|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Radiometric Dating Corroboration | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
I have tried to push this a couple of times & not gotten very far, so I’ve formalised it a bit & given it a thread of its own, apologies to those who’ve seen the bulk of this before. It deals with four radiometric dating methods dating K-T tektites that corroborate a 65 m.y. age, & the implications of rationale & reason, with respect to maintaining a YEC 6,000 year old earth world view, based on the odds involved.
radiometeric_dating_does_work The K-T TektitesOne of the most exciting and important scientific findings in decades was the 1980 discovery that a large asteroid, about 10 kilometres diameter, struck the earth at the end of the Cretaceous Period. The collision threw many tons of debris into the atmosphere and possibly led to the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other life forms. The fallout from this enormous impact, including shocked quartz and high concentrations of the element iridium, has been found in sedimentary rocks at more than 100 locations worldwide at the precise stratigraphic location of the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary (Alvarez and Asaro 1990; Alvarez 1998). We now know that the impact site is located on the Yucatan Peninsula. Measuring the age of this impact event independently of the stratigraphic evidence is an obvious test for radiometric methods, and a number of scientists in laboratories around the world set to work. In addition to shocked quartz grains and high concentrations of iridium, the K-T impact produced tektites, which are small glass spherules that form from rock that is instantaneously melted by a large impact. The K-T tektites were ejected into the atmosphere and deposited some distance away. Tektites are easily recognizable and form in no other way, so the discovery of a sedimentary bed (the Beloc Formation) in Haiti that contained tektites and that, from fossil evidence, coincided with the K-T boundary provided an obvious candidate for dating. Scientists from the US Geological Survey were the first to obtain radiometric ages for the tektites and laboratories in Berkeley, Stanford, Canada, and France soon followed suit. The results from all of the laboratories were remarkably consistent with the measured ages ranging only from 64.4 to 65.1 Ma (Table 2). Similar tektites were also found in Mexico, and the Berkeley lab found that they were the same age as the Haiti tektites. But the story doesn’t end there. The K-T boundary is recorded in numerous sedimentary beds around the world. The Z-coal, the Ferris coal, and the Nevis coal in Montana and Saskatchewan all occur immediately above the K-T boundary. Numerous thin beds of volcanic ash occur within these coals just centimeters above the K-T boundary, and some of these ash beds contain minerals that can be dated radiometrically. Ash beds from each of these coals have been dated by 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb methods in several laboratories in the US and Canada. Since both the ash beds and the tektites occur either at or very near the K-T boundary, as determined by diagnostic fossils, the tektites and the ash beds should be very nearly the same age, and they are (Table 2). There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible. 1/ So the K-T Tektites were dated by no less than four methods. 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb . If that weren't evidence enough, lets take a look at how inaccurate they all must be, to fit a YEC world view. The lower age given is 64.4 mya. Now, assuming a 6,000 year old YEC earth is what YECs perceive as 100% of available time, then 60 years is 1%. This means that all the above methods, were ALL (1,085,000-100 = ) 1,084,900% inaccurate. Let me reiterate, the YECs requires these FOUR different, corroborating methods to be nearly ONE MILLION, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PERCENT INACCURATE, assuming their 6,000 year old model is the correct one. Now, given that the four methods are different, & are subject to DIFFERENT potential error sources & yet still corroborate closely means that the various potential bugbears of each method have been reasonably accounted for in the date calculations themselves. This can only leave a YEC one place to go, the underlying physics. Half-life constancy. 2/ The range of dates is from 64.4 mya to 65.1 mya giving a 0.7 my range. 64.4/0.7 = 92 (Not taking the 65.1 m.y. figure to be as favourable as possible to YECs) The range of error is 92 times smaller than the minimum given date, giving us usable increments of time. Probabilistically speaking, we basically have four 92 sided dice. What are the odds of all four dice rolling a 92? On the familiar 6 sided die, the chance of rolling two sixes (or any two numbers, for that matter) is 6^2 = 36:1 (Number of sides to the nth power where nth = number of die). Therefore, the odds of four radiometric dating methods reaching the same date range by chance isdrum roll92^4 (92*92*92*92)= 71,639,296:1 Is there any YEC that is prepared to state that the four radiometric dating methods achieve their high level of corroboration by pure chance? If not, how much of the 65 m.y. old figure do you attribute to chance, & how much to radiometric half lives contributing to the derived date, percentage wise? Here is your dilemma. The error required by the radiometric methods is 1,084,900% to fit a YEC 6,000 year old view. If they accept that the methods are capable of not being in error by more than 1,084,000%, then they accept a 60,000-year-old earth, minimum. So, saying that half-lives contribute only 1% to any derived radiometric date, means in this case (1% of 65,000,000 is 650,000 years), so even this small contribution by half lives falsifies a YEC young earth. 3/ The chance of all four methods being off by (chance) 64,400,000 years when the result SHOULD have been 6,000 years is truly staggering. 64,400,000/6,000 = 10,733.33 recurring (following the previous example, we now have four 10,733.33 sided dice) 10,733.33 recurring ^4 = 13,272,064,019,753,086:1 My questions to creationists are: A/ How do you account for four corroborating radiometric dating methods dating the tektites so closely at 65 m.y. old, in the light of the odds of it occurring by pure chance? B/ IF you don’t accept that radiometric dating is valid as a dating method, how do you rationalise the four methods being over one million percent inaccurate, relative to a YEC assumed 6,000 year old earth? C/ If you DO accept that half lives affect the resultant date, even to a small degree, what percentage would you be prepared to accept that radiometric dating is influenced by half lives, the rest being just plain chance? And how do you come by this figure, evidentially? D/ How do you rationalise holding to a 6,000 year old earth when the odds of all four radiometric methods being wrong by a factor of AT LEAST 10,733 each is 13,272,064,019,753,086:1? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: A. ConspiracyB. Atheistic conspiracy C. Speed of light slowing conspiracy D. Lies, damned lies and statistics conspiracy Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: LOL, damn those statistitians, damn them to hell........ Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5900 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Wow, Joe! How'd you figure it out so fast? You forgot E. Atheist geologist / godless physicist collusion. Everyone knows radioactive decay rates were different 4500 years ago than they are today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
1st bump.....
------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7911 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
lol good work joe. Too bad i cant argue mark since im not a creationist scientist or whatever. I really want to say something but hell just say no its not evidence. so theres nothing more for me to say.
------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: KP, My post isn't to present positive evidence for any particular method being accurate, that's been done elsewhere. I've taken an alternative approach in asking you to deal with the sheer odds of them NOT being accurate from a YEC point of view. Can you? Cheers, Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
TC, moved this from the other thread.
quote: No it doesn’t, the odds of such an occurrence are considered too great. DNA is thought to have evolved into its current form, the most likely existent precursormolecule is RNA, which is able to self catalyse. What came before that is much more tentative.
quote: (I recalculated in my second post using the lower age in the range so as to be kinder to YECS, the order of magnitude is the same.) You are misunderstanding the question. The odds of all four methods being wrong to the same extent are 71,639,296:1 , would you agree that given these odds that the methods of radiometric dating are good, given that each method has it’s own DIFFERENT sources of potential error, I argue that the calculations themselves have accounted for these errors because the corroboration is seen to be so good. This means that for the YEC position to be true another source of error must have crept in. What is the source of error that is common to the four methods that will make them all wrong by 1,000,000%? So it IS about odds, the odds of this occurring is huge, the odds of the earth not being 6,000 years old is 13,272,064,019,753,086:1 . If you are denying this, you are saying that the corroboration is pure chance. 13^15:1 needs a better explanation.
quote: Nope. If I took two identical samples, kept one whole & the other in pieces, measured the total isotope ratio after any given time, the totals will be identical. Half life remains the same.
quote: No idea what you’re on about here. Do you have any positive evidence that the earth is 6,000 years old?
quote: Stay focussed, TC. The odds that the earth is 6,000 years old compared to the odds of the four methods being wrong by chance are 13,272,064,019,753,086:1 (remember, I recalculated to the lower age). Can you address this colossal discrepancy brought about by positive evidence?
quote: So, you think it’s feasible that DNA arose spontaneously, given the odds against such an occurrence? Can’t have it both ways.
quote: As far as radiometric dating is concerned, half life constancy & decay rate constancy are one & the same. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: So you actually deny the POSSIBILITY that transitionals exist. KP, it isn’t possible to have a more closed mind. Alarm bells a ringin’!
quote: If anything’s possible, what about transitionals? You still haven’t answered the question. I’ve always been told by creationists that the number of mutations for macro evolution is vast. So, to support your statement that an organism could retro-evolve into what it was before you need at least to demonstrate it’s likelyhood. It’s that odds thing again. If it takes a thousand fixed mutations in a genome of say, 3 billion nucleotides then the chance of a mutation reversing it is 1/3,000,000,000. For that to happen ONLY 1,000 times is 3^9 to the 3^9th power. My scientific calculator can’t display this figure as it is so large. So would you agree that its probably as likely that a species could evolve into what it was before and mess up the order is NOT a feasible argument for explaining fossil record patterns?
quote: What are you on about? Half lives are demonstrably constant, why would you think they weren’t? Do you have any evidence that they weren’t from earths formation onwards? Saying it might have been, or Godidit is baseless assertion.
quote: Abiogenesis DOESN’T state DNA arose spontaneously. To do that it would have to appear in a solution of constituent molecules ready made. DNA requires a battery of enzymes to replicate efficiently. RNA has the property of self catalyation, & is a candiate for a predecessor of DNA, before that PNA, who knows? But DNA was never thought to have spontaneously appeared. In fact it is the sheer odds of such an occurrence that weighs against it. Why is it that evolutionists can accept such bad odds, & dismiss an argument, but you can’t dismiss a 6,000 year old earth hypothesis in the face of 13,858,587,006,250,000 : 1 odds? If science is a gift from God why does it contradict the bible? Like turkeys voting for Christmas? Also science in the form of the scientific method is demonstrably man made.
quote: It COULD be, but would you back this horse with your life savings? You’re stating the obvious. How can these methods be MORE THAN LIKELY HORRIBLY WRONG? The odds suggest they are more than LIKELY right!
quote: Sorry, KP, drivel, utter unsubstantiated drivel. Radiometric dating methods measure time, by definition, not anything but. The assumptions are that half lives are constant, based on solid experimental evidence. The truth, as an absolute 100% known factor doesn’t exist. But we base likely-hoods on the strength of evidence. Radiometric dating has been questioned by YECs. I have provided an example where the chance of radiometric methods getting the assumed YEC date wrong is 13,858,587,006,250,000 : 1. Now, tell me. What is more likely, a 6,000 year old earth, or an older earth based on the statistics provided by evidence? You have claimed elsewhere (to Joz) that you won't accept evolution until there is better evidence. If anyone produced evidence that evolution was 13,858,587,006,250,000 : 1 likely, you clearly would still cling to your old unsubstantiated position. Frankly, I find it difficult that you would accept ANY evidence that contradicts the bible, as evidenced by your claim that there is NO evidence that you would accept of transitionals. I think you're telling Joz porkies. You are STILL refusing to let go of a 6,000 year old earth a/ despite no evidence that it actually is 6,000 years old, & b/ in the face of highly concordant evidence that it is at LEAST 65 million years old.
quote: How have I lost credibility? You are eschewing evidence (radiometric) in favour of a substance-less position. This is an awful intellectual hypocrisy. You believe in an evidence-less God, & claim other evidence-less religions are incorrect. HOW can you claim anything is wrong without a basis for doing so. How can you claim anything is true without evidence? Much less, you are claiming science, with a basis in evidence, is wrong at the expense of unsubstantiated supernatural scripture. It is the person that argues from an evidence backed position who has credibility, not the other way around. So, do you have a single evidence that the earth is 6,000 years old?
quote: The earth will appear as old as it is, not as old as it wants, & it appears old. Your argument is with radiometric dating & the corroborative odds produced by the example I provided. No, me & Einstein are in perfect agreement, it’s you who disagrees. You need to show that under 1g of gravity, at the speed the earth rotates about the sun that time can vary by 1,000,000%. If you think that 1g, or the earths velocity about the sun varied, then show that it did by a factor as large enough to cause a 1,000,000% time dilation. If not, then time isn’t as easily altered as your argument requires.
quote: Geological time is based on evidence. If you can’t produce evidence of YEC time, then I can say with EXACTLY the same intellectual basis that the earth is 50,000 years old, or 100 billion years old. etcetera ad infinitum. Any claim to know the age of the earth without any presented evidence is meaningless.
quote: Baseless assertion. How do you argue the above odds with a basis in evidence? Saying Godidit without showing SOME positive evidence of Gods existence is simply denial. Do you understand this? It would be like you being tried for a crime you never committed, you weren’t in the country, the gun had someone else’s prints on it, & all the witnesses said it wasn’t you, but judge believes it was, so you get the chair. In order to argue a position you must have some basis to successfully do so. What basis do you have? The bible? What basis in evidence do you have for assuming God to exist because of what is written in it? Because it looks to me that you have no basis for believing God to exist, no basis for believing that God wants to test us, no basis for denying colossal odds against a 6,000 year old earth, no basis in EVIDENCE whatsoever. In fact, in light of this, it looks to me that anything, no matter what the odds/evidence, if they contradict the bible you’re sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes & saying GODIDIT, GODIDIT, GODIDIT! Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 03-26-2002] [This message has been edited by mark24, 03-26-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: And why your at it show how the Earth stayed in orbit while it was moving so much faster..... Oh and Mark that should be Einstein and I..... P.S Did you like the equation Mark? P.P.S This one (delta t1 - delta t2)/delta t = (Phi2 - Phi1)/c2 [This message has been edited by joz, 03-25-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3245 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
Nice post. I have a question for you. What do you think of the more recent calculations (past year I believe) that concluded that the strike in Mexico was smaller than originally thought and that it may not have carried enough mass to kick up enough debris to account for the entire KT event? In other words, there may have been more than one event that lead to the death of the dinosaurs; maybe a combination of the strike and the lava flows in the Decan flats (sp?) area of India.
------------------"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur Taz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Rubbish! It does not matter how you slice, dice and pureee a sample, the radiometric age will not be affected. Let's do a thought experiment. Let's just use 2 pieces and you can sum the solution to an infinite number. Let's say that piece originally contained 5000 atoms of isotope X that decays to isotope Y. Let us further say that the half-life is 1000 years. Let us further say that this rock is then split into two pieces. The first piece gets 1000 atoms of X and the second piece gets 4000 atoms of X. Here is the decay scheme in both rocks: Piece 1:1/2 life Parents Daughters Age 0 1000 0 0 1 500 500 1000 2 250 750 2000 3 125 875 3000 Piece 2:1/2 life Parents Daughters Age 0 4000 0 0 1 2000 2000 1000 2 1000 3000 2000 3 500 3500 3000 Now, further suppose that after 2000 years, these two pieces came back together. You would get the following result: Parents= Parents in Piece 1 + parents in piece 2=1250Daughters= daughters in piece 1 and daughters in piece 2= 3750 The age of the composite sample with these ratios= 2000 years. No change is seen. As I said, you can divide the sample up as much as you like and when you bring them all back together, the age of the composite would be the exact same as the parts. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Sorry Joz, Einstein & I Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Sure, why not? The Deccan volcanism spewed out a tremendous volume of lava (8 x 106 km3). We had a speaker here last week, Peter Olsen, who was making the claim that asteroid impacts may 'accelerate' volcanism. The links are extremely tenuous, but puzzling none the less. I suspect that the K-T extinction was due to a combination of events.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3245 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
quote: I seem to remember reading something about Olsen's comments re: the Deccan flats (I knew that my spelling was wrong ------------------"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur Taz
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024