|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems with Radiometric Dating? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Are the following claims true? The bigger picture is what are the scientists really saying. For instance:
C14 INCREASING ! H. E. Suess, UCLA, "Symposium Organized By International Atomic Energy Authority, ...presented the latest determinations...as adduced from the current activity of dendrochronologically dated growth rings of the Californian bristle cone pine. ...The carbon14 concentration increases rather steadily during this time. These results confirm the change in carbon14 concentration.... and indicate that the concentration increases..." Science, Vol.157, p.726 This is true, but relatively trivial, with the difference being a slight correction of 14C dates to slightly older ages:
See http://www.radiocarbon.org/IntCal04_TOC.pdf {note: image originally from http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htm, image copied to a mirror site to cut down on bandwidth usage for the original site} That graph shows you the correlation between 14C ages and ages derived by other means, like tree rings (represented by the straight line). The gap between them is due to lower 14C/12C ratios in the past. This correlation is pretty amazing when you look at how linear the 14C data points are on the graph, the lack of scatter in the data. This correlation is even more amazing when you consider that the tree ring and other absolute dating is linear, while the actual 14C measurements are decreasing on an exponential curve with time, from which the 14C age is calculated by a (relatively) simple mathematical formula - ie the only reason that the data should correlate is because they measure the same thing. If a creationist is telling you this without explaining the information then they want you to reach false conclusions due to the missing information. They are in effect lying to you about what the evidence really shows. This is a common (dishonest) tactic of many creationists. See Radioactive carbon dating or Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) for more information on 14C dating accuracy. Now this is the second website (that I know of) that you have posted and basically asked "well what about THIS" -- a version of the Gish Gallop, and one of the reasons that debating by the use of just pasting stuff from websites is frowned on in the forum guidelines. So what do you think: (1) about the accuracy of science? (2) about the honesty of creationists? Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In other words he is still passing out falsehoods? I'm SHOCKED!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It is great that 14C dates agree so well with varves and tree rings. Yes, see Message 249 for another correlation, where the 14C samples came from a different environment but correlate with the 14C age in the Lake Suigetsu varves for an volcanic ash (Sakate) deposit in both areas.
... I do not have access to the journals listed in the OP right now ... This is another reason creationists use OLD (pre-internet) articles - they are hard to find on the web. Science mag lets you sign up for free (IIRC) to read (some? most?) old articles, but I don't know it they go back to the '60's. Science | AAAS Could not access the article with my membership but this is the full citation: Radioactive Dating and Low-Level CountingV. R. Switsur Science 11 August 1967 157: 726-727 [DOI: 10.1126/science.157.3789.726] (in Articles) 40 years old.
... so I am unable to tell if the quotes were used honestly. Is it from a creationist known for honesty? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added info Edited by RAZD, : honestly. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
can you access Radioactive Dating and Low-Level Counting and email me the PDF? I want to see how it compares to the Bristlecone pine stuff I've read.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
another cool tool is pdfill PDF tools, free from
PDFill: Free PDF Editor, Free PDF Tools and Free PDF Writer you can reorganize, combine, cut, crop, convert to image, and convert any file to pdf with the PDF print function (you can fill in those pdf form income tax forms that don't let you save your input and then print them to a PDF all filled out). meryxmas eh? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
is it big? hasn't come through yet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
done. try again. the addy on my website seems to be chopping off the last letter -- it's .com not .co
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Message 1 from "AGE OF THE EARTH" C14 INCREASING ! H. E. Suess, UCLA, "Symposium Organized By International Atomic Energy Authority, ...presented the latest determinations...as adduced from the current activity of dendrochronologically dated growth rings of the Californian bristle cone pine. ...The carbon14 concentration increases rather steadily during this time. These results confirm the change in carbon14 concentration.... and indicate that the concentration increases..." Science, Vol.157, p.726 The article cited refers to work by H.E. Suess, but the words quoted are by V. R. SWITSUR. Here is what Switsur says about radiocarbon in his report on the symposium (I've highlighted the text quoted by Don Patton):
quote: The real reference for H.E.Suess would be the proceedings of the symposium, not this article, and he also quotes from M. Stuiver who is NOT credited. Sloppy, careless and irrelevant. I'll bet you can google the citation and ONLY get creationist sites. This is a typical creationist lie - a wrong reference. google results:IwHome.com is for sale | HugeDomains The resource cannot be found. Scientific Age of the Earth http://www.detectingdesign.com/...s/Tree%20Ring%20Dating.ppt QED. Creationists don't care for the truth: they don't know how to handle it. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added google results Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : quote all the relevant text 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
sounds good, but they are after the science article ... vol 157 was published 11 AUGUST 1967
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The Radiocarbon Record in Tree-rings of the Last 8000 Years., Seuss, H.E. Radiocarbon 22(2):200-209.
Edited by RAZD, : wow
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray, eial.
Radiometric dating cannot be PROVEN to be reliable, especially in dating inorganic material, there are too many assumptions. Actually it can be proven to be very reliable. This is done by three different methods:
Here is a graph of one such correlation between radiometric dating and actual age:
The formula is very basic (1/2)n x massi = massf, where n= number of half lives. n is what we are trying to find, massf is what we know. We do not know massi, the mass we started with. We have to assume we know how much we start with. Could somebody please explain how we can tell, sitting here today, how much radioactive isotope we started with. If you type massf = massi*(1/2)nthen it displays massf = massi*(1/2)n With parent daughter systems you can estimate the amount that has decayed by the amount of daughter mass to the remaining parent mass. With radiocarbon we can estimate the amount from the amount in the atmosphere today as a first approximation. We can also find correlations that tell us the actual age of objects and then use that to calculate the actual amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere at different times, and once that correlation is known we can then calculate more accurate ages from samples. This graph shows the results of precisely that process:
This extends the correlation from the first graph out to the practical limit for radiocarbon dating (~45k years), where the green line is the part shown above. See Age Correlations for more examples of correlations between different methods of measuring age, and for different ways to validate the reliability of radioactive dating.
3. That the rate of decay is constant. Well, if you measure the decay rate for say, 1 year, or even a 100 years, and determine the decay rate to be 4 million years, this is an extreme extrapolation, especially for an exponential equation. What you can look at is evidence that it has not changed. This comes from stars, where you can see the same radioactive decay for the same isotopes as we see today, yet the light is millions of years old ... ... and this comes from simple events here on earth:
uranium halos can only be made by hundreds of millions of years of uranium decay with a constant decay rate - changing the decay rate would change the alpha particle energy and change the radius of the halo, so the existence of uranium halos is evidence that decay rates have not changed for hundreds of millions of years.
Prehistoric natural reactors show exactly the same process of nuclear reaction that we see in modern reactors, again demonstrating that decay rates have not changed since they occurred, 2000 million years ago. Enjoy. ps - since you are new, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window. For other formating tips see Posting Tips Edited by Admin, : Reduce width of too-wide images. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray armylngst,
How do scientists know how much radioactive materials that decay was present at the creation (by big bang, by God, by whatever) of the universe next to their byproducts? This would be a great new topic. My answer would be ... none. No radioactive materials, because they had not formed yet in the bellies of stars by fusion of the Helium that predominated in the early universe. Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics. Enjoy.ps - as you are new, some tips type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window. For other formating tips see Posting Tips type: [url=http://insert_your_url_here]this message is linked to an url[/url]and it becomes: this message is linked to an url (one with even more posting tips). And if you use the other reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks eial,
I think the idea of “calibrating” C14 with tree rings is great. Yet, I see a couple of problems here. First of all, tree rings are not always annual. So, we have to assume these are annual rings, I am assuming for the most part they are, but over a long period (say thousands of years), a few extra rings here and there could give an older date for the tree. Just a thought, I am not willing to die on this mountain. Correct me if I am mistaken, but the oldest trees I have been able to find, based on their rings alone, have been in the 4500 range. Correct for single living trees that have been discovered and where core samples have been taken to measure their age. You also have problems of missing rings, which leads to false young age if not corrected. Dendrochronologists know what to look for and how to eliminate these false and missing rings from the overall data. They also can piece together tree rings from one tree with those of another, because the tree rings also preserve information about climate - wider rings from longer warmer summers, thinner rings from cool short summers, and because the pattern of climate from one year to the next is rather random than static, these patterns in the rings can be matched from one sample to another. There are also three continuous tree ring chronologies currently known in the world, one for the Bristlecone Pine in Arizona, and two for the Post Oak, one in Germany and one in Ireland. These three totally independent chronologies each extend to over 8,000 years, and when they are matched up for climate information they have a net error of some 37 years over that time. That's a 0.5% error. The carbon-14 data also preserves climate data, as the amount of C-14 produced in the atmosphere depends on it's own "climate" - variation in sun activity that produces the cosmic rays that cause Nitrogen atoms to be converted into C-14 atoms (one of the reasons it varies, rather than has a constant equilibrium value), and we can match the "C-14 climate" info from C-14 to each of tree rings along with the tree ring climate. That's a lot of correlation in just a few pieces of evidence. See Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) for more information on this and other calibration systems.
It is interesting that as you look at the graph, and just for kicks, drop the 5K and beyond, the graph appears to start a significant divergent from the linear path it appears to be taking. And further on it comes back to the straight correlation line, showing that C-14 does indeed vary with age, and that when corrected to actual dates from the C-14 ages that the artifacts are older.
Again, an assumption has to be made that all the “daughter” mass actually is daughter mass (came from the parent isotope), and was not already present in the sample. This is a very large assumption, especially since the consequence of being off could mean the difference in millions of years versus tens of thousands. How this estimation can be done with any accuracy is beyond me. There is no "parent-daughter" system in C-14: it works because the carbon-14 is being constantly renewed by cosmic radiation converting nitrogen atoms into new C-14. What is measured is the ratio of C-14 to C-12, and as long as the sample got it's carbon from the atmosphere (or from plants that got it from the atmosphere (or from animals that got it from plants that got it from the atmosphere (or ... etc))) and as long as we know (or reasonably estimate) the proportion in the atmosphere at the time the organism lived we can calculate the age based on the ratio {(C-14)/(C-12)}now/{(C-14)/(C-12)}then (you will notice that this is dimensionless, so we don't need accurate mass of the original, only an accurate ratio of C-14 to C-12.
What correlations are you referring to that tell us the actual age of objects that goes beyond say, 5K years? See Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III).
If we have correlations that tell us actual object ages, why are we even belaboring the issue of radioactive dating? We must know what these calibrations are, and see how many assumptions there are in these. If we are not accurate with our calibration tools, calibrating against an inaccurate instrument is useless. This sounds like we are getting somewhere. Because once we have correlated a radiometric dating method and validated its accuracy, then we can use it to date things where we can't count the rings/layers/ages. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : subtitle by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024