Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 64 (9046 total)
 534 online now: Tangle (1 member, 533 visitors) Newest Member: Dade Post Volume: Total: 887,289 Year: 4,935/14,102 Month: 533/707 Week: 88/176 Day: 17/34 Hour: 0/1

EvC Forum Science Forums Dates and Dating

# The dating game

Author Topic:   The dating game
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 31 of 94 (392838) 04-02-2007 3:08 PM Reply to: Message 17 by RAZD04-01-2007 10:42 PM

Re: Calculated rates - Cavediver? Son Goku?
 I couldn't find anything on calculating half-lives (too many responses about using them in decay calculations). We'll need one of the physics gurus ...

The decay is exponential: the proportion of the original substance left at time t is given by k^t, where k is a constant between 0 and 1 depending on the isotope.

So the half-life is given by log k 0.5.

---

Does anyone know how to do superscripts and subscripts properly?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 17 by RAZD, posted 04-01-2007 10:42 PM RAZD has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 33 by Chiroptera, posted 04-02-2007 3:22 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded Message 34 by JonF, posted 04-02-2007 3:35 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded Message 39 by RAZD, posted 04-02-2007 7:20 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Inactive Member

 Message 32 of 94 (392841) 04-02-2007 3:21 PM Reply to: Message 25 by Reserve04-02-2007 12:40 PM

Re: No mystery
quote:
The website I got it from did not mention anything about conspiracy, that is something you guys have placed inside creationists mouths. Stop doing that.

If you would notice, the post to which you replied was a response to CDT, who was implying that there is a conscious effort to hide inconvenient dates.

-

quote:
Remember that the 5/6th of samples that were disregarded passed the test for dating when they were in the field collecting them, it was after they got the dates that they threw them out because they were way off, so instead of saying "why" they throw them out because it does not agree with the "factual" dating paradigm.

How do you know that they did not say why they discarded the dates? Have you read the paper yet? It seems a bit crass to accuse these people of something untoward like discarding inconvenient data without at least presenting their arguments for why they did so.

I have submitted an interlibrary loan request for this paper. I should be getting a copy within a week. Maybe we can determine whether their decision was unreasonable.

-

quote:
Here is why radioactive dating could give wrong dates....

Yes, and the sources show that K/Ar dating may be inappropriate for pillow lavas. Pillow lavas are pretty easy to identify. So if the sample is from a pillow lava, one would know to not date it using the K/Ar method, or at least be very suspicious of the date if K/Ar is used.

So, if we know what that some samples are problematic, and if the problematic techniques are avoided, what exactly is the problem?

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

 This message is a reply to: Message 25 by Reserve, posted 04-02-2007 12:40 PM Reserve has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Inactive Member

 Message 33 of 94 (392843) 04-02-2007 3:22 PM Reply to: Message 31 by Dr Adequate04-02-2007 3:08 PM

Re: Calculated rates - Cavediver? Son Goku?
Use peek to see how I didthis andthis.

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

 This message is a reply to: Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-02-2007 3:08 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003

 Message 34 of 94 (392844) 04-02-2007 3:35 PM Reply to: Message 31 by Dr Adequate04-02-2007 3:08 PM

Re: Calculated rates - Cavediver? Son Goku?
 I couldn't find anything on calculating half-lives (too many responses about using them in decay calculations). We'll need one of the physics gurus ...

The decay is exponential: the proportion of the original substance left at time t is given by k^t, where k is a constant between 0 and 1 depending on the isotope.

So the half-life is given by log k 0.5.

I believe RAZD meant calculating k from first principles.

 This message is a reply to: Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-02-2007 3:08 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Reserve
Junior Member (Idle past 5170 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 03-29-2007

 Message 35 of 94 (392858) 04-02-2007 6:09 PM Reply to: Message 28 by Coragyps04-02-2007 2:53 PM

Re: No mystery
No, I believe they knew exactly what they were doing. The point is, their belief in millions of years says that submarine basalts are not suitable because they are not the norm. BUT in a creationists perspective where Noah's flood comes into play, THIS submarine basalts ARE the norm. And therefore these rocks are what give more accurate dates. However, evolutionists do not believe this so they discard them based on their belief in long ages.

 This message is a reply to: Message 28 by Coragyps, posted 04-02-2007 2:53 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-02-2007 7:36 PM Reserve has not yet responded Message 44 by JonF, posted 04-02-2007 9:23 PM Reserve has not yet responded

Reserve
Junior Member (Idle past 5170 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 03-29-2007

 Message 36 of 94 (392860) 04-02-2007 6:19 PM Reply to: Message 30 by JonF04-02-2007 3:05 PM

Re: No mystery
 Probably this has been posted already, but in the unlikely event you are interested in actually learning something about the subject, see Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective.

Unlikely event? Based on what evidence? Whatever evidence you have chosen, you chose the wrong interpretation. I googled radiometric dating and came across this site (a while ago), I found it interesting and read it. (I even added it in my favourites for future reference).

But this site does not talk about why some of the argon might still be present. Where as the source I am using currently, does.

 Well over half of the geologic dates are obtained using U-Pb, Ar-Ar,

Ar-Ar is a deriviation of the K-Ar method. And subject to the same conditions as the K-Ar.

 Sorry, there are no glimpses of errors and/or possible reasons why it is wrong.

Time will tell.

 This message is a reply to: Message 30 by JonF, posted 04-02-2007 3:05 PM JonF has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 37 by NosyNed, posted 04-02-2007 6:25 PM Reserve has responded Message 42 by JonF, posted 04-02-2007 8:51 PM Reserve has not yet responded

NosyNed
Member (Idle past 12 days)
Posts: 8963
Joined: 04-04-2003

 Message 37 of 94 (392861) 04-02-2007 6:25 PM Reply to: Message 36 by Reserve04-02-2007 6:19 PM

Ar- Ar
 Ar-Ar is a deriviation of the K-Ar method. And subject to the same conditions as the K-Ar.

And how do you know this? It is surprising that you could have just googled about dating, stumbled across this sites and already can make such a firm statement about any of the dating methods. I'd be interested in the details that led you to the above conclusion.

 This message is a reply to: Message 36 by Reserve, posted 04-02-2007 6:19 PM Reserve has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 43 by JonF, posted 04-02-2007 8:52 PM NosyNed has not yet responded Message 45 by Reserve, posted 04-02-2007 10:48 PM NosyNed has responded

RAZD
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

 Message 38 of 94 (392867) 04-02-2007 7:03 PM Reply to: Message 25 by Reserve04-02-2007 12:40 PM

Re: No mystery, really?
 The website I got it from did not mention anything about conspiracy, that is something you guys have placed inside creationists mouths. Stop doing that.

I'll stop when creationists stop making outrageous claims of conspiracies by scientists world wide to hide and falsify data.

This is CTD in Message 18:

 It may be otherwise but there's a pretty simple and obvious answer. Submit a paper with a "wrong" date and you don't get published. So even if one of the other dates is more strongly indicated, the safe bet is to publish the "correct" date, and then include the information on other dates for completeness.Too bad it's for pay. I'd be curious to see how much camoflague, if any, was applied to the other dates. Might be they smuggled some truth past the gatekeepers.

and again in Message 22

 Sure. And the science can't be "checked out" if it isn't published.Catch-22

But when it comes to evidence that he wants to believe?

 CTD writes:Message 54It's my understanding that there is only one picture of this print, and it's from the 60's. If there were anything to it, there's a good chance someone would have followed up.Photos are troublesome evidence. It can be difficult to get a genuine print to show up, while any element of contrast can create the appearance of features.But suspect < think < believe. I'd be pleased if more info were available.

This AFTER substantial evidence showing falsification of footprints, including admissions of making fakes, and where a proponent (Carl Baugh) proffering the photo footprints as real was documented claiming that another known fake is real.

To be fair, CTD is not claiming to believe the footprints are real: in Message 55

 It's even less work to fake a photo than it is to carve a fake print. The only value this picture could have would be to provide a clue where one might start to investigate. On its own, it's about as valuable as a National Enquirer alien baby pic.

The point is that he believes it may be possible for one of these footprints to be real in spite of all the evidence that there are only dino tracks and fake human tracks in the area.

 (same message 54 as above)We may have different standards of evidence. I don't have a problem with that. It's hard to find people who agree 100% (especially in cases where double standards are likely to come into play).

And here he is the one applying double standards: Carl Baugh may possibly be telling the truth, but every one of thousands on thousands of scientists without a single dissenting voice are all in cahoots fabricating false data for an old earth?

The truth is that this is not a logical conclusion, based on evidence. It is one based solely on the need to maintain a belief in the face of contradictory evidence and the psychological mechanism that operates to do that: cognitive dissonance resolution - the evidence has to be a lie.

 I think it would be false of me to say (and other creationists) that radiometric dating is known to be false.

Again, check out Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) to see how radiometric dates are confirmed by correlations with non-radiometric methods. There are times and places where the dating can be erroneous, but that still does not explain the results obtained for the rest of the data, the millions of dates that show the earth is old, billions of years old.

You can find evidence for a young earth on an old one subject to tectonic and volcanic processes that metamorphosize rock, renewing it's characteristics. The problem for YEC's is to explain how all the evidence for an old earth adds up to a consistent picture, time and again. You can't take a picture of a person older than the person.

Just as an additional question -- how do you think the scientists derive the probable error in each of the dating methods used?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : english

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

 This message is a reply to: Message 25 by Reserve, posted 04-02-2007 12:40 PM Reserve has not yet responded

RAZD
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

 Message 39 of 94 (392873) 04-02-2007 7:20 PM Reply to: Message 31 by Dr Adequate04-02-2007 3:08 PM

Re: Calculated rates - Cavediver? Son Goku?
 So the half-life is given by log k 0.5.

As noted by others I was responding to Ned's question on calculating k or half life from first principles - see Son Goku's post, Message 21.

So the half-life is given by ... log(k)<sup>0.5</sup> ... log(k)0.5

And the half-life of ... <sub>14</sub>C ... 14C is 5730 years.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : halflife

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

 This message is a reply to: Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-02-2007 3:08 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 40 of 94 (392878) 04-02-2007 7:36 PM Reply to: Message 35 by Reserve04-02-2007 6:09 PM

Re: No mystery
 No, I believe they knew exactly what they were doing. The point is, their belief in millions of years says that submarine basalts are not suitable because they are not the norm. BUT in a creationists perspective where Noah's flood comes into play, THIS submarine basalts ARE the norm. And therefore these rocks are what give more accurate dates.

Well, you say that, but Bible Science News, November 1994, says:

"Studies have been made of submarine basalt rocks of known recent age near Hawaii. These came from the Kilauea volcano. The results ranged up to 22,000,000 years."

And these are the rocks which you say "give accurate dates"?

Is there any chance you guys could get your story straight?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 35 by Reserve, posted 04-02-2007 6:09 PM Reserve has not yet responded

NosyNed
Member (Idle past 12 days)
Posts: 8963
Joined: 04-04-2003

 Message 41 of 94 (392887) 04-02-2007 7:55 PM Reply to: Message 21 by Son Goku04-02-2007 7:46 AM

Re: Calculated rates - Cavediver? Son Goku?
 Even then I've only ever truly worked out free-particle decays. Actually working out decay rates for bound states like atoms would require teams of people (that's what 90% of the physicists at the Manhattan Project were doing) or a computer.

But it has been done? And what kind of agreement with measurements do you get? What are the inputs? E.g., speed of light, h bar etc.

 This message is a reply to: Message 21 by Son Goku, posted 04-02-2007 7:46 AM Son Goku has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 48 by Son Goku, posted 04-03-2007 1:13 PM NosyNed has responded

JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003

 Message 42 of 94 (392904) 04-02-2007 8:51 PM Reply to: Message 36 by Reserve04-02-2007 6:19 PM

Re: No mystery
 Unlikely event? Based on what evidence? Whatever evidence you have chosen, you chose the wrong interpretation. I googled radiometric dating and came across this site (a while ago), I found it interesting and read it. (I even added it in my favourites for future reference).

Perhaps I've misjudged you. We'll see.

You really should head over to RAZD's thread on correlations, to which he's posted a link ... there he raises and explains the issues you really need to understand and address.

 But this site does not talk about why some of the argon might still be present. Where as the source I am using currently, does.

That's because so-called "excess argon" is not a significant problem or limitation. It's not worth introducing in such a brief treatment intended to provide an accurate overview. Whereas your source is unikely to be interested in accuracy, and is trying to misrepresent the accuracy of K-Ar dating. Note that your site mentions two old individual cases which were studies to find out where K-Ar dating is or is not applicable. Extrapolating that to all K-Ar dates (and creationists need all of hundreds of thousands of dates to be way wrong) being seriously in error is invalid and wrong.

What is valid is comparing K-Ar dates to other dates of the same material by other methods that are not affected by such possible issues. This is done all the time; and 99% of the time the dates agree. Such as Consistent Radiometric dates, Radiometeric Dating Does Work!, Radiometric Ages of Some Early Archean and Related Rocks of the North Atlantic Craton, and Radiometric Ages of Some Mare Basalts Dated by Two or More Methods. Those ain't coincidence; there's a clear pattern that no creationist dares address.

Another valid test is testing lots of recent lava flows to see if they have excess argon. Dalrymple did that and found that, in 26 tests, 2/3 had no excess argon and 25 had either no excess argon or not enough excess argon to interfere with dating after the rocks age a few million years.

RAZD goes into this and much more in his correlations thread.

Excess argon is rare, and with rational sample selection K-Ar dating is accurate and reliable. That's what the data clearly shows.

 Ar-Ar is a deriviation of the K-Ar method. And subject to the same conditions as the K-Ar.

Oops. Strike one. You may have read Weins, but you failed to comprehend:

quote:
This method uses exactly the same parent and daughter isotopes as the potassium-argon method. In effect, it is a different way of telling time from the same clock. Instead of simply comparing the total potassium with the non-air argon in the rock, this method has a way of telling exactly what and how much argon is directly related to the potassium in the rock.

(Emphasis added). Ar-Ar uses the same isotopes but is not subject to the same limitations or potential errors as K-Ar. Ar-Ar is not affected by excess Ar (the samples in the Pompeii study previouslly referred to had excess argon) and often can provide a good date even if the system has been opened.

You also failed to address U-Pb dating, which makes up slightly over half the geological dates obtained in the past decade or so, and is covered briefly in Weins. And Rb-Sr and Lu-Hf and other isochron methods.

 Sorry, there are no glimpses of errors and/or possible reasons why it is wrong.

Time will tell.

Yup. Always true in science. If any errors or possible reasons why it is wrong come up, we'll address tham and figure them out. As of now, there's bupkis.

 This message is a reply to: Message 36 by Reserve, posted 04-02-2007 6:19 PM Reserve has not yet responded

JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003

 Message 43 of 94 (392905) 04-02-2007 8:52 PM Reply to: Message 37 by NosyNed04-02-2007 6:25 PM

Re: Ar- Ar
 And how do you know this? It is surprising that you could have just googled about dating, stumbled across this sites and already can make such a firm statement about any of the dating methods. I'd be interested in the details that led you to the above conclusion.

And he claims to have read Weins, wherein he clearly states otherwise (and gives a brief eplanation of why).

 This message is a reply to: Message 37 by NosyNed, posted 04-02-2007 6:25 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003

 Message 44 of 94 (392919) 04-02-2007 9:23 PM Reply to: Message 35 by Reserve04-02-2007 6:09 PM

Re: No mystery
 The point is, their is trapped in the belief in millions of years says that submarine basalts are not suitable because they are not the norm.

No. The hypothesis was that submarine basalts are not suitable because their outside cools and solidifies so fast that argon is trapped. The hypothesis was confirmed.

 BUT in a creationists perspective where Noah's flood comes into play, THIS submarine basalts ARE the norm.

OT, but this is one of many reasons why Noye's Fludde did not happen. Submarine basalts are easily identifiable, and the vast majority of igneous rocks are not submarine basalts. Submarine basalts are not the norm.

 And therefore these rocks are what give more accurate dates

In spite of the measurements that clearly indicate excess argon, and the depth profiles that clearly showed it concentrated in the interior as predicted. Sigh.

 This message is a reply to: Message 35 by Reserve, posted 04-02-2007 6:09 PM Reserve has not yet responded

Reserve
Junior Member (Idle past 5170 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 03-29-2007

 Message 45 of 94 (392943) 04-02-2007 10:48 PM Reply to: Message 37 by NosyNed04-02-2007 6:25 PM

Re: Ar- Ar
 It is surprising that you could have just googled about dating, stumbled across this sites and already can make such a firm statement about any of the dating methods

I have a firm believe in the Bible, as for the dating methods, if I seem to make myself look like an expert in that field, I have misled you. I am not an expert in that field, and will not be for a long time, if ever.

I just brought up these "conflicts" with radioactive dating to see what evolutionists have to say specifically about such claims. I could set aside days worth of time and look at papers, different sources, books and learn that way. But I find this forum an easier tool to get a faster response to certain questions. I mean, there is tons of information out there, to syphen through all that to get at what I really want to know is not easy. So I just have to say I am glad with some of the responses that directly attack the questions I put forth. However, far from converting me to an evolutionists, you guys make me ask new questions concerning dating, but also, you make me question some of the claims that creationists have put forth.

All in all, I have not lost confidence in my belief, but I do see how creationists are at their infant stages when it comes to knowledge about dating.

 This message is a reply to: Message 37 by NosyNed, posted 04-02-2007 6:25 PM NosyNed has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 46 by NosyNed, posted 04-02-2007 11:13 PM Reserve has not yet responded Message 52 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2007 7:44 PM Reserve has not yet responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)