Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 6:27 AM
20 online now:
PaulK, Porkncheese, Tangle (3 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,658 Year: 3,695/19,786 Month: 690/1,087 Week: 59/221 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with Radiometric Dating?
Lili
Junior Member (Idle past 4040 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 06-24-2007


Message 1 of 5 (438289)
12-03-2007 7:09 PM


I found an article that argues, among other things, that radiometric dating methods are not concordant and dates that are in disagreement with other data are not published. Some of the quotes in the article are from non-creationist journals. Are the following claims true?

DISSENTERS EJECTED, R. L. Mauger, East Carolina Univ., "In general, dates in the 'correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor or the discrepancies fully explained.", Contributions To Geology, Vol.15 (1): 17

DIFFERENT AGES FROM ONE ROCK, Joan C. Engels, "It is now well known that K-Ar ages obtained from different minerals in a single rock may be strikingly discordant." Journal of Geology,Vol.79, p.609

RECENT LAVA @ 22M, C.S.Nobel & J.J.Naughton, Hawaiian Inst. of Geophysics, "The radiogenic argon and helium contents of three basalts erupted into the deep ocean from an active volcano (Kilauea) have been measured. Ages calculated from these measurements increase with sample depth up to 22 million years for lavas deduced to be recent. ...these lavas are very young, probably less than 200 years old. The samples, in fact, may be very recent...", Science, Vol.162, p.265

PRECISION DATING? ROGER LEWIN, Ed. Research News, Science, “The calculated age was quickly refined to be 2.61 ± 0.26 million years, which, to anthropologist unfamiliar with the procedures of radiometric dating, has a ring of comforting precision about it. ...41 separate age determinations... which varied between 223 million and 0.91 million years ...after the first determination they never again obtained 2.61 from their experiments.” BONES OF CONTENTION, p.194

ARBITRARY, A. HAYATSU, Dept. of Geophysics, U. of Western Ont., "In conventional interpretation of K-Ar age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon." Canadian Journal Of Earth Science, 16:974.

"THE IMPERFECT ART OF ESTIMATING GEOLOGICAL TIME" BATES MCKEE, U. of Washington, “If the laboratory results contradict the field evidence, the geologist assumes that there is something wrong with the machine date. To put it another way, ‘good’ dates are those that agree with the field data. ...the geologist has more faith in the fossil evidence than in a machine date, and this reflects some of the uncertainties of radiometric determinations and the interpretation of results.” CASCADIA, The Geological Evolution Of The Pacific Northwest, p.25, 27

"C14 AGES IN ERROR", ROBERT E. LEE, "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better under-standing, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged.... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come out to be accepted. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates." Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, no. 3, 1981, p.9

FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTION, Report on C14 Conference (145 International Scientists), Science, Vol. 150, p. 1490. "Throughout the conference emphasis was placed on the fact that laboratories do not measure ages, they measure sample activities. The connection between activity and age is made through a set of assumptions. ...one of the main assumptions of C14 dating is that the atmospheric radiocarbon level has held steady over the age-range to which the method applies."

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


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 12-03-2007 7:54 PM Lili has not yet responded
 Message 3 by AdminCoragyps, posted 12-03-2007 7:58 PM Lili has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 5 (438298)
12-03-2007 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Lili
12-03-2007 7:09 PM


It's going to need a bit of work.
Unfortunately, these smack of quote mining. If your source for them all was a creo site then we can predict the outcome of those that are from legitamate sources. That is, they will have left out what the article is actually saying.

To not waste people's time I think it would be better if you took a small number of these. Say the first 3 to 5 of them and looked for the quote in context. That is, the original paper.

If the original is not available online then move on to the next one.

We'll have to take what we find from the available ones and extrapolate to all of them.

One thing that one has to think of:
If these are really indicative of the state of the science there are numerous labs around the world and many 10,000 of scientist deliberately committing fraud. How likely do you think that is?

The other choice is that the creo compilers of such lists are the one committing fraud. Since we can dig up many, many documented cases of that having occured elsewhere how likely do you think that is the case?

Anyway, these are really interesting thinks to look into and if you will give a bit more meat then I am sure someone would love to get deeper into these.

Added by Edit
Just to show you why this needs a bit more digging; look at the second to last one:

FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTION, Report on C14 Conference (145 International Scientists), Science, Vol. 150, p. 1490. "Throughout the conference emphasis was placed on the fact that laboratories do not measure ages, they measure sample activities. The connection between activity and age is made through a set of assumptions. ...one of the main assumptions of C14 dating is that the atmospheric radiocarbon level has held steady over the age-range to which the method applies."

This is utterly false! There is no such assumption. In fact read RASDs thread here:

see Windsor castle

to see how the C14 content of the atmosphere is accounted for and how we know that it varies and by how much (less than 10%).

Edited by AdminNosy, : added a bit


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Lili, posted 12-03-2007 7:09 PM Lili has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminNosy, posted 12-03-2007 8:01 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

AdminCoragyps
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 5 (438301)
12-03-2007 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Lili
12-03-2007 7:09 PM


Lili, or LeeLee:

I'm putting promotion of this on hold for a bit. You may not be aware that the newest reference of any of those from Science in your list is from 1968. I was still an undergrad in that distant era, and I can assure you that chemistry, physics, and the science of radiometric dating have advanced since then. Additionally, this sort of list frequently turns out to be primarily "quote-mines" - a website called "The Evolution Cruncher" is one well-known such "mine." Snippets are dug out of real papers in these "mines," but are chosen to appear to say something very different from what the papers actually said.

Let's work on the isochron thread you openened first. Remind me if I don't get back to this one in a couple of days.

And I have access to Science back to 1880 when we dig deeper into these.

Added by edit: Nosy, do you want to proceed? I'll have to work from pdf's to quote old Science stuff, but I'm willin'.

Edited by AdminCoragyps, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Lili, posted 12-03-2007 7:09 PM Lili has not yet responded

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 4 of 5 (438302)
12-03-2007 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
12-03-2007 7:54 PM


to heck with it
I'm going to promote it. People will have so much fun showing, once again, how much crea sources lie. :)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 12-03-2007 7:54 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 5 of 5 (438305)
12-03-2007 8:01 PM


Thread copied to the Problems with Radiometric Dating? thread in the Dates and Dating forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019