Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Radioactive carbon dating
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 221 (407235)
06-25-2007 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by fooj
06-24-2007 10:33 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
My vocabulary is off here then.
If you don't really know the subject enough to even understand the vocabulary, then why do you think this website you found has anything worthwhile to say? They could be completely full of crap (and they are), and you wouldn't really know, would you?
-
Think volcanic surface and the impossiblity of old rock being on it.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that it is impossible for recent volcanic material to date old? But we already know it's possible for volcanic action to bring old rocks to the surface.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by fooj, posted 06-24-2007 10:33 PM fooj has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 122 of 221 (407242)
06-25-2007 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by fooj
06-24-2007 10:33 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
fooj writes:
quote:
Provide a link, I'll look at it, but it would be better to describe the evidence supporting their model.
If you want a picture of a potassium model, you may have to request one. They have a gallery but it doesn't include that atom.
Forget the picture. It was your request I look at one, not my request you provide one. What I said, and you quoted it, was that it would be better to describe the evidence supporting their model. Anyone can draw pictures, but unless there's supporting evidence they're just fantasy.
Perhaps, you are right and one would have to go far beyond triple point heat and pressure to affect half-life. I shouldn't even mention triple point in such a case, because it would be a secondary given.
Perhaps I am right? Of course I'm right. As James Thurber coined and as Casey Stengel was fond of saying, "You could look it up!"
So since the triple point has no effect on half-life, what point were you trying to make when you said:
fooj in Message 114 writes:
I was saying since its half-life at triple point is long compared to other isotopes. It can escape easily into lava flows.
About the inability of K/Ar dating to date recent materials you say:
It's an interesting failure that has major implications.
As I had just finished explaining, it's not a failure of the K/Ar dating method. The method does precisely what it is intended to do, accurately date materials older than a few hundred thousand years. The inability of a yardstick to measure the width of a human hair is not a failure of the yardstick. It is an inappropriate use of a measuring device. The yardstick is still an excellent tool for measuring the dimensions of rooms and things of similar size.
The reverse example would be using a micrometer to measure the dimensions of a room. The micrometer's inability to perform this task is not a failure of the micrometer, but just an inappropriate use of it. The micrometer is still an excellent device for measuring the width of a human hair.
Anyway, tell us why you think there are "major implications" of the K/Ar method's inability to date recent material, especially since recent material is something no competent scientist would use the method for.
I would be suprised if Ar40/Ar39 isn't the preferred method of choice.
I guess that's from the Department of Redundancy Department. Not sure how this is relevant, other than that 40Ar/39Ar dating is consistent with K/Ar dating.
My vocabulary is off here then. Think volcanic surface and the impossibility of old rock being on it. Dr.Henke thinks Steve Austin somehow included old rock in his dating by accident. Somehow, I doubt it.
Sorry, still can't figure out what you're saying. Why don't you describe what Steve Austin found and what Dr. Henke said about it.
The bottom line remains unchanged. The half-life of 40K is unaffected by any process within the earth. There is no atomic or chemical process that could separate 40K isotopes with different nuclear shell configurations. The replies in Message 118 and Message 119 from Kbertsche also provide excellent information.
--Percy
PS - Could someone take a look at the Wikipedia article on Potassium/Argon Dating. The paragraph that begins "A problem with K-Ar dating is..." is a pretty poor explanation of the issue. It doesn't mention anything about taking readings at different vaporization temperatures to form an isochron that tells you that a valid date from the material can't be obtained when the points don't fall on a straight line, and the term "aliquot" is unlikely to be understood by anyone without an explanation, or at least a cross-referenced entry in Wikipedia. Anyone here capable of fixing this Wikipedia entry?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by fooj, posted 06-24-2007 10:33 PM fooj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 4:33 PM Percy has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 123 of 221 (407267)
06-25-2007 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by fooj
06-24-2007 10:33 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
I would be suprised if Ar40/Ar39 isn't the preferred method of choice.
Actually, U-Th-Pb dating, mostly U-Pb in zircons, is used in over half the geologic dating studies. K-Ar and Ar-Ar combined are around 30%. YECs don't like to address U-Th-Pb dating 'cause it's so robust. K-Ar has the potential of error, especialy when purposefuly misappied by YECs, but it's well-understood and low cost, so it's still useful.
Think volcanic surface and the impossiblity of old rock being on it.
OK, I'm thinking. Let's see; lava often contains xenoliths, so it is not impossible to have old rock on and in recent lava; in fact it's fairlyh common. Satisfied?
Dr.Henke thinks Steve Austin somehow included old rock in his dating by accident.
If you are referring to Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals, then he did mention xenoliths as one of segveral possibilities for the anomolous dates.
Somehow, I doubt it.
Obviously. Do you have any rational reasons for your doubt, or is it just because of your preconceptions?
Note that we actually have data that indicates that dating of recent lava flows is often accurate: Ar-Ar Dating Assumes There Is No Excess Argon?. YECs need not one erroneous date, not a hundred erroneous dates, not ten thousand erroneus dates; they need 100%, hundreds of thousands if not millions, of erroneous dates every single one of them. A few anomolies are irrelevant in this context.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by fooj, posted 06-24-2007 10:33 PM fooj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by kbertsche, posted 06-25-2007 1:39 PM JonF has replied
 Message 128 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 4:14 PM JonF has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 124 of 221 (407271)
06-25-2007 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by kbertsche
06-25-2007 8:20 AM


Re: Two types of nuclides and Potassium Argon dating
I'm going to reply to myself to correct/modify my earlier statement:
2) this would affect 39Ar-40Ar dates as well as traditional K-Ar dates, so both would give old dates for recent lava flows. But this is not consistent with the data. Parentless argon explains the data much better.
This is probably not correct. The hypothesized new form of 40K supposedly has a 12-hr half-life. If it takes much longer than this for the lava to cool and crystalize (which is almost certainly the case), any 40Ar from this new type of 40K will have already decayed, will not be incorporated into the crystal lattice, and will look just like parentless 40Ar. In this case, 39Ar-40Ar will still give the correct dates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by kbertsche, posted 06-25-2007 8:20 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 125 of 221 (407274)
06-25-2007 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by JonF
06-25-2007 12:59 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
Actually, U-Th-Pb dating, mostly U-Pb in zircons, is used in over half the geologic dating studies. K-Ar and Ar-Ar combined are around 30%. YECs don't like to address U-Th-Pb dating 'cause it's so robust. K-Ar has the potential of error, especialy when purposefuly misappied by YECs, but it's well-understood and low cost, so it's still useful.
Ar-Ar is also very robust. My former colleagues used this for crater dating studies; they ONLY used Ar-Ar dates, not K-Ar, because Ar-Ar can give narrow and reliable error bars (much better than K-Ar). I've never seen the YEC's address this method, either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by JonF, posted 06-25-2007 12:59 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by JonF, posted 06-25-2007 2:37 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 221 (407277)
06-25-2007 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by fooj
06-24-2007 2:40 PM


Bingo!
Heh. Thanks for pointing out the Common Sense Science site, fooj -- it's a hoot. I have to admit, it is rather refreshing to see crackpot junk displayed in a professional looking website with well written articles, even if the articles themselves display a lack of knowledge about the subjet matter. It certainly compares favorably against the Time Cube guy.
But I was intrigued by their description of the modern physics "world-view". Does this page seem familiar to anyone? It reads just like a creationist description of the evolutionary biology "world-view", paticularly in just making up the mainstream philosophical position (and the use of word "world-view").
That, and their interest in radiometric dating, made me a tad suspicious, and, whadyaknow, I found what I was looking for:
quote:
The two worldviews of origins, development, and nature of physical reality are known as atomism and creationism. The former is basically pantheistic evolution, while the latter is the Judeo-Christian worldview. The fundamental beliefs of either philosophy of life require assumptions and a theory of matter to integrate science and religious beliefs.
I can't tell from this if their primary motivation is to support creationism, but they do seem to be primarily motivated by religious beliefs of the nature of the world around us, and they are determined to force the world into their preconcieved beliefs. Their site is another to be added to the list of such crackpot science as Walt Brown's Bumber Car Colliding Continents and Russell Humphreys' General Relativity-inspired time dilation model.
Edited by Chiroptera, : changed the last sentence of the second paragraph

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by fooj, posted 06-24-2007 2:40 PM fooj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 4:17 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 127 of 221 (407284)
06-25-2007 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by kbertsche
06-25-2007 1:39 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
Ar-Ar is also very robust. My former colleagues used this for crater dating studies; they ONLY used Ar-Ar dates, not K-Ar, because Ar-Ar can give narrow and reliable error bars (much better than K-Ar). I've never seen the YEC's address this method, either.
Yup. Wher applicable, U-Th-Pb gives even smaller error bars, partly because the decay rates are known more exactly than for any other systems (bombs 'n breeders, you know).
Woodmorappe gave a couple of feeble swats at concordia-discordia dating in Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, but they were even feebler than the rest of the book, and that's pretty bad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by kbertsche, posted 06-25-2007 1:39 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
fooj
Junior Member (Idle past 6120 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 01-18-2007


Message 128 of 221 (407299)
06-25-2007 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by JonF
06-25-2007 12:59 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
Jon F wrote:
quote:
OK, I'm thinking. Let's see; lava often contains xenoliths, so it is not impossible to have old rock on and in recent lava; in fact it's fairlyh common. Satisfied?
No, I don't agree with the assumption the xenoliths are old.
quote:
Obviously. Do you have any rational reasons for your doubt, or is it just because of your preconceptions?
I have rational ones; I assume you have yours unlike your other paranoid opponents.
quote:
they need 100%, hundreds of thousands if not millions, of erroneous dates every single one of them. A few anomolies are irrelevant in this context
I checked out the article and wasn't very impressed. Granted you guys got really lucky with neo-Roman city of pompeii, but given it's stone structures, I would say it isn't as old as the argon-argon date.
But I agree they need 100% proof, but I would settle for 80% if they had it right now. The creationists don't have that kind of proof, so I have to give you credit for defendy the crappy method of Potassium-Argon dating decently.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by JonF, posted 06-25-2007 12:59 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Coragyps, posted 06-25-2007 4:40 PM fooj has not replied
 Message 142 by JonF, posted 06-25-2007 5:24 PM fooj has not replied

  
fooj
Junior Member (Idle past 6120 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 01-18-2007


Message 129 of 221 (407300)
06-25-2007 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Chiroptera
06-25-2007 1:58 PM


Re: Bingo!
quote:
Heh. Thanks for pointing out the Common Sense Science site, fooj -- it's a hoot. I have to admit, it is rather refreshing to see crackpot junk displayed in a professional looking website with well written articles, even if the articles themselves display a lack of knowledge about the subjet matter. It certainly compares favorably against the Time Cube guy.
They have the science degrees and you don't. What does that tell you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Chiroptera, posted 06-25-2007 1:58 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Chiroptera, posted 06-25-2007 4:26 PM fooj has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 221 (407301)
06-25-2007 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by fooj
06-25-2007 4:17 PM


Re: Bingo!
They have the science degrees and you don't.
Actually, I do.
-
In an earlier post, fooj wrote:
...they don't get much peer-review because they are basicly ignored.
So people with science degrees ignore these folks. What does that tell you?
Edited by Chiroptera, : Fixed tag.
Edited by Chiroptera, : This time for sure.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 4:17 PM fooj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 4:36 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
fooj
Junior Member (Idle past 6120 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 01-18-2007


Message 131 of 221 (407303)
06-25-2007 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Percy
06-25-2007 9:36 AM


Re: A response to various criticisms
Percy writes:
quote:
Forget the picture. It was your request I look at one, not my request you provide one. What I said, and you quoted it, was that it would be better to describe the evidence supporting their model. Anyone can draw pictures, but unless there's supporting evidence they're just fantasy.
I wonder if there are details which are left out. It could be because my background in physics is admittedly weak, but I can make sense of every number in the chart and document. They could also be understating the evidence by not mentioning every measurement. It happens.
quote:
Anyway, tell us why you think there are "major implications" of the K/Ar method's inability to date recent material, especially since recent material is something no competent scientist would use the method for.
It implicates K/Ar in all igneous rock which contains it. I'd prefer not to discuss this issue anymore though.
quote:
The half-life of 40K is unaffected by any process within the earth.
And if the potassium and argon was made in magma, it would be hard to date it at all accurately.
Enough, I didn't expect a debate, nor do I desire to win one now.:wink:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Percy, posted 06-25-2007 9:36 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by AZPaul3, posted 06-25-2007 4:41 PM fooj has not replied
 Message 136 by Coragyps, posted 06-25-2007 4:45 PM fooj has not replied
 Message 137 by Percy, posted 06-25-2007 4:45 PM fooj has not replied
 Message 139 by Chiroptera, posted 06-25-2007 4:57 PM fooj has replied
 Message 149 by kbertsche, posted 06-25-2007 6:51 PM fooj has not replied

  
fooj
Junior Member (Idle past 6120 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 01-18-2007


Message 132 of 221 (407304)
06-25-2007 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Chiroptera
06-25-2007 4:26 PM


Re: Bingo!
quote:
So people with science degrees ignore these folks. What does that tell you?
Do you have a degree in physics?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Chiroptera, posted 06-25-2007 4:26 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Chiroptera, posted 06-25-2007 4:44 PM fooj has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 133 of 221 (407305)
06-25-2007 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by fooj
06-25-2007 4:14 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
but given it's stone structures, I would say it isn't as old as the argon-argon date.
They didn't date the structures! They dated the ash that fell on the structures! And what "isn't as old as the argon-argon date?" We know the minimum age of the ruins at Pompeii from history - and from the ash signature in the ice in Greenland, for that matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 4:14 PM fooj has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 134 of 221 (407306)
06-25-2007 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by fooj
06-25-2007 4:33 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
And if the potassium and argon was made in magma, it would be hard to date it at all accurately.
fooj, you really didn't mean this did you? Please tell me you know how atoms are made?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 4:33 PM fooj has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 221 (407307)
06-25-2007 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by fooj
06-25-2007 4:36 PM


Re: Bingo!
quote:
Do you have a degree in physics?
Yes.
But this is beside the point, don't you think? After all, if degrees mattered, then the fact that the vast majority of people with science degrees (in physics) accept the standard physical theories means that the Common Sense Science people are wrong.
Or, if the majority of people with science degrees are wrong about this, then it shows that people with science degrees can be wrong.
You can't have it both ways. You aren't going to win this argument by looking at degrees. This argument can only be decided by looking at the evidence. Now, what phenomena are predicted by these peoples' theory? Have these phenomena been observed? That is going to be the deciding factor as to whether there is any reason to discuss these theories.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 4:36 PM fooj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 5:01 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024