For whatever - your insult, and radioisotope dating

In the thread " Walt Brown's super-tectonics at
EvC Forum: Walt Brown's super-tectonics ,
and in December 2003, whatever wrote:"JonF, Thats why I didn't explain the problems
with argon potassium dating, it was off topic,
but you all believe zero argon exists in melted
lavas, and this was proven bogus by Snelling's
50 year old rock where potassium had not the
time to be converted to argon in 50 years,"The problem here is not the dating method, but Dr. Snelling, who for someone with a Ph.D. in geology shows a remarkable lack any understanding of radiometric dating. In his articles, the reason the radiometric dating techniques don't seem to work is because he simply doesn't understand the limitations of the various dating techniques and how to interpret the data.Some pages to read:1. Isochron Dating by Chris Stassen
Isochron Dating2. Isochron Dating by Chris Stassen in Feedback
for January 1999
TalkOrigins Archive - Feedback for January 19993. Claim CD013: Potassium-Argon dating of rocks
from lava flows known to be modern gave ages
millions to billions of years older.
CD013: K-Ar dating of modern rocks.4. Subject: Re: AiG: Flaws in dating the earth as ancient
Sign in - Google AccountsFor example, the statement conventional geologist "all believe zero argon exists" is simply not true. Conventional geologists have recognized for a long time that the presence of excess argon was a significant problem in K/Ar dating as demonstrated by the many published papers discussing this problem. The fact that the statement "all believe zero argon exists" is completely false is readily apparent if a person take the time to read and understand the published literature.A good example is:P. R. Renne, W. D. Sharp, A. L. Deino,
G. Orsi, and L. Civetta, 1997, 40Ar/39Ar
Dating into the Historical Realm:
Calibration Against Pliny the Younger.
Science. vol. 277,pp. 1279-1280."Laser incremental heating of sanidine from
the pumice deposited by the Plinian eruption
of Vesuvius in 79 A.D. yielded a 40Ar/39Ar
isochron age of 1925 6 94 years ago. Close
agreement with the Gregorian calendar-based
age of 1918 years ago demonstrates that
the 40Ar/39Ar method can be reliably extended
into the temporal range of recorded
history. Excess 40Ar is present in the
sanidine in concentrations that would cause
significant errors if ignored in dating
Holocene samples."It is quite clear from this article, and the references that it cites, that geologists and geochemists have been long aware of the excess argon problem and have found ways of dealing with it.Also, a person should read "Ar-Ar Dating Assumes There Is No Excess Argon?" at:
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie024.htmlMr.whatever complained:"so your dating method is already in error
by millions of years, to a creationists that
believes the fossils are only thousands of
years old, to tell them the fossils are as
old as the basalt lava that entombed them,
is an insult, when newly formed basalt rock
dates millions of years old, etc..."First, Mr. whatever greatly exaggerates the problem by falsely claiming that modern basalts typically give dates of "millions of years old". A survey of Dalrymple (1969), of the argon content of historic lava flows found that 25 of 26 samples gave "anomalous dates" of less than 250,000 years. Simple review of basic math shows that 250,000 years falls far short of being "millions of years" Also, 250,000 years represents an error of less than 0.0002 half-lives and, thus, lies within the known errors generated by standard dating K/Ar dating technique. This error would be indicated in the standard deviation, plus and minus, that is part of how any date is cited. Anyone acquainted with radiometric dating would understand this standard deviation as clearly showing that these dates might have a historic time of origin. Only someone who doesn't understand radiometric dating ignores the standard deviation in interpreting dates.Second, creationists, who are insulted by people disagreeing with their beliefs, need to realize that in the real world, not everybody agrees upon how the Bible should be interpreted and what the "truth" is. Just because someone disagrees with them on a matter, like how old is the Earth is, a very shallow reason for being insulted. The "truth" is not as obvious as it seems to be.Third, it is somewhat insulting to mindlessly spread falsehoods, i.e. "all believe zero argon exists" about people. In addition to being insulting, such falsehoods only serve to grossly undermine the credibility of the person repeating them.Fourth, the main problem here is that Dr. Snelling, despite having a Ph.D. in geology, simply doesn't understand the methodology of radiometric dating and how to interpret the data. As a result, any resemblance between how he claims radiometric dating is practiced to how it should be done to get valid dates is purely coincidental. Someone who obviously doesn't know what he is talking about shouldn't be used as a serious citation in a serious scientific discussion.Finally, go read "Claim CD013: Potassium-Argon dating of rocks from lava flows known to be modern gave ages millions to billions of years older" at:
CD013: K-Ar dating of modern rocks.References Cited:Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1969. 40Ar/36Ar Analyses
of Historic Lava Flows. Earth and Planetary
Science Letters. vol. 6, pp. 47-55."P.S. Then you have Snellings wood fossil
preserved in Basalt lava, the basalt that
dated millions of years old, however,
C-14 dated this preserved wood fossil to
be thousands, and not millions of years
old, etc...the truth is you have no
proof the fossils are old, etc..."Again, the problem is not radiocarbon dating. Rather, Dr. Snelling, despite having a Ph.D. in geology, clearly doesn't understand the limitations of radiocarbon dating and how to interpret radiocarbon dates. Go read "Claim CD011.5:" at:CD011.5: C14 date of Triassic woodand "Meert, Joe, 2003. Andrew Snelling and the Iron Concretion?" at:Frequently Asked and "Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits" at:Carbon-14 in Coal DepositsYours,Bill Birkeland

whatever wrote:"JonF, If Snellings wood fossil was actually
230 million years old it would not have any
C-14, as C-14 has only been proven to be
formed in the atmosphere (proven),"It is true that the primary source of C14 is formed in the atmosphere. However, both Snelling and Mr. whatever ignore the fact that the radioactive carbon from the atmosphere is easily dissolved in groundwater as part of organic compounds, which are easily absorbed by fossil wood. Also, bacteria/fungi can degrade the coalified portion of what remains of organic portion of the fossilized wood and result in the deposition of modern carbon within the fossilized wood. Because the petrified wood was found in porous sandstone through which groundwater easily flows and is heavily altered by fossilziation, contamination of the sample by organic carbon in groundwater and bacteria/fungi very likely occurred.Interested lurkers can read, Claim CD011.5:" at:
CD011.5: C14 date of Triassic woodand "Meert, Joe, 2003. Andrew Snelling and the Iron Concretion?" at:
Frequently Asked In Joe Meert's article, it is revealed that Mr. Snelling wasn't dating a sample of well-preserved wood, which is an essential requirement for a valid date. Instead, Dr. Snelling dated a piece of heavily fossilized wood, which was largely replaced by iron oxides and very likely contained very little, if any, of its original carbon. What, if anything, that remained of the original wood, very likely was coalified, and altered to the point of being useless for dating. Anybody who understands C14 dating would know that it is impossible to expect, within any reason, that such heavily fossilized wood will provide C14 dates. That Dr. snelling and Mr. whatever both claim that this piece of largely permineralized wood provided a valid date only proved that they are both scientifically illiterate in their understanding of C14 dating.Mr whatever wrote:"though, I'm sure you all believe its
being formed within the earth(not proven),
because you have no other way to explain
Snellings dated wood fossil, etc..."The fact of the matter is that the material dated by Dr. Snelling was a piece of fossilized wood largely permineralized by iron oxides and bathed in groundwater to the point that it would have useless for C14 dating. Thus, nobody needed to fabricate an additional excuses to understand the futility of dating this piece of Triassic wood. There exists no scientific basis to anyone to expect that a heavily altered, fossilized wood encased in porous sandstone would produce a valid date. The possible formation of C14 in place is nothing more than another, although minor, factor that raises additional questions about the validity of this date and the dates obtain from coal. Interested lurkers can read about the scientific basis of this additional factor in "Carbon-14 Formation in Coal Deposits" at:Carbon-14 in Coal DepositsMr whatever wrote:"P.S. Get over it, its a moot point, the
fossils have been proven to be young,
and the rocks old, etc...The paleontologist
are using you, they rely on your faith, to
support their delusions, etc..."Contrary to what Mr. whatever wants to believe, there are very solid reasons to regard the Earth as being old and Dr. Snelling's efforts to prove otherwise as nothing more than intellectually bankrupt religious fiction. For the details, the interested lurkers can look throughthe articles listed in "The Age of the Earth" at;The Talk.Origins Archive: The Age of the Earth FAQsIf there are any delusions, it is Mr. whatever, who is deluded in thinking that the badly flawed research produced by Dr. Snelling proves anything. Also, Mr. whatever is quite deluded to think that geologists rely on faith to come to their conclusions. In fact, the main reason that Mr. whatever so forcefully disagrees with geologists is because they don't rely on faith, specifically Mr. whatever's faith, to interpret Earth history.Yours,Bill Birkeland[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 01-06-2004]

In message 12, whatever wrote:"Rei, Dr. Libby received a Nobel prize, he
proved C-14 is formed in the upper
atmosphere, now its up to you to prove
its been proven its formed within the
sediments, etc...Libby had proof, it wasn't
an hypothesis, or a theory, but proven,
the fossils are young, etc..."What Mr. whatever doesn't seem to understand here is that it doesn't matter whether C14 is formed within sediments or not as explained in Joe Meert's article "Andrew Snelling and the Iron Concretion?" The primary source of C14 is the atmosphere. Some of the atmospheric C14 is carried downward into porous subsurface strata, i.e. like sandstone enclosing the fossilized wood dated by Dr. Snelling, by circulating groundwater. As part of either carbon dioxide or soluble organic compounds, C14 is carried by groundwater deep into the subsurface. Younger carbon containing C14 in these compounds can contaminated the older carbon in fossilized wood as the result of chemical reaction and bacteria and fungi eating the fossilized wood in the subsurface. Therefore, there no need to prove that C14 forms within the sediments as groundwater transports sufficient amounts of it into the surface to cause contamination problems. Mr. Whatever and Dr. Snelling also ignore the fact that the piece of wood dated by Dr. Snelling was almost completely permineralized. Because of such alteration, it quite certain that what is left of the original carbon in the piece of wood has been contaminated by younger carbon in the groundwater.Interested lurkers can find a detailed discussion of all of this and many other problems with Dr. Snellings interpretations in:1. Claim CD011.5:" at:
CD011.5: C14 date of Triassic woodand "Meert, Joe, 2003. Andrew Snelling and the Iron Concretion?" at:
Frequently Asked Mr. whatever stated:"P.S. Until you prove to the scientific
community, how this unstable isotope can
be formed within the sediments, you can
not truthfully say the fossils are old,
or that evolution had millions of years
to evolve, this is the problem facing
the paleontologists, likely why they
have swept this issue under the rug, etc..."The fact of the matter is that the question whether C14 can form underground is more or less an irrelevant red herring in this discussion. Enough C14 being carried around in the subsurface by groundwater where it can create serious problems of contamination for badly preserve woody material such as the piece of wood dated by Dr. Snelling.One example of C14 being found in groundwater is discussed in "Dating the Moutere aquifer" at:http://icm.landcareresearch.co.nz/...the_moutere_aquifer.htmDocumented examples of the presence of C14 in dissolved organic matter within groundwater are:Davisson, M.L., 2000, Summary of Age-Dating
Analysis in the Fenner Basin, Eastern
Mojave Desert, California. UCRL-ID-139564.
U.S. Department of Energy, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory.http://www.desertwater.com/238187.pdf"One approach measured the radiocarbon age
of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in a
production (PW-1) in the Fenner Gap. The
DOC originated from the soil of the recharge
area(s) and flowed with the groundwater,
largely unaffected by reactions with other
carbon sources (Wassenaar et al., 1991).
Preliminary measurements indicate the
radiocarbon age of the DOC is between
1000 and 2800 years, with an estimate
mean of 1500 years."and"The radiocarbon was also measured on the
dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) from
groundwater in the Fenner Gap. Possible
ages estimated from the DIC radiocarbon
measurements range from less than 1000
up to 9000 years old."Also, C14 in dissolved organic matter in groundwater is documented by:Wassenaar, L., Aravena, R., Hendry, J.,
Fritz, P., 1991, Radiocarbon in dissolved
organic carbon, a possible groundwater
dating method: case studies from western
Canada. Water Resources Research. vol. 27,
pp. 1975-1986These and many other publications that can be found using GEOREF demonstrate that sufficient C14 exists within groundwater cause contamination problems with materials, i.e. coal and fossil wood that would otherwise be lacking in C14. However, that a little C14 can be formed underground provides even more reason for questioning the interpretations made by Young Earth creationists in dating material such as coal. Interested lurkers can learn more about this in "Carbon-14 Formation in Coal Deposits" at:Carbon-14 in Coal DepositsIt takes about one percent modern carbon contaminating a sample of wood that is free of C14 to create a bogus date of 35,000 BP. it takes only a very small amount of C14 contamination to create dates of 30,000 BP or older in material that otherwise would yield "dead" dates.The only mystery here is why someone would be so laughably foolish as to expect to get a valid date from a badly preserved and largely permineralized piece of wood. Even beginning students in geology and archaeology know that badly preserved and largely permineralized pieces of wood are completely useless for C14 dating.Yours,Bill Birkeland.