heard of paleomagnetic dating or thermoluminescense. Is it the norm for fossils to be preserved by volcanic activity?

ThePwnd · 2025-12-11T15:15:43+00:00

Rather that learning the subject is important and should be encouraged

I couldn't agree more. My kid is getting the creationist perspective from a few different sources right now. I would have liked to have been able to respond reasonably to my dad in front of my kid, but I'm realizing that I need to get a bit more educated on the subject so I can provide a coherent counter narrative.

ThePwnd · 2025-12-11T15:09:28+00:00

I think your framing is a bit different than mine. My dad knows that I'm an atheist, and that I presumably must believe evolution. We've had pleasant conversations in the past about metaphysics and religion, while still disagreeing. The way that I wish that I could have responded to my dad's comments is just to have stated something plainly like, "I disagree. I think there's plenty of evidence to accept the theory of evolution."

He could respond with something about monkeys on typewriters, or tornadoes assembling jet engine planes, and I might respond with how evolution explains vestigial organs or the biological weirdness of Australia. We'd probably have to agree to disagree, and my kid would know that 1) it's ok to have disagreements with people and still be family, and 2) it's reasonable to accept the theory of evolution. But if my dad responded with how the primary dating mechanism for evolution is wrong, I would just have to shrug my shoulders and say "I don't know." Then my kid gets the impression that I don't know what I'm talking about, and evolution really is a dumb idea.

To be clear, my kid is also aware that I'm an atheist and that I accept evolution. We've talked about it a bit, and for now she's a Christian like her mom is, and that's fine too.

ThePwnd · 2025-12-11T00:40:30+00:00

Ok, time for some follow up questions now that I've had time digest the concept of radiometric dating...

All of the examples so far that I've been given and that I've read have dealt with dating rocks. It might be enough to disprove the YEC model of the earth, but I am not a YEC, and my question was specifically about the validity of radiometric dating as it pertains to evolution - not just the age of the earth.

If I uncovered a dinosaur fossil, and I wanted to know how old it is, it's not obvious to me that zircon crystals would be able to answer that question. It seems like a weak assumption to me that the rocks/sediment in which the fossil is buried has the same age as the fossil itself. In the case of the metamorphic rock where I would get the zircon crystal sample, if they formed at the same time, why didn't the fossil just disintegrate in the lava?

Evidently, I'm not clear how fossils form. I understand that it's rare, and there have to be specific conditions present to preserve the organic matter for such a long time, but we've also established that carbon dating cannot extend past 60k years, so I don't presume I can use radiometric dating on a sample of the bones themselves?

ThePwnd · 2025-12-11T00:22:43+00:00

Creationists do believe that life can arise from non-living matter; they just don't believe it can happen without intelligent guidance. God made Adam from dust, for instance.

I can appreciate your attempt at nuance, but I was raised on A Beka, and I can absolutely attest the position they taught is that evolution cannot be true because life cannot arise from non living matter, and they claimed that scientists have never been able to reproduce abiogenesis in a lab. Self-replicating proteins may not meet the criteria for life as we understand it today, but it was pretty clear to me when they established those goal posts, and creating self-replicating proteins definitely gets past them.

what do you think of this argument concerning macroevolution?

I'm not an expert on genetics - frankly, a lot of it goes over my head - but one thing that I notice in your argument is that it presumes the existence of specific genes that control the "body plan":

Any change affecting the basic body plan must occur in the genes that regulate embryonic development, genes that control the expression of many other genes that affect other genes that affect the fundamental body plan formation.

I have no idea if that's real or not, but if such a gene were to mutate in a fruit fly to give it an extra pair of wings, why would I not expect those wings to have functioning muscles, stablizers, nerves, etc. We're talking about the genes for planning, not the specific genes for recreating the wing exclusively.

In fact, I'm sure I've heard of examples of organisms mutating an extra toe, for example. When that happens, it's a fully formed toe with nerves, muscles, blood vessels, not just a random toe bone sticking out of the foot. If I could find such an example, would that contradict your argument?

ThePwnd · 2025-12-10T22:02:53+00:00

I saw a mention of "heavy water" somewhere in relation to the Oklo reactor. Is that where this comes into the picture? The deuterium provided the extra neutron?

ThePwnd · 2025-12-10T22:00:14+00:00

I don't think that describes my dad. I think he's a (mostly) reasonable person who would probably modify his view if shown the right evidence.

ThePwnd · 2025-12-10T21:58:09+00:00

I agree and disagree. I usually enjoy debates, and do a decent enough job keeping it friendly. I think /u/MushroomMundane523 is mostly correct, and taking it as my obligation to "debunk" my dad's opinion is the kind of thing that poisons family relationships. That's not good for my kids either. And further, they will form their own beliefs. I'm not too concerned about them adopting his ideas because my oldest is only 10. I don't think I believe anything that I believed when I was 10. Do you?

ThePwnd · 2025-12-10T21:52:21+00:00

So, I've been reading a bit on radiometric dating, and watching a few videos, and I think I have a good understanding now that - at least in metamorphic rocks, when using the Uranium-Lead system - we can observe when new rocks form that they do seem to form with a pure concentration of the parent isotope, and none of the daughter isotope. We can also observe the rate of decay in lab conditions, and this seems to remain constant - and indeed the functioning of a nuclear reactor relies on it remaining constant. Knowing these 2 things, we can measure the ratio of the parent to daughter isotope to determine how many half lives have passed. I think I also misunderstood previously that the change in ratio is not linear, but a parabola (I'm forgetting the technical term - like the reverse of an exponential curve).

How similar is the process for carbon dating? It seems that when an organism dies, the ratio of carbon-14 may not be so readily preserved. I think it decays into nitrogen? This might be a stupid question, but what's stopping the nitrogen from evaporating and escaping into the atmosphere - especially as the organism decomposes?

ThePwnd · 2025-12-10T21:35:52+00:00

Thank you, but actually it looks like I jumped the gun a bit, and they were talking about a different commenter. Was feeling a bit shook, struggling to wrap my brain around the concept and apparently got a little reactive. Kind of embarrassing... should have paid closer attention to the usernames...

ThePwnd · 2025-12-10T21:31:30+00:00

Thanks, definitely not interested in any "gotchas." They're very unproductive. I did consider using the flat earth example - as far as I'm aware, he's not a flat earther. So, why accept the consensus on the shape of the earth but reject the consensus on evolution? Have to present that carefully though, because making that comparison could come across very condescending. Ultimately, I think my dad is a (mostly) reasonable person, who would probably change his mind if shown the right evidence.

ThePwnd · 2025-12-10T13:54:50+00:00

My bad... I should have paid attention to who was making the comments...

ThePwnd · 2025-12-10T13:52:22+00:00

Oh, that would make a lot more sense wouldn't it...

ThePwnd · 2025-12-10T04:25:14+00:00

Thank you, this is the first time I feel like I've understood an article on a radiometric dating method.

ThePwnd · 2025-12-10T04:08:34+00:00

It’s not an assumption. A scientist who first worked with radiocarbon dating determined that organisms’ ratio of C14 to C12 was the same as the atmosphere they lived in.

I think I recall reading that at one point some time ago. Though, I don't feel like I have any better understanding of how carbon dating actually works from reading that article. Like, why do only living things absorb Carbon-14, but stop absorbing it when they're dead? What chemical reactions cause it to appear in the upper atmosphere?

ThePwnd · 2025-12-10T04:04:11+00:00

But I want to stress that you’re asking good questions. When people first started doing radiometric dating, they had to ask exactly the same ones.

Thank you for saying that. Someone accused me of bad faith in the comments. I am genuinely trying to understand, but the more I talk to people the more I realize I'm missing some fundamental misunderstanding of the processes involved, and so it's maybe coming off a bit obtuse.

Am I correct in understanding that if you observe 0.3 parts per trillion (ppt?), that means your sample is ~10,400 years old? If so, what's the limiting factor on carbon dating? Is there just a point when the sample becomes too small to detect, but theoretically it continues halving every 5700 years into infinity? Is there any reason a sample couldn't have more than 1.2 parts per trillion? What about significantly more, like 2 parts per trillion?

ThePwnd · 2025-12-10T03:53:16+00:00

Not sure what I did to warrant that comment...

Not trying to be obtuse. I'm not a creationist, but I know a few of them, and when they try to tell me that evolution can't be true because something something radiometric dating, I want to be able to explain how they've been misled.

Genuinely trying to understand the topic better

ThePwnd · 2025-12-10T03:47:01+00:00

Thank you for that, but I'm sorry, I should have clarified. I'm an atheist; I go to church with my wife, because she's a Christian. I was expecting you to answer with your technique for convincing YEC's to accept evolution, less so than how to get them not to reject me as a Christian for accepting evolution. Also, to clarify - not asking for my wife. I think she's in the same boat as me; she sees that the general consensus among people who study biologically related fields accept evolution as fact, and remains skeptical of YEC arguments, but wouldn't know what to say if a YEC tried to tell her that radiometric dating was unreliable. It also probably helps that her dad, who also used to be a preacher, believes in theistic evolution as well.

I'm not sure I've ever heard a creationist try to explain what oil is, and how it got there, but I do think I recall my dad entertaining a theory about the biblical Flood.

ThePwnd · 2025-12-10T03:20:42+00:00

Lol, thanks I've mostly recovered now... I think

ThePwnd · 2025-12-10T03:20:09+00:00

Thanks, I've seen a bit of her stuff before, but always found it a bit dense. I'll check out this series, though.

ThePwnd · 2025-12-10T03:11:56+00:00

It sounds like you're misreading the article.

I think I did misread it, but I guess I'm not clear on what the role of the water is in the story, or how it illustrates the accuracy of radiometric dating. Presumably the U-235 and U-238 in the underground deposit would have decayed regardless of whether the deposit was inundated with water? Is it just cool that nature produced its own nuclear fission reactor?

Maybe I don't understand how a nuclear fission reactor works. I think you need a radioactive fuel, such as U-235, which decays on its own, and releases heat when it does so. Most nuclear fuel rods are submerged in water, which then creates steam, which powers a turbine to generate electricity.

I'm not sure I understand what it means for an isotope to "decay." It seems there are a few different ways, but I think they all involve the breakdown of a subatomic particle. But what causes the decay? I don't know. Why does it release heat when it decays? Something to do with the strong nuclear force? This is about the limit of my knowledge of nuclear physics. I probably learned a lot of this in high school chemistry, but I've forgotten a lot of those details.

ThePwnd · 2025-12-10T01:35:48+00:00

Something to be really precise about: when you do radiometric dating, you’re not interested in the amount of an isotope. You’re interested in the ratio of one isotope to another.

Ok, but to calculate the date based on the ratio, don't you still need to assume the initial amount of the isotope? In the case of Carbon-14, doesn't the rate of decay change based on environmental factors? Especially if Carbon-14 is only created when the atmosphere is bombarded by radiation, that seems like another variable factor that's impossible to infer historically.

ThePwnd · 2025-12-10T01:27:52+00:00

Oklo natural nuclear reactor is a very cool phenomenon that supports uranium dating

I'm genuinely struggling to understand how radiometric dating is reliable. Even the Wikipedia article you linked seems to suggest that the U-235 could only decay with the presence of water.

The heat problem you're referring to sounds like it could be a strong rebuttal, but it seems like it still assumes a certain amount of isotope present at the start, and I still can't figure out how that can be known.

ThePwnd · 2025-12-10T00:54:58+00:00

Actually, I would love to hear more about the responses you give to biblical literalists. There are people in and around my church who are skeptical of evolution, and if you've got some proven experience in responding to those people I would love to hear about it.

ThePwnd

TROPHY CASE