Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8752 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-29-2017 1:53 AM
111 online now:
Dredge, dwise1 (2 members, 109 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeliverUsFromEvolution
Post Volume:
Total: 809,178 Year: 13,784/21,208 Month: 3,266/3,605 Week: 52/556 Day: 3/49 Hour: 2/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56Next
Author Topic:   Soft Tissue Surviving 65 Million Years?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15929
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 46 of 77 (509743)
05-24-2009 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by slevesque
05-24-2009 2:56 AM


Creationist are not saying radiometric dating don't work, they are saying that the assumption that the nuclear decay is constant may not be true.

(1) This is like saying: "I'm not saying that your clock is wrong, I'm saying that it doesn't run at a constant rate." This is a distinction without a difference.

(2) Yes, (young earth) creationists are saying that radiometric dating doesn't work. To admit that it worked would be to admit that it gives correct dates, which would be the first step towards the reality they are so desperate to avoid.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by slevesque, posted 05-24-2009 2:56 AM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by LucyTheApe, posted 05-31-2009 1:22 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2747
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 47 of 77 (509752)
05-24-2009 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by slevesque
05-24-2009 4:11 AM


I agree, but simply 'older then 50 000 years' as a result (assuming the max age is 50 000 years) would be sufficient to cast doubt on the interpretations creationist do of this data.

Absolutely wrong! Creationist have already used radio-carbon dating on coal in order to claim that it's only 50,000 years old. We already know that creationist lie because we have already heard them use it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by slevesque, posted 05-24-2009 4:11 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by slevesque, posted 05-30-2009 2:58 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2055 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 48 of 77 (510327)
05-30-2009 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by dwise1
05-24-2009 11:31 AM


I used the 50 000 years old age simply because that was the number bluescat48 used as a hypothetical maximum date. I think with the new mass accelerator technology, we can push carbon-14 dating up to 250 000 years old.

But since it wasn't really the issue here, I simply used the same 'maximum date' as bluescat48. It doesn't change the essence of what I was trying to say: creationist would predict that carbon14 would be found. Evolutionists would not. If only negligeable traces of carbon14 (inside the uncertainty) would be found, it would cast doubt on the creationist interpretation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by dwise1, posted 05-24-2009 11:31 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 05-30-2009 7:05 AM slevesque has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2055 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 49 of 77 (510328)
05-30-2009 2:59 AM


BTW, I thought about this this week, and I think Percy you could help me on this.

Isn't sandstone dated with index fossils ? If not, what dating method is used on this type of strata ?


Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-30-2009 3:35 AM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 53 by mark24, posted 05-30-2009 8:43 AM slevesque has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15929
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 50 of 77 (510331)
05-30-2009 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by slevesque
05-30-2009 2:59 AM


Isn't sandstone dated with index fossils ? If not, what dating method is used on this type of strata ?

That depends. If you're lucky, it's sandwiched between igneous rocks, e.g. basalt flows or volcanic ash.

Otherwise, you use index fossils, i.e. fossils that, whenever you can date them by such methods, always turn out to lie in a certain age range.

Or, or course, both.

Coragyps mentioned that the Hell Creek formation had been dated "seven ways from Sunday": perhaps he can tell you more.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by slevesque, posted 05-30-2009 2:59 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15632
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 51 of 77 (510343)
05-30-2009 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by slevesque
05-30-2009 2:58 AM


slevesque writes:

I used the 50 000 years old age simply because that was the number bluescat48 used as a hypothetical maximum date. I think with the new mass accelerator technology, we can push carbon-14 dating up to 250 000 years old.

This is the second time you've said this, and for the second time, not that I've ever heard of. Accelerator mass spectrometry allows tinier, not older, samples to be dated.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by slevesque, posted 05-30-2009 2:58 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Coyote, posted 05-30-2009 8:31 AM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 54 by slevesque, posted 05-31-2009 2:19 AM Percy has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5789
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 52 of 77 (510351)
05-30-2009 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Percy
05-30-2009 7:05 AM


Radiocarbon dating
Accelerator mass spectrometry allows tinier, not older, samples to be dated.

Actually a couple of labs are working towards about 80,000 years on an experimental basis.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 05-30-2009 7:05 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 2609 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 53 of 77 (510357)
05-30-2009 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by slevesque
05-30-2009 2:59 AM


sleveque,

Isn't sandstone dated with index fossils ? If not, what dating method is used on this type of strata ?

The strata are dated by looking at the next oldest & youngest igneous rocks in the geologic column above & below the strata to be dated. Say we want to date "C", & it turns out that at the bottom of "B" & the top of "D" contained datable igneous rocks:

Strata A
Strata B Igneous rock dates to 100 mya
Strata C
Strata D Igneous rock dates to 110 mya
Strata E

Then "C" must be 100 to 110 mya. If around the world a particularly abundant fossil consistently dates in this age bracket & never anywhere else, then we can reasonably assume any strata containing that fossil is 100-110 mya.

Mark

Edited by mark24, : No reason given.


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by slevesque, posted 05-30-2009 2:59 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by slevesque, posted 05-31-2009 2:20 AM mark24 has responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2055 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 54 of 77 (510411)
05-31-2009 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Percy
05-30-2009 7:05 AM


doesn't AMS count carbon-14 atoms almost individually, hence getting much greater precision ? (and so older ?)

I'll have to find that book where I read this


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 05-30-2009 7:05 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 05-31-2009 9:17 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2055 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 55 of 77 (510412)
05-31-2009 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by mark24
05-30-2009 8:43 AM


Yeah well I understood this with Dr. Adequate's post.

But in this particular case, how was it dated ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by mark24, posted 05-30-2009 8:43 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by mark24, posted 05-31-2009 9:00 AM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 58 by Coragyps, posted 05-31-2009 9:28 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 2609 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 56 of 77 (510445)
05-31-2009 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by slevesque
05-31-2009 2:20 AM


slevesque,

But in this particular case, how was it dated ?

No idea, you'll probebly have to read the original paper, but for the record, why is it important?

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by slevesque, posted 05-31-2009 2:20 AM slevesque has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15632
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 57 of 77 (510446)
05-31-2009 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by slevesque
05-31-2009 2:19 AM


slevesque writes:

doesn't AMS count carbon-14 atoms almost individually, hence getting much greater precision ? (and so older ?)

I'll have to find that book where I read this

You can try to find that book if you like, but regardless of what it says it is unlikely that AMS could make possible radiocarbon dating to ages as great as 250,000 years because of two fundamental problems that work together to confound such a possibility:

  1. Background radiation from naturally occurring radioactive materials in the environment and from cosmic rays will always maintain some tiny amount of carbon in the sample as 14C. Call this the ambient level of 14C, and this ambient level measures out as maybe around 80,000 years. I assume the ages reported by labs correct for this. This is why labs require that the context of the sample be included, because some layers have higher background radiation than others. For example, geologic layers from the southwest of the United States are high in iron and uranium, causing any coal near such layers to date (before correction) to around 50,000 years old, sometimes even younger if radiation levels are higher.

  2. The advantage of AMS is also an inherent disadvantage. The narrow beam makes possible the dating of very tiny samples, but the narrow beam also means it can't date large samples. The proportion of 14C in a sample is very tiny (looking it up at Wikipedia I see the proportion of 14C in living material is about one atom out of every trillion). By the time 60,000 years have gone by, which at a half life of 14C of 5730 years is about 10 half-lives, the proportion of 14C will be one atom out of every thousand trillion, which is one in 1018 atoms.

    This means there's so few carbon atoms in the tiny sample that they cannot be reliably counter. One could use AMS to date larger samples by dividing a large sample into many small ones and then performing the test many times and adding the results together, but AMS is very expensive, and there's still the background radiation problem, and contamination becomes a very significant issue for dates older than 40 or 50 thousand years.

In other words, 250,000 years seems out of the question.

But that's not the issue. I'm only addressing this so that you can add it to the list of things you don't seem to know much about and thereby begin to understand that you should attach less certainty to your opinions.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Clarify 2nd point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by slevesque, posted 05-31-2009 2:19 AM slevesque has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5268
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 58 of 77 (510447)
05-31-2009 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by slevesque
05-31-2009 2:20 AM


But in this particular case, how was it dated ?

In the case of the Hell Creek, there's a review here (pdf). The 80 Ma hadrosaur is from the Judith River formation in Montana: it's interbedded with bentonite, which is volcanic in origin and so datable by potassium-argon and/or uranium methods. Google Scholar has 14,000 hits.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by slevesque, posted 05-31-2009 2:20 AM slevesque has not yet responded

    
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 77 (510455)
05-31-2009 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Dr Adequate
05-24-2009 10:40 AM


Soft Tissue Surviving 65 Million Years?
Dr writes:

(1) This is like saying: "I'm not saying that your clock is wrong, I'm saying that it doesn't run at a constant rate." This is a distinction without a difference.

(2) Yes, (young earth) creationists are saying that radiometric dating doesn't work. To admit that it worked would be to admit that it gives correct dates, which would be the first step towards the reality they are so desperate to avoid.

The only measure of time is the earths rotation and it's orbit around the sun.


There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.

blɛz paskal


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-24-2009 10:40 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Coyote, posted 05-31-2009 1:40 PM LucyTheApe has responded
 Message 61 by Coragyps, posted 05-31-2009 1:42 PM LucyTheApe has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5789
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 60 of 77 (510459)
05-31-2009 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by LucyTheApe
05-31-2009 1:22 PM


Re: Soft Tissue Surviving 65 Million Years?
The only measure of time is the earths rotation and it's orbit around the sun.

That would be false. It is also a ridiculous statement.

Google and find out what the Bureau of Standards uses to tell time and perhaps you'll learn something.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by LucyTheApe, posted 05-31-2009 1:22 PM LucyTheApe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by LucyTheApe, posted 05-31-2009 2:11 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
56Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017