|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Radiometric Decay constant? - 3/23/2008 12:32:22 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2582
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: online
|
Greetings,
Does anyone know of any work done with the measurement of radiometric decay that has been able to slow or speed up the process? In other words, have there been any tests performed that have successfully changed the rate of decay of any radioactive isotopes?
Beyond that specific request, what I am after is determining the problems with radiometric dating.
< Message edited by ManimalX -- 3/23/2008 12:38:34 AM >
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric Decay constant? - 3/23/2008 9:21:16 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 3033
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
So far, electron capture is the only form of radioactive decay found to change rate when subjected to extremes of heat, pressure, or chemical environment. At that, it's only been found to change by a small amount: the decay of Beryllium-7 has been changed up to 1.7% with certain chemicals, and only to a fraction of a percent with extreme pressures. For the purposes of dating, heavier elements are less susceptible to these manipulations. K-Ar decay usually occurs through electron capture, but the atomic mass of the Potassium isotope used is 40, so it would experience less variation than a lighter element such as Beryllium. Furthermore, there is a linear (not exponential) relationship between any error in our half-life value and the final computed age, i.e. if the value we use for the half-life of an isotope is off by 2%, the final computed date will only be off by 2%.
This is probably one of the best web sites you'll find addressing this very issue.
If you can get past the bias, TalkOrigins is usually a good source of info (or at least a good source of avenues to explore). For example: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric Decay constant? - 3/23/2008 11:42:30 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
I think the main problem with radiometric dating is you're assuming to know the initial state of the rock which assumes to know how the rock formed. No matter what state the rock (or a planet) is in now, one can assume it started in a state that would make it whatever age they want it to be. They assume the earth started as a hot molten mass and cooled over billions of years and that all rocks started as lava and cooled (and that's how it all formed). However, www.halos.com offers evidence suggesting that the earth cooled rapidly and if this is so it would make the earth look older under the assumption that the earth cooled slowly. So the assumptions you make about the initial state of the earth/universe and how they formed make a difference here and naturalists naturally like to interpret the evidence in terms of an old universe/earth so they assume an initial state that would make it old.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 3/23/2008 11:56:00 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric Decay constant? - 3/23/2008 12:21:55 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 267
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
I think the main problem with radiometric dating is you're assuming to know the initial state of the rock which assumes to know how the rock formed.
These assumptions are not very extravagant. Nonetheless, using these assumptions, a very consistent chronology of the earth has been built up, using multiple dating techniques. For these methods to all produce ages that point to a 4.5 billion year old earth would require a huge coincidence.
quote:
However, www.halos.com offers evidence suggesting...
The radiohaloes can be better explained by being the result of radon rather than polonium. The fact that many of the haloes are clearly along cracks in the rock suggests that they are the result of the accumulation of a gas (like radon) rather than polonium. This takes care of the apparent discrepancy.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric Decay constant? - 3/23/2008 12:47:13 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
Another thing I forgot to mention is that rocks maybe subject to contamination.
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
These assumptions are not very extravagant. Nonetheless, using these assumptions, a very consistent chronology of the earth has been built up, using multiple dating techniques. For these methods to all produce ages that point to a 4.5 billion year old earth would require a huge coincidence.
That's not to say it's impossible to make consistent chronologies using different assumptions as well. It's not a matter of coincidence, it's a matter of creating some chronology based on certain assumptions. I can refer you to various (consistent) chronologies made with creationist assumptions but just because one can make a chronology using creationist or naturalist assumptions does not make the assumptions correct. Unless you have seen the universe form, you're assuming to know the initial state of the universe (and how it formed) when dating an object.
quote:
The fact that many of the haloes are clearly along cracks in the rock suggests that they are the result of the accumulation of a gas (like radon) rather than polonium. This takes care of the apparent discrepancy.
Gentry addresses these arguments in his book. There are many instances where these halos are not along cracks and there is no apparent entrance for them to have entered. If anyone is interested, they can read the book. He addresses most of the arguments against him.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 3/23/2008 12:58:24 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric Decay constant? - 3/23/2008 1:30:38 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
Sometimes, two different non - creationists OETs may have two conflicting chronologies and two conflicting chronologies can't both be correct (suggesting that OET chronologies can be incorrect). Other things to consider is that often times newer findings overturn older chronologies, further demonstrating that it's possible for old earth chronologies to be incorrect. For instance, in the post Stasis as criticism of evolution ( http://forums.crosswalk.com/Stasis_as_criticism_of_evolution/m_3062242/mpage_1/tm.htm ) Jhud listed findings that pushed back the chronology of horseshoe crabs and other organisms showing that it's possible for OET chronologies to be inaccurate. If the old chronologies were inaccurate despite the fact that it was possible at the time to create an old earth chronology, why should I believe the new chronology is accurate just because one can create an OET chronology now? There is nothing to suggest a chronology must be accurate just because it's an OET chronology or that just because one can create an OET chronology the earth must be old. OET chronologies have been shown to be incorrect in the past even though it was possible to make an inaccurate OET chronology. Who's to say the new chronology is accurate just because one can invent some chronology. The fact that someone can invent some OET chronology does not make that chronology accurate and it does not make the earth old.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 3/23/2008 1:45:05 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric Decay constant? - 3/23/2008 2:05:36 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 267
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
It's not a matter of coincidence
For a little more info on assumptions and coincidences, I refer people to my previous post.
quote:
in the post Stasis as criticism of evolution
The revision of chronology in that thread has nothing to do with a problem with radiometric dating.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric Decay constant? - 3/23/2008 2:13:44 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
For a little more info on assumptions and coincidences, I refer people to my previous post.
That post still does not address the assumptions made.
quote:
The revision of chronology in that thread has nothing to do with a problem with radiometric dating.
You were the one that brought up chronology claiming that a "consistent" chronology is evidence for an old earth and I was merely showing that just because one can invent some chronology does not mean the chronology is accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric Decay constant? - 3/23/2008 9:14:44 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 3033
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
I think the main problem with radiometric dating is you're assuming to know the initial state of the rock which assumes to know how the rock formed.
This is not the case with all radiometric dating methods. In some cases, scientists can show what the initial state of the rock was; in other cases, scientists can compensate for any daughter product that was either present at the formation of the rock or introduced via contamination. The best method(s) for testing any particular sample depend on a number of factors. Though I'm sure it's been pointed out to you in the past, this site goes into quite a bit of detail regarding the various dating methods, including what assumptions (if any) are made and how they correct for any potential errors.
quote:
Jhud listed findings that pushed back the chronology of horseshoe crabs and other organisms showing that it's possible for OET chronologies to be inaccurate. If the old chronologies were inaccurate despite the fact that it was possible at the time to create an old earth chronology, why should I believe the new chronology is accurate just because one can create an OET chronology now? There is nothing to suggest a chronology must be accurate just because it's an OET chronology or that just because one can create an OET chronology the earth must be old. OET chronologies have been shown to be incorrect in the past even though it was possible to make an inaccurate OET chronology. Who's to say the new chronology is accurate just because one can invent some chronology. The fact that someone can invent some OET chronology does not make that chronology accurate and it does not make the earth old.
No honest scientist would say that we are 100% sure of the exact date of any prehistoric event. The whole point of science is to learn new things and refine our understanding of nature - to find out where we're wrong. You're essentially suggesting that because we found better information about one branch of science, we can throw out a ton of other information from a bunch of other loosely-related fields. By your logic, when the precession of Mercury's perihelion didn't match with Newton's predictions, the whole notion of gravity should have been tossed.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric Decay constant? - 3/29/2008 1:45:01 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
This is not the case with all radiometric dating methods.
This is only not the case if they saw the rock form.
quote:
In some cases, scientists can show what the initial state of the rock was;
They can assume what it was. They can't show what it was unless they watched the rock form.
quote:
in other cases, scientists can compensate for any daughter product that was either present at the formation of the rock or introduced via contamination. The best method(s) for testing any particular sample depend on a number of factors. Though I'm sure it's been pointed out to you in the past, this site goes into quite a bit of detail regarding the various dating methods, including what assumptions (if any) are made and how they correct for any potential errors.
Unless they watched the rock form, they're still assuming initial state.
quote:
No honest scientist would say that we are 100% sure of the exact date of any prehistoric event.
I never said they would say that. I am merely pointing out that just because one can make a "consistent" chronology with old earth assumptions does not make the model correct and it does not make the earth old.
quote:
The whole point of science is to learn new things and refine our understanding of nature - to find out where we're wrong.
I don't disagree with this. The problem is that the secular community tries to find out where they're wrong within OET assumptions. This is not evidence for an old earth. A YEC can do the same (try to find out where he's wrong within his YEC assumptions) and this does not make the earth young.
quote:
You're essentially suggesting that because we found better information about one branch of science, we can throw out a ton of other information from a bunch of other loosely-related fields.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm merely pointing out that just because one can create a "consistent" chronology making OET assumptions this does not make the earth old.
quote:
By your logic, when the precession of Mercury's perihelion didn't match with Newton's predictions, the whole notion of gravity should have been tossed.
-Dan.
This is not true by my logic. I am merely pointing out that a model based on OET assumptions is not evidence for an old earth. One can make a model with YEC assumptions just as well, this is not evidence for a young earth. The model/chronology itself is not evidence. I can make a "consistent" model explaining how undetectable magic fairy dust causes the earth to rotate. The model itself is not evidence and just because one can make a model of something does not make the model correct.
The problem here is that you are misapplying my logic. We may say that Newton's model is scientifically supported because there is evidence for his model, not because the model is evidence for itself. The model is not evidence for the notion that F = M * A, the observational evidence is evidence for this aspect of his model. Saying that Newton's model is scientifically supported because the model is evidence for itself is nonsense. essentialsaltes is arguing that an OET chronology/model is evidence for itself and that the model is evidence for an old earth. Just like the notion that Newtons model is evidence for itself (or any aspect of his model) is nonsense, the notion that an OET chronology/model is evidence for itself is also nonsense. Newtons model is not evidence for itself but there is/maybe evidence for Newtons model. Newtons model does not refer to itself as evidence for itself. essentialsaltes is having a chronology/model refer to itself as evidence for itself, and this is nonsense.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 3/29/2008 2:42:33 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric Decay constant? - 3/29/2008 3:27:23 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 3033
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
This is not the case with all radiometric dating methods.
This is only not the case if they saw the rock form.
quote:
In some cases, scientists can show what the initial state of the rock was;
They can assume what it was. They can't show what it was unless they watched the rock form.
quote:
in other cases, scientists can compensate for any daughter product that was either present at the formation of the rock or introduced via contamination. The best method(s) for testing any particular sample depend on a number of factors. Though I'm sure it's been pointed out to you in the past, this site goes into quite a bit of detail regarding the various dating methods, including what assumptions (if any) are made and how they correct for any potential errors.
Unless they watched the rock form, they're still assuming initial state.
Did you even bother to read the article that I posted TWICE? The entire first half talked about how scientists can look at what's there now and figure out what the rocks looked like when they first cooled. It's not wild speculation; it's math and physics.
In case you missed it, here it is again: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric Decay constant? - 3/29/2008 10:23:17 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
Did you even bother to read the article that I posted TWICE?
I don't care how many times you posted it, it doesn't make it correct.
quote:
The entire first half talked about how scientists can look at what's there now and figure out what the rocks looked like when they first cooled. It's not wild speculation; it's math and physics.
It is speculation, they're assuming the initial state of the rock and then they speculate how the rock formed based on that assumption. They look at what there is now, assume OET, and based on that assumption, they speculate the initial state and how it formed. You still haven't addressed the assumptions made. They assume the rock started out in a hot molten mass (because that's consistent with OET) they assume to know how much parent elements and "daughter" elements it started out with, etc... they assume an initial state that makes the rock whatever age they want and then they work from there. The assumptions made about the initial state of the rock and how it formed are not math and physics, they're speculation. They apply math and physics within their own models but just because people apply math and physics to a model does not make the model correct. A YEC can apply math and physics to his model, Gentry applies it to his YEC cosmological model and a YEC may also apply math and physics to their models just as well. Just because one can apply math and physics to a model does not make the model correct. When/if old (OET) cosmological models get overturned by new ones, the people who made the old models may have applied math and physics to them, but their models still got overturned. Competing OET models may both apply math and physics, but if both models contradict each other they can't both be correct. The fact that one can apply math and physics to some model does not make the model correct. The fact remains, you haven't addressed the assumptions made, you just applied math and physics within the assumptions your model makes.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 3/29/2008 10:39:26 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric Decay constant? - 3/29/2008 11:06:32 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 267
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
I never said they would say that. I am merely pointing out that just because one can make a "consistent" chronology with old earth assumptions does not make the model correct and it does not make the earth old. ... essentialsaltes is having a chronology/model refer to itself as evidence for itself, and this is nonsense.
Although you disparage the consistency of geochronology, this is its strength. It's not the model I'm pointing to, when I point to consistency, it is the data. The data show that...
Rocks from the Pre-Cambrian have more daughter elements in them than similar rocks from the Quaternary. Indeed, one can build up the entire geologic column with a slow gradation from more daughter element to less daughter element. This is a consistent order, bolstered by 'ordinary' geology, which has built up the geologic column based on the ordering of layers. If I've learned anything from this forum, it's that order can't just come from nothing. The standard view, which builds on laboratory experiments with radioactive nuclei, provides an explanation for this order. The accumulation of daughter elements is a process that takes time. Using different radiometric methods, the same rock layer gives the same age. This provides extra confidence that our radiometric 'clocks' are running at the correct rates.
Any alternative explanation needs to explain the same data as well as this one.
You state that "One can make a model with YEC assumptions just as well." What would that model look like? The standard assumption in YEC is that "the entire earth is 6-10,000 years old." But that just begs the question by assuming the answer. It ignores the evidence; it ignores the order. What kind of YEC model would explain the evidence?
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric Decay constant? - 3/29/2008 11:16:27 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Rocks from the Pre-Cambrian have more daughter elements in them than similar rocks from the Quaternary.
Or, perhaps rocks with a certain amount of daughter elements are said to be from the Pre-Cambrian. They date the rocks based on the daughter elements and they assume the era based on the date (among other things).
quote:
Indeed, one can build up the entire geologic column with a slow gradation from more daughter element to less daughter element.
Again, you still haven't addressed the assumptions made.
quote:
This is a consistent order, bolstered by 'ordinary' geology, which has built up the geologic column based on the ordering of layers.
The date of the rocks is (partly) how they order the layers.
quote:
If I've learned anything from this forum, it's that order can't just come from nothing. The standard view, which builds on laboratory experiments with radioactive nuclei, provides an explanation for this order.
No, it assumes an order that makes the earth old exists and orders the rocks based on how old they perceive the rocks to be.
quote:
You state that "One can make a model with YEC assumptions just as well." What would that model look like? The standard assumption in YEC is that "the entire earth is 6-10,000 years old." But that just begs the question by assuming the answer. It ignores the evidence; it ignores the order. What kind of YEC model would explain the evidence?
It does not ignore the evidence, it explains the evidence with different assumptions. Gentry's YEC model explains the evidence with different assumptions and so do other YEC models.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 3/29/2008 11:22:56 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric Decay constant? - 3/29/2008 11:55:31 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 267
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
This is a consistent order, bolstered by 'ordinary' geology, which has built up the geologic column based on the ordering of layers.
The date of the rocks is (partly) how they order the layers.
Lyell and others who developed the geologic column did so before the discovery of radioactivity.
quote:
No, it assumes an order that makes the earth old exists and orders the rocks based on how old they perceive the rocks to be.
No, the order (in terms of the different proportions of daughter elements correlating with different positions in the geologic column) exists. Geology/physics provides an explanation for that order.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric Decay constant? - 3/29/2008 11:59:44 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Lyell and others who developed the geologic column did so before the discovery of radioactivity.
The position in the geologic column is partly assumed based on the proportion of daughter elements.
quote:
No, the order (in terms of the different proportions of daughter elements correlating with different positions in the geologic column) exists. Geology/physics provides an explanation for that order.
No, the order is created based (partly) on assumptions that different proportions of daughter elements correspond to different positions within the geologic column.
For more problems with the assumptions behind radiometric dating one can visit
http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp#How%20radiometric%20dating%20works%20in%20general
quote:
The first problem was that the results were so disarranged from bottom to top of the core that no two samples were in the correct order. Then the oldest date was discarded because it was ‘inconsistent’ with other tests elsewhere. Next the remaining dates were assumed to be contaminated by a fixed amount, after which the authors concluded that the delta under study had been formed 12,000 years ago (Hopkins, 1967, p.110-111).
Basically, when these OET scientists date a bunch of rocks and they date a rock that is inconsistent with their expectancies (or with other rocks around it or with how they perceive the age should be based on surrounding rocks and layers), they assume it to be contaminated. By doing this, they assume away any discrepancies.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 3/29/2008 12:17:34 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric Decay constant? - 3/29/2008 12:10:46 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 3033
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
Did you even bother to read the article that I posted TWICE?
I don't care how many times you posted it, it doesn't make it correct.
quote:
The entire first half talked about how scientists can look at what's there now and figure out what the rocks looked like when they first cooled. It's not wild speculation; it's math and physics.
It is speculation, they're assuming the initial state of the rock and then they speculate how the rock formed based on that assumption.
What's the alternative? Is your position that is was created to look old? Or is your position that it doesn't look old?
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric Decay constant? - 3/29/2008 12:14:26 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
What's the alternative? Is your position that is was created to look old? Or is your position that it doesn't look old?
-Dan.
My position is not that it was created to look old, my position is that the earth is assumed to be old and the initial state of these rocks are interpreted within that framework. I am not saying that it looks old or that it looks young, just that the assumptions you make about its initial state and how it formed impact how old it would be and an OET will naturally make assumptions that make the earth old.
I even acknowledge that there is evidence that is difficult to explain within a 6,000 K earth (the evidence Bede pointed out) and I came up with an explanation showing that YEC can accommodate the evidence (Perhaps a record was created for us to know how the earth would have looked had it been a few hundred thousand years old because we can use this record to see how the chemistry of the earth should change as the earth progresses through different phases of the Milankovitch cycles. This can be useful in terms of environmental analysis to see how we are affecting the environment and how we can preserve it), but this is not what YEC would predict. I don't have problems with accepting that there is evidence difficult to explain within a young earth (I agree the Milankovitch cycles being recorded in ice core samples is better explained within an earth older than 6K) but I just think that radiometric dating is not good evidence for an old earth.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 3/29/2008 12:31:07 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric Decay constant? - 3/29/2008 1:35:05 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 267
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Lyell and others who developed the geologic column did so before the discovery of radioactivity.
The position in the geologic column is partly assumed based on the proportion of daughter elements.
No, the geologic column was already figured out before the discovery of radioactivity. The concept of daughter elements didn't exist.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric Decay constant? - 3/29/2008 1:41:51 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
No, the geologic column was already figured out before the discovery of radioactivity. The concept of daughter elements didn't exist.
Certain aspects of it were "figured out" (or assumed). If one dates any two rocks next to each other, one may find that they both give different dates. What OET scientists do is they deem the rock that is not consistent with their presupposed date as contaminated to assume away any inconsistencies.
quote:
It is rare for a study involving radiometric dating to contain a single determination of age. Usually determinations of age are repeated to avoid laboratory errors, are obtained on more than one rock unit or more than one mineral from a rock unit in order to provide a cross-check, or are evaluated using other geologic information that can be used to test and corroborate the radiometric ages. Scientists who use radiometric dating typically use every means at their disposal to check, recheck, and verify their results, and the more important the results the more they are apt to be checked and rechecked by others.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol20/4180_radiometeric_dating_does_work_12_30_1899.asp
If radiometric dating were accurate, determinants of age would not need to be evaluated using other geologic information. They would be able to date the rocks independently of other geologic information and the dates should independently be consistent with other geologic information. The reason they must use other geologic information is because sometimes the dates they receive are not consistent with what they perceive they should be based on other geologic information so they assume a particular rock gave an incorrect date (due to contamination or whatever) and they date other rocks until they find some rock that yields a date consistent with their presumed date (based on other geological information). So you claim that this consistency is evidence for an old earth, but it's not. The consistency is artificially selected for by the people dating the rocks, they select rocks that are consistent with their presupposed dates based on other geologic information and OET.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 3/29/2008 2:00:32 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric Decay constant? - 3/29/2008 3:42:06 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 267
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
If radiometric dating were accurate, determinants of age would not need to be evaluated using other geologic information.
No, that would be true if radiometric dating were perfect. No one claims that; however, as your source concludes:
"In this short paper I have briefly described 4 examples of radiometric dating studies where there is both internal and independent evidence that the results have yielded valid ages for significant geologic events. It is these studies, and the many more like them documented in the scientific literature, that the creationists need to address before they can discredit radiometric dating. Their odds of success are near zero. Even if against all odds they should succeed, it still would not prove that the Earth is young. Only when young-earth creationists produce convincing quantitative, scientific evidence that the earth is young will they be worth listening to on this important scientific matter."
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric Decay constant? - 3/29/2008 3:57:27 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 860
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
If radiometric dating were accurate, determinants of age would not need to be evaluated using other geologic information.
No, that would be true if radiometric dating were perfect. No one claims that; however, as your source concludes:
Honestly, I'm so frustrated by this topic. It honestly drives me mad. Is there any scientific paper on how radiometric dating is done? Like something written by someone who performs radiometric dating? I don't care if its in a book or a science article that I'll have to order through the library. I'm so sick of hearing from OE that there are reasonable assumptions and accurate dating methods and from YE that there are a ton of unreasonable assumptions and that the dates are "selected" rather than determined. Please someone end this madness.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric Decay constant? - 3/29/2008 4:17:13 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
No, that would be true if radiometric dating were perfect.
It would be true if radiometric dating were accurate. If radiometric dating were accurate it should yield accurate and consistent dates independently of other information. The problem is that radiometric dating makes assumptions.
quote:
No one claims that; however, as your source concludes:
I do not necessarily have to agree with the conclusion of my source and neither do I have to agree with everything it says to agree with some things that it says.
quote:
"In this short paper I have briefly described 4 examples of radiometric dating studies where there is both internal and independent evidence that the results have yielded valid ages for significant geologic events.
"Valid" either based on OET assumptions or with foreknowledge of the events (ie: already knowing when the events happened before dating something). Radiometric dating must prove consistent with other geological information (and other information) independently of that information. Dating something when you already know how old it is does not count.
quote:
It is these studies, and the many more like them documented in the scientific literature, that the creationists need to address before they can discredit radiometric dating. Their odds of success are near zero. Even if against all odds they should succeed, it still would not prove that the Earth is young. Only when young-earth creationists produce convincing quantitative, scientific evidence that the earth is young will they be worth listening to on this important scientific matter."
Even if true, none of this addresses the assumptions that radiometric dating makes.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 3/29/2008 5:09:41 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric Decay constant? - 3/29/2008 8:50:25 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 267
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Honestly, I'm so frustrated by this topic. It honestly drives me mad. Is there any scientific paper on how radiometric dating is done? Like something written by someone who performs radiometric dating? I don't care if its in a book or a science article that I'll have to order through the library. I'm so sick of hearing from OE that there are reasonable assumptions and accurate dating methods and from YE that there are a ton of unreasonable assumptions and that the dates are "selected" rather than determined. Please someone end this madness.
This site is about radiocarbon dating, written by people from the Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory at the University of Waikato, New Zealand.
Actual papers tend to be pretty dense, discussing results rather than methods.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric Decay constant? - 3/30/2008 2:11:22 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 860
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Honestly, I'm so frustrated by this topic. It honestly drives me mad. Is there any scientific paper on how radiometric dating is done? Like something written by someone who performs radiometric dating? I don't care if its in a book or a science article that I'll have to order through the library. I'm so sick of hearing from OE that there are reasonable assumptions and accurate dating methods and from YE that there are a ton of unreasonable assumptions and that the dates are "selected" rather than determined. Please someone end this madness.
This site is about radiocarbon dating, written by people from the Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory at the University of Waikato, New Zealand.
Actual papers tend to be pretty dense, discussing results rather than methods.
Thanks, ES
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
