Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-27-2017 2:49 PM
414 online now:
Chiroptera, Dr Adequate, frako, jar, JonF, NoNukes, PaulK, Stile, Tangle, vimesey (10 members, 404 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,559 Year: 10,165/21,208 Month: 3,252/2,674 Week: 668/961 Day: 130/151 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
7980
81
828384Next
Author Topic:   The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock
Admin
Director
Posts: 12436
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1201 of 1257 (791724)
09-20-2016 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1200 by edge
09-20-2016 11:50 AM


Re: One date
Playing devil's advocate, don't these assumptions completely undermine radiometric dating? If most of the daughter element dissipates, won't samples date much older than they should? And isn't it impossible to determine that hasn't happened?

And even if that problem were solved, if decay rates were greater in the past, won't samples again date much older than they should? And isn't it impossible to know past decay rates?

Given this, isn't it appropriate to ignore radiometric dates?


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1200 by edge, posted 09-20-2016 11:50 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1202 by edge, posted 09-20-2016 1:18 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1203 by NoNukes, posted 09-20-2016 2:04 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1204 by Taq, posted 09-20-2016 2:42 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1210 by JonF, posted 09-21-2016 7:47 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1213 by Pressie, posted 09-21-2016 9:14 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
edge
Member
Posts: 3734
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 1202 of 1257 (791727)
09-20-2016 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1201 by Admin
09-20-2016 12:32 PM


Re: One date
Playing devil's advocate, don't these assumptions completely undermine radiometric dating?

If they are not controlled.

If most of the daughter element dissipates, won't samples date much older than they should?

Possible. But if we see patterns developing, we start to find ways to avoid problems. For instance, we know that pyroxene retains argon from the magma, based on experience. So, what do we do? We avoid pyroxene in sampling of the material. Of course, YECs don't do this.

And isn't it impossible to determine that hasn't happened?

Do you mean, 'do we have absolute certainty?' Of course not.

But we do have very precise measurements repeated time after time which give us confidence that the numbers are pretty much correct.

We also have data on trapping temperatures for daughter isotopes in certain minerals and other support for a lack of daughter isotopes in some minerals at formation.

Basically, if there were significant discrepancies, there would be no patterns in the data. We would have just a random set of numbers.

The fact that we have corroborating data from different, independent methods is about the best confirmation available.

And even if that problem were solved, if decay rates were greater in the past, won't samples again date much older than they should? And isn't it impossible to know past decay rates?

No. If decay rates were different, we wouldn't have the ratios that exist in the Oklo natural reactor. This goes beyond my expertise, but someone here has explained it before.

Essentially, we know of no crustal conditions that would change the decay rate of a radionuclide. If there were such, we would see something amiss in the data. And does any YEC think about the consequences of rapid decay that would be millions of times faster than what we know in order to get billions or years down to thousands? A nuclear physicist could explain it, but I'd say that the earth would be little more than a slag heap drifting through space. I think there is ample evidence that this is not the case.

Given this, isn't it appropriate to ignore radiometric dates?

If one has no curiosity or desire to understand the patterns, sure.

The fact that old ages explain a lot of what we see in the geological record is a pretty good indicator that it is as accurate as we can expect from any analytical procedure.

Add all this up and it's pretty clear that radiometric dating is a valid method for determining the absolute timing of geological events.

If anyone has specific examples, we could discuss them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1201 by Admin, posted 09-20-2016 12:32 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9447
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.7


(4)
Message 1203 of 1257 (791730)
09-20-2016 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1201 by Admin
09-20-2016 12:32 PM


Re: One date
And even if that problem were solved, if decay rates were greater in the past, won't samples again date much older than they should? And isn't it impossible to know past decay rates?

Just to help out, I will mention that there is independent evidence that decay rates were not greater in the past along several lines on inquiry.

1) Direct observation of decay rates from at least 170,000 years ago via observation of distant supernova.

2) Experimental results indicating that decay rates are essentially unaffected by extreme heat, pressure, magnetism etc.

3) Quantum mechanical modeling of atom which relates decay rates to things like the speed of light which is also verified to be constant over time based on a number of lines of inquiry, including the fact that such things affect processes like nuclear reactions. See cited results discussed by edge on natural nuclear reactors.

4) Formation of halos which require a very specific energy level of the alpha particle emitted by polonium. A changed decay rate would directly affect the energy level. This particular method provides verification of constant decay rates over millions of years.

5) RATE study conducted by YEC folks which raised the issue of the effect of the release of heat at rates large enough to reduce dating from billions of years even into the 100 thousand year range. No such heat effects exist. The effect on speeding up the decay rate of potassium would have produced radiation that killed all of life. So this rapid rate would have to have preceded life on earth making it a useless argument for someone who believes all life was created in just two-three days.

I assume that it was okay to respond to your message. I'll also point out that there is an entire thread devoted to this particular question. That thread has had one creationist since it opened six weeks ago, and that post did not deal with the topic.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added some blank lines.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1201 by Admin, posted 09-20-2016 12:32 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1206 by Pollux, posted 09-20-2016 7:25 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6088
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 1204 of 1257 (791735)
09-20-2016 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1201 by Admin
09-20-2016 12:32 PM


Re: One date
If most of the daughter element dissipates, won't samples date much older than they should?

Shouldn't they date much younger than they actually are? Daughter isotopes build up over time. If they dissipate, then this would result in an underestimate of age.

And even if that problem were solved, if decay rates were greater in the past, won't samples again date much older than they should? And isn't it impossible to know past decay rates?

As mentioned above, we have direct observations of past decay rates in cosmological events. The decay rates are governed by the fundamental nuclear forces (weak and strong). Changes in these fundamental forces would have far ranging consequences, including fusion rates in stars, power output from stars, changes in the ratio of ring radii within uranium radiohalos, changes in the ratio of products in naturally occurring nuclear reactors (e.g. Oklo), differences in dates using different types of decay and different isotope pairs, and a whole host of other easily observable and testable consequences.

As it is, we can find thousands and thousands of observations supporting constant decay rates in the past. For example, we can consistently get the same date for the same geologic feature using K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr dating, even though all three use different types of decay mechanisms. Such a thing wouldn't be possible if decay rates were different in the past because they would alter rates different for different types of decay and isotopes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1201 by Admin, posted 09-20-2016 12:32 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1205 by Pollux, posted 09-20-2016 7:18 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 184
Joined: 11-13-2011


(1)
Message 1205 of 1257 (791749)
09-20-2016 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1204 by Taq
09-20-2016 2:42 PM


RMD accuracy
The Hawaiian-Emperor seamounts and other seamount chains show an increase in dates as you go from one end to the other, consistent with what would be expected from the rate of tectonic movement over a hot spot. This would seem to be strong evidence of RMD accuracy.

Further, ash from the eruption of Toba is dated around 74,000 years ago, and it is found at the correct area in ice cores.
In a core from the bed of Lake Malawi, it is found at 28 metres, about 50% further than where C14 runs out at 50,000 years.

Then there are tree rings and Lake Suigetsu to support C14 dating.

So far I have not seen any Creation "Science" attempt to explain these consistencies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1204 by Taq, posted 09-20-2016 2:42 PM Taq has not yet responded

    
Pollux
Member
Posts: 184
Joined: 11-13-2011


(1)
Message 1206 of 1257 (791750)
09-20-2016 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1203 by NoNukes
09-20-2016 2:04 PM


Accelerated nuclear decay
In addition to the heat and lethal radiation problem, AND has to say why it affected the moon, because the moon rocks all date old, and the Sun, because spectroscopic studies show it does not have short lived radio-isotopes, and ditto for most stars.
After they explain that, YEC can then tell us why the Moon, Mercury, Mars etc are covered in craters.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1203 by NoNukes, posted 09-20-2016 2:04 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3768
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1207 of 1257 (791751)
09-20-2016 8:11 PM


Trying to keep this topic focused on the rocks
And am trying to minimize the "Dates and Dating" forum type stuff.

Adminnemooseus


Or something like that.

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4544
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 1208 of 1257 (791755)
09-21-2016 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1197 by edge
09-20-2016 10:02 AM


Re: One date
edge writes:

You are exactly correct. They would all have to be broken in diverse ways to all be corrected back to a 6ka planet.

So we have YECs claiming that the earth's rocks are all the same age; c6000 years.

But we have multiple, different and independent dating methods which says that they are not, all of which must be wrong in different ways for their daft ideas to be true.

And the different dating methods all corroborate each other, which would be impossible if they were all broken.

This just piles impossibilities upon each other.

And it ignores other evidence - lack of genetic bottleneck in all living species, lack of fossil sorting mechanism, lack of flood evidence etc etc.

The human mind's ability to deceive itself is quite extraordinary.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1197 by edge, posted 09-20-2016 10:02 AM edge has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1577
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 1209 of 1257 (791756)
09-21-2016 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1200 by edge
09-20-2016 11:50 AM


Re: One date
You should also add that we have evidence for the assumptions used.

Unlike what happens in Creationism, those assumptions in science are not wild guesses being pulled out of some random anus.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1200 by edge, posted 09-20-2016 11:50 AM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1217 by Taq, posted 09-21-2016 11:06 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3513
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 1210 of 1257 (791757)
09-21-2016 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1201 by Admin
09-20-2016 12:32 PM


Re: One date
If most of the daughter element dissipates, won't samples date much older than they should?

No, in the rarely-used-today simplistic methods such as K-Ar, they will date much younger than they really are. In the more sophisticated methods either no date will be produced or the correct date will be produced.

And isn't it impossible to determine that hasn't happened?

No, the most widely used methods such as Ar-Ar and U-Pb detect that occurrence and often produce a valid date anyway.

And even if that problem were solved, if decay rates were greater in the past, won't samples again date much older than they should? And isn't it impossible to know past decay rates?

It is not impossible to know past decay rates. Radiometric decay depends on the most fundamental properties of the Universe, and any significant change at any time after the first microsecond or so after the big bang would be detectable in other measurements.

If decay were accelerated enough to fit a YEC time frame there would be subtle traces left. There would be no water left, the surface of the Earth would be molten, and there would be no life other than possible some thermophilic bacteria.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1201 by Admin, posted 09-20-2016 12:32 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1212 by JonF, posted 09-21-2016 8:31 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12436
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1211 of 1257 (791758)
09-21-2016 8:14 AM


Thanks for Answers About Dating Assumptions
Thank you for the clarifications about assumptions used in radiometric dating. Trying to summarize

  • Assumption 1: The sample has not been compromised in a way that has altered the concentrations of parent and daughter elements.

    The most common risk is probably escape of daughter element, which as someone noted causes younger, not older, dates. Where sample integrity is in question other dating methods can be employed and the correspondence between methods checked. So while a scientist *could* merely assume his sample's parent/daughter concentrations haven't been compromised, in reality that assumption is only made when warranted, and over the course of decades so many radiometric measurements using so many different methods have been made of so many samples from so many regions as to leave no doubt of the world's great antiquity, especially when considering whether the world is hundreds of millions of years old or just thousands.

  • Assumption 2: The rates of radiometric decay have not changed.

    This might properly have been labeled an assumption a century ago, but not for a very long time since. It's been verified nine ways from Sunday.

Arguments based upon radiometric dating that "The Geologic Timescale is Fiction" should at this point, 1200 messages into the discussion, be specific and fact based.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 1214 by Pressie, posted 09-21-2016 9:22 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1216 by JonF, posted 09-21-2016 10:36 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3513
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 1212 of 1257 (791759)
09-21-2016 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1210 by JonF
09-21-2016 7:47 AM


Re: One date
There's something important missing from #1.

U-Pb and Ar-Ar include an internal check on the premise of no significant material lost or gained by taking multiple measurements on one sample. Ar-Ar heats the sample to progressively higher temperature until it's vaporized, measuring the argon released at each step. U-Pb measures the isotopic ratios at different places even on a weentsy sample (measurement volume as low as 10μm diameter and 1μm deep). Different "dates" from these individual measurements indicate the system has not been closed or there was extra daughter isotope at solidification.

Even when the system is not closed or, U-Pb and Ar-Ar often produce a valid date. E.g. in the tour-de-force dating of the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD by Ar-Ar at the Berkeley Geochronological Laboratory they detected the presence of "excess argon"; argon that was trapped at solidification. They got the correct date. Plain K-Ar would have produced a date that was too old.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1210 by JonF, posted 09-21-2016 7:47 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1577
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 1213 of 1257 (791760)
09-21-2016 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1201 by Admin
09-20-2016 12:32 PM


Re: One date
Admin writes:

Playing devil's advocate, don't these assumptions completely undermine radiometric dating? If most of the daughter element dissipates,...

I'm not too sure what you mean by the word "dissipates". Could you explain what you mean with the word "dissipates"?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1201 by Admin, posted 09-20-2016 12:32 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1577
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 1214 of 1257 (791761)
09-21-2016 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1211 by Admin
09-21-2016 8:14 AM


Re: Thanks for Answers About Dating Assumptions
Admin writes:

Thank you for the clarifications about assumptions used in radiometric dating. Trying to summarize
Assumption 1: The sample has not been compromised in a way that has altered the concentrations of parent and daughter elements.

Not really. Crystals at formation under conditions on earth can't incorporate inert gases into the crystal lattices. Basic chemistry.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1211 by Admin, posted 09-21-2016 8:14 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1215 by JonF, posted 09-21-2016 10:26 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3513
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 1215 of 1257 (791762)
09-21-2016 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1214 by Pressie
09-21-2016 9:22 AM


Re: Thanks for Answers About Dating Assumptions
Crystals at formation under conditions on earth can't incorporate inert gases into the crystal lattices.

True but misleading. Inert gases can be physically trapped at solidification, e.g. pillow lava which forms an impermeable shell almost immediately after contacting water.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1214 by Pressie, posted 09-21-2016 9:22 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
7980
81
828384Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017