Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

This is exactly the stuff that a zealot would misread as saying that U-Th chronology was calibrated against C-14 dating, rather than vice versa.

quote:

---

This paper presents high precision paired 230Th/ 234U/ 238U and 14C age determinations on pristine coral samples that enable us to extend the radiocarbon calibration curve from 12,000 to 50,000 years before present.

---

What consillience is violated? I am not aware of any radiometric dating in the vicinity of 4 billion years that couldn't be 'explained' as being primordial material. Dates of moon rocks? Dates of the occasional rare old dating earth rock? All possibly primordial material.In fact, we theorize/know that the materials of the solar system and of the earth itself all came from solar activity (super nova and nova) in some time before the creation of the universe. How then do they date to only the creation of the solar system? Must be some kind of reset unless the time between the creation of the meteorites and the creation of the solar system is negligible. Isn't our acceptance that they do tied up in our theory of how the universe was created? And if we change that to some kind of more gentle supernatural means then why couldn't the solar system be much younger than the meteorite, since no change in decay rates is involved. Why does that not explain consillience?Of the radiometric dates, C-14 dates are definitely of post creation origin and are already problematic for YECs, but of course they have separate issues and can be attacked without monkeying with decay rates. Also there are long aged radiometric dates that we know have been reset by the geology on earth. Those cannot be primordial. But does any of that get near 1 billion years old. I don't know, but my impression is that the primordial possibility is not so easily shaken. At least I don't see such a counter argument spelled out in your post.

Yes, that is the answer to the conventional YEC argument, and generally consilience is enough to answer such arguments.But the argument we are discussing does not involve changes of decay rate. It is agreed that 4.5+ billion years passed since the formation of the materials in meteorites. The argument is that the material in the solar system is 4.55 billion years old, but that some fraction of that time is taken up between time the materials were created and the solar system was formed.As I understand your comment, my question takes what you say into account except I would have talked about U238 rather than your example of K40. If the answer is that U238 dates were reset during the formation of the solar system (or maybe even the universe), then the answer is also dependent on the process of formations. YECs would insist on hocus pocus that would not do resetting rather than some violent heat pressure intensive process that would reset.Side issue: K40 dates don't really overlap with U238 dates do they? Do any radiometric dates overlap with U238 dates?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I see that I have not expressed my question clearly. I understand the point that radioactive decay rates have not changed. I've argued the evidence for that point here on a number of occasions.However, I also understand that there is very little radiometric evidence on earth of a 4+ billion year formation. It is also the case that material on earth arrived from outside of the solar system and thus at least conceivable might predate the formation of the earth by a large margin. No changes in decay rates would be required.

Not exactly. I am asking why such a thing is inconsistent with radiometric dating at constant decay rates and nothing else. Obviously other dating methods pretty much rule out earth being only 10000 years old.But the material of our solar system, at least on an atomic level, was created some before the solar system was formed. I don't know exactly how long. I think you are actually asking my question. If meteor rocks are the same age as the solar system that implies either a reset or a creation from a relatively nearby supernova. Matter and dust doesn't travel between stars at the speed of light does it? That would not have any effect on the answer. We all agree that the meteor is 4.55 billion years old in at least some sense.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes, K40 dates do overlap with U238. I had not considered them. But do they address the problem? Do we have any 4 billion year old K40 dates that we know were set to zero on earth?

Thanks JonF. I think you, NosyNed, edge, and RAZD guys have addressed my question quite completely.

I don't understand this particular point. Did you mean U235 rather than U237? At a time when U238 is getting incorporated into a mineral there should not be any amount of U237 around, should there?

Did the summation mode get cancelled?

Assuming that you are correct about the energy requirements, that's not a logic conclusion. Paper makes energy by burning. Do you think we could reverse the process of combustion by super cooling?People have exposed decay processes to extremes of heat, magnetic fields, and pressure. Other than some specific examples involving electron capture type decay, those kinds of provocations have essentially no effect on decay rates. But you still think you can reverse the process?

To be honest, I thought it was kinder to ignore it.

The Argon article shows Ar40 as being stable. I note that you claim below that the reaction is described in the Wikipedia article on Argon.I took a look at the wikipedia entry on argon. I don't see any description of the reverse decay you say is there. Could you either provide a pointer or acknowledge your error? There is also that pesky energy problem that works in the opposite direction as your post suggested.From the article

quote:

---

Naturally occurring 40K, with a half-life of 1.25109 years, decays to stable 40Ar (11.2%) by electron capture or positron emission, and also to stable 40Ca (88.8%) via beta decay. These properties and ratios are used to determine the age of rocks by the method of K-Ar dating

​

In the Earth's atmosphere, 39Ar is made by cosmic ray activity, primarily with 40Ar. In the subsurface environment, it is also produced through neutron capture by 39K or alpha emission by calcium. 37Ar is created from the neutron spallation of 40
Ca as a result of subsurface nuclear explosions. It has a half-life of 35 days.

---

Implied by what? Cool. Let's hear about why those things are nutjobs.

An exception to what general principle? You appear to be making this stuff up. So far, every time some asks you for a reference you've either told them to look it up themselves, or have had to back off on a claim that it can be found where you say it is. Is it your claim that the typical decay process absorbs energy and thus can be reversed by super cooling. Because that claim is extraordinary.I have to admit to not being able to keep track of what you are claiming. What is it you suspect about C14? Let's recall that C14 decays to N14 through beta decay and that there is no evidence of any substantive effect of temperature and pressure on such processes.Carbon 14 decays by emitting a beta particle and gamma radiation, both of which carry away energy. The process is exothermic. Your suspicion is wrong.

The correlation between tree ring dating and carbon dating have been discussed here extensively as has the correlation between tree age and tree ring count.I would personally be interested in any information that underlies your belief. It would make a great thread, particularly if you are willing to do some real homework/research. But I'm not interested in discussing something being "nutjob" without such information. Nothing in that chart implies any such thing.