Radiometric Dating For Sonic.

Sonic,I put this together to show the ridiculous claims of YEC's regarding radiometric dating.It deals with four radiometric dating methods dating K-T tektites that corroborate a 65 m.y. age, & the implications of rationale & reason, with respect to maintaining a YEC 6,000 year old earth world view based on the odds involved. Brent DalrympleThere are four different examples in the cite above, including an accurate dating of the mount vesuvius eruption. Not bad for a "theoretical" dating method, eh? But on to my main point.The K-T TektitesOne of the most exciting and important scientific findings in decades was the 1980 discovery that a large asteroid, about 10 kilometers diameter, struck the earth at the end of the Cretaceous Period. The collision threw many tons of debris into the atmosphere and possibly led to the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other life forms. The fallout from this enormous impact, including shocked quartz and high concentrations of the element iridium, has been found in sedimentary rocks at more than 100 locations worldwide at the precise stratigraphic location of the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary (Alvarez and Asaro 1990; Alvarez 1998). We now know that the impact site is located on the Yucatan Peninsula. Measuring the age of this impact event independently of the stratigraphic evidence is an obvious test for radiometric methods, and a number of scientists in laboratories around the world set to work.In addition to shocked quartz grains and high concentrations of iridium, the K-T impact produced tektites, which are small glass spherules that form from rock that is instantaneously melted by a large impact. The K-T tektites were ejected into the atmosphere and deposited some distance away. Tektites are easily recognizable and form in no other way, so the discovery of a sedimentary bed (the Beloc Formation) in Haiti that contained tektites and that, from fossil evidence, coincided with the K-T boundary provided an obvious candidate for dating. Scientists from the US Geological Survey were the first to obtain radiometric ages for the tektites and laboratories in Berkeley, Stanford, Canada, and France soon followed suit. The results from all of the laboratories were remarkably consistent with the measured ages ranging only from 64.4 to 65.1 Ma (Table 2). Similar tektites were also found in Mexico, and the Berkeley lab found that they were the same age as the Haiti tektites. But the story doesn’t end there.The K-T boundary is recorded in numerous sedimentary beds around the world. The Z-coal, the Ferris coal, and the Nevis coal in Montana and Saskatchewan all occur immediately above the K-T boundary. Numerous thin beds of volcanic ash occur within these coals just centimeters above the K-T boundary, and some of these ash beds contain minerals that can be dated radiometrically. Ash beds from each of these coals have been dated by 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb methods in several laboratories in the US and Canada. Since both the ash beds and the tektites occur either at or very near the K-T boundary, as determined by diagnostic fossils, the tektites and the ash beds should be very nearly the same age, and they are (Table 2).There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible.1/So the K-T Tektites were dated by no less than four methods, that corroborate. 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb . If that weren't evidence enough, lets take a look at how inaccurate they all must be, to fit a YEC world view. The lower age given is 64.4 mya. Now, assuming a 6,000 year old YEC earth is what YECs perceive as 100% of available time, then 60 years is 1%. This means that all the above methods, were ALL (1,085,000-100 = ) 1,084,900% inaccurate. Let me reiterate, the YECs requires these FOUR different, corroborating methods to be over ONE MILLION PERCENT INACCURATE.2/The range of dates is from 64.4 mya to 65.1 mya giving a 0.7 my range.
64.4/0.7 = 92 (Not taking the 65.1 m.y. figure to be as favourable as possible to YECs)
The range of error is 92 times smaller than the minimum given date, giving us usable increments of time. Probablistically speaking, we basically have four 92 sided dice. What are the odds of all four dice rolling a 92? On the familiar 6 sided die, the chance of rolling two sixes (or any two numbers, for that matter) is 6^2 = 36:1 (Number of sides to the nth power where nth = number of die).Therefore, the odds of four radiometric dating methods reaching the same date range by chance is..drum roll..92^4 (92*92*92*92)= 71,639,296:1Is there any YEC that is prepared to state that the four radiometric dating methods achieve their high level of corroboration by pure chance?If not, how much of the 65 m.y. old figure do you attribute to chance, & how much to radiometric half lives contributing to the derived date, percentage wise?Here is your dilemma. The error required by the radiometric methods are 1,084,900% to fit a YEC 6,000 year old view. If they accept that the methods are capable of not being in error by more than 1,084,000%, then they accept a 60,000 year old earth, minimum. So, saying that half lives contribute only 1% to any derived radiometric date, means in this case (1% of 65,000,000 is 650,000 years), so even this small contribution by half lives falsifies a YEC young earth.3/The chance of all four methods being off by (chance) 64,400,000 years when the result SHOULD have been 6,000 years is truly staggering.
64,400,000/6,000 = 10,733.33 recurring (following the previous example, we now have four 10,733.33 sided dice)
10,733.33 recurring ^4 = 13,272,064,019,753,086:1My questions to creationists are ;A/ How do you account for four corroborating radiometric dating methods dating the tektites so closely at 65 m.y. old, given the odds of it occurring by pure chance?B/ IF you don’t accept that radiometric dating is valid as a dating method, how do you account for the four methods being over one million percent inaccurate, relative to a YEC assumed 6,000 year old earth?C/ If you DO accept that half lives affect the resultant date, even to a small degree, what percentage would you be prepared to accept that radiometric dating is influenced by half lives, the rest being just plain chance? And how do you come by this figure, evidentially?D/ How do you rationalise the odds of all four radiometric methods being wrong by a factor of 10,733 each, when the odds of such an occurrence is 13,272,064,019,753,086:1 of them being wrong by the same factor?To logically refute these claims you now need to provide 70 million radiometric dates of the tektites that don't fall into the 65 mya range. Such is the power of corroborative evidence. YEC's never understand this power that multiple corroborative evidences holds, I hope to have impressed this upon you with the corroboration between multiple cladograms & stratigraphy. Similarly, I also hope to have impressed upon you the power that just four methods provide for an old earth. If you remember nothing else from our exchanges, it should be just this; the multiplicative power of corroborating evidence.Do you want me to factor in other K-T boundary dates, or have you had enough? I will conclude with Dalrymple's own summary. Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-30-2003]

Well, Well, Well, eh "COUGH" I cant say anything else. Seems to me that if this is all true, I dont need anything else to speak for dating. I guess I was wrong. First time for everything =) I do have one question though. What methods do they use on the fossils? And whatever answer you give me can you back it up with a webpage like the one you gave me.------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 12-01-2003]

Sonic, You're going to give creationists a good name if you keep this up! Fossil Dating.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

They use radiometric dating, seems good too me. Thanks. I will keep doing research on dating to help reveal problems and learn more about the process, but I think you did a good job in teaching me WRT math variables and sums.------------------
Enlightend and skeptical
Sonic

In addition to the reference that Mark gave you, which mentions radioisotope dating of igneous rocks above and/or below the fossil, the latest thing (still being developed) is dating the sedimentary rock in which the fossil is found. This is made possible by using a Sensitive High-Resolution Ion MicroProbe (SHRIMP), which can measure incredibly small samples. The analysis is performed by dating a mineral called xenotime, which forms between the grains when the sedimntary rock lithifies. U-Pb SHRIMP Dating of Diagenetic Xenotime
SHRIMP
Xenotime / zircon geochronology in the Archaean Witwatersrand Basin (a PDF document, highly technical).

Jon, you seem to be the (or one of the) experts on radiometric dating.I think your posting of links in the various topics are fine, but they are pretty much doomed to getting buried and lost. I ask that you start a " Links and Information" forum topic, so that there is a unified place to find these things.MooseEdited to fix subject line, which still doesn't like (") marks.[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 12-01-2003]

OK.Any idea why it has all that blank space? I wondered that myself Jon. I looked and can't find anything to change in your coding. - The Queen[This message has been edited by JonF, 12-01-2003][This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 12-01-2003]

Question. What does half-lives mean when we are talking about dating methods? I also need a validation of what I think a isotope is. Seems to me it is a splitting of one or more elements and also a ordering which one of the items order would be isotope. And isotop can be radioactive and non-radioactive, Is that right?Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 12-01-2003]

A half-life is the time it takes for a radioactive substance to decrease the rate of emission of radiation by half*. A chunk of uranium-235 has a half-life of 704 million years. So if you formed some today and checked in 704 MY, you'd have half the mass of U-235 and half the atoms would have decayed. See here:Uranium: Its Uses and Hazards - Institute for Energy and Environmental Research***********
edit: some decay sequences form daughter elements which are also radioactive - that radiation is not included. that's my layman's explanation for you. by all means, do some googling for pages like the one above and you will learn a lot.
***********[This message has been edited by zephyr, 12-01-2003]

Some elements can exist in various forms in nature. Isotopes are elements with different numbers of neutrons in their nuclei. The more neutrons you put in the nucleus of a particular atom, the more likely it is to be unstable and therefore radioactive.A glossary of nuclear terminology (via Google search):Glossary of Nuclear Terms

So a Isotope is a nuclei with many different atoms of elements? A daughter product is a byproduct of a specific Isotope which also could be radioactive, but this depends on the neutrons in the nuclei. eh, right? Thus Uranium238 has 238 identical isotopes------------------
Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 12-01-2003]

...[This message has been edited by Sonic, 12-01-2003]

A half-life is the amount of time it takes for a nuclei of isotope to decay 1/2 way. So each half-life has a timeframe in yrs?------------------
Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 12-01-2003]

quote:

---

So a Isotope is a nuclei with many different atoms of elements?

---

An isotope is a nucleus with a particular number of neutrons. For example, there are several isotopes of He (helium), each with the same number of protons (which makes it helium) but a different number of neutrons.

quote:

---

A daughter product is a byproduct of a specific Isotope which also could be radioactive, but this depends on the neutrons in the nuclei. eh, right?

---

Yeah. A byproduct of decay of a specific isotope.[This message has been edited by zephyr, 12-01-2003]

Understood.------------------
Thank You
Sonic