It seems this confidence that isotope decay rates remain generally constant doesn't get as much mention when scientists are conversing among themselves in formal papers.[
Your error has already been pointed out. But, while somewhat OT, you obviously don't realize that radioactive decay is an "umbrella term" for three very different mechanism, mediated by the most fundamental properties of the Universe, and the many sub-types of the three types. Blithe invocation of changes in decay rates must be accompanied by a proposed mechanism for all these many different types changing in concert so as to maintain the consilience between different dating methods (got a little on-topic there!) and not leaving any of the expected evidence that changes to such fundamental aspects of the Universe would leave.
A few quick examples: if radioactive decay were accelerated enough to be consistent with a 6,000-ish year old Earth, among the subtle signs that would be left would be a molten Earth, all life killed twice over by heat and radiation, and even if Noah built a solid lead Ark he'd be killed from the radiation of the potassium-40 in his body. (The RATE group was forced to acknowledge these obvious facts while trying to minimize them: RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems.)
This is what I was talking about in my thread about changing constants and physical laws. As steve shows, changing one constant, requires changing them all. He waves his hand and said people have considered the argument carefull and say it just doesn't work.
And provides references to those analyses. Have you read those references?
Does steve understand the underlying reality behind all the constants? Does he really understand what mass or energy is? Does he understand what time or space is? Is space merely a mathematical construct or does it have physical properties? If it is the latter, does steve understand what those properties are?
Yes to all.
If the vacuum of space and the energy associated with it can change, so can the constants. If the mass of sub atomic particles is dependent upon the physical characteristics of the vacuum of space, then their masses can also change.
Show us the math.
I don't think steve took the last two concepts into consideration when he said all the experts tried working the "changing physical constants" argument out, and found it unworkable.
What are the exact failures you found in his refernces?
Re: another, better, thread for Jzyehoshua to explain the scam issue/s
The simple explanation is that none of the methods mentioned in the emails he posted are dating methods. They are paleoclimatology methods. E.g. 18O is not radioactive, 18O/16O ratios are "used as a measure of the temperature of precipitation, as a measure of groundwater/mineral interactions, as an indicator of processes that show isotopic fractionation, like methanogenesis. In paleosciences, 18O:16O data from corals, foraminifera and ice cores are used as a proxy for temperature." (from Wikipedia).
This is the wrong thread. All his references are irrelevant here.
OK, they are barely topical... but his quotes still have nothing to do with dating methods themselves and give no reason to suspect that there has been any hanky-panky with dating methods. I think that his quotes don't support any claim that there has been hanky-panky with paleoclimatology, but I don't know enough to really engage on the issue.
Re: another, better, thread for Jzyehoshua to explain the scam issue/s
Read 'em carefully; they are relating to using tree rings as climate indicators (drought, ...) rather than chronology.
That may indeed be all that can be shown from the emails, but here is what J says about them:
quote:Jazzy Jeff writes:
Dendrochronology, coral, and ice core dating are all admitted by those at the heart of the Climategate scandal to be weak, unreliable methods
I've already demonstrated that he's not a reliable source on this subject; he thinks that measuring decay of 18O (a stable isotope) is a dating method, and a few other show-stopper errors that slip my mind at the moment.
If he shows some interest in learning, I'll be glad to explain in more detail.
So you feel that radiometric dating is wrong because it has "too many assumptions?"
And if the creationist actually specifies the assumptions, it's always the same three, two of which are not assumptions involved in most geological radiometric dating and one which is a conclusion based on mountains of data.
If both forms of dating are out by a factor of 12 , they would remain in accord.
The challenge is not to make stuff up. The challenge is to explain how the many dating methods (carbon, varve, U-Th,... ) are in accord
It is a common observed phenomenon that diatom shells are washed up with spring tides, they normally form 12 layers a year, not one.
Varves are not formed by diatom shells, nor are they formed in tidal water. They are formed in still fresh water lakes by continuous deposition of white stuff and spring deposition of black stuff (or maybe the other way arround, I can't be bothered to look it up).
Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt
The example given was specifically about varves formed by annual layers of diatom shells, if you have been following the discussion
Yup. And those varves are formed in still freshwater lakes that are not tidal, so your claim about them being formed by tides in the ocean is just plain silly.
It was this particular example which correlated with carbon dating.
No, it was this particular example which correlated with carbon dating which correlates with U-Th dating and which correlates with lots of other dating methods, listed in RAZD's thread. All of those many independent dating methods must be wrong by the same amount to produce the results we see and for the Earth to be young.
There's a whole web of many different methods which correlate, and obviously you know nothing about any of them.
It only makes sense that a flood would have wiped out all vegetation, dropping atmospheric strength, thereby artificially increasing the proportion of carbon in the atmosphere for the first centuries after the flood.
That does not make sense. Indeed, it appears to have been written by drawing words at random out of a hat.
Not quite, it's a confused version of a common creationist "theory". The general idea (there are many variants) is that there was little to no 14C in the atmosphere before the fludde; it was all locked in the vast amount of vegetation necessary to explain the amount of coal and whatnot we see today. After the fludde the 14C was released into the atmosphere and is slowly building towards equilibrium, which it will reach about 30,000 years from now.
So the decreased amount of 14C we see in samples is not solely due to the decay of 14C, it's partially due to that and partially due to there being little 14C in the atmosphere when the sample lived.
Of course, there are many many things obviously wrong with this "theory". My favorite is that it predicts the grain that was used to make bread in Pompeii must have been grown many many years after Vesuvius covered Pompeii.
Unfortunately I have too much self esteem to put myself through the rudeness of your peers on this site.
Preparing to run from the facts, I see.
lake Suigetsu is brackish, connected to a salt water lake. Tides affect its salinity, due obtaining its salinity through the adjacent tide effected Lake Kugushi, and salinity has a direct bearing on the population of diatoms (it kills them).
True now. Wasn't when the varves were deposited. Scientists can tell.
quote:These lakes are near Wakasa Bay, and all lakes are connected with a narrow channel or a canal. The lakes are the followings. Lake Mikata : (Width) 3.56 sq km, (Depth) 5.8 m, Fresh water Lake Suigetsu : (W) 4.16 sq km, (D) 34.0 m, Brackish water Lake Suga : (W) 0.91 sq km, (D) 13.0 m, Brackish water Lake Kugushi : (W) 1.40 sq km, (D) 2.5 m, Brackish water Lake Hiruga : (W) 0.92 sq km, (D) 38.5 m, Ocean water
Lake Kugushi and Lake Hiruga are connected with Wakasa Bay. Urami Canal connecting Lake Suigetsu and Lake Kugushi was constructed in 1664 by artificial means.
And Lake Suigetsu and Lake Hiruga were connected with an underground waterway constructed in 1934, but it is always closed to avoid the water quality change.
All lakes have different concentrations of salt. Of course, the nearer the sea, the higher the concentration.
But deep Lake Suigetsu is unique. The layer from the surface to about 6 meters deep has freshwater, but the deeper layer has oxygen-free brackish containing hydrogen sulfide.
The clock starts when the uranium enters the rock as a mineral. Until that mineral forms, there is no clock.
Perhaps too pedantic, but the clock can be re-set to zero by sufficient heating. One of the many nice things about zircons is that they have to be heated pretty seriously to do that, 900-1100 C based on a quick Google. Maybe there's a more widely agreed number but any way you slice it it's hot.
(actually K40 in the Ar-Ar method has been used to date the eruption of Vesuvius 76 AD, or about 0.002 mya, somewhat of a tour de force). And I'm pretty sure that other isotopes such as Samarium are also comparable. One could also dive into Dalrymple and look at TABLE 4.1 Radiometric Ages of Some Early Archean and Related Rocks of the North Atlantic Craton to see how they do overlap and agree. (Note that in each of the two parts of the table the units are listed in stratigraphic order so you can see the close correlation to that).
Side note: Wherever you have some U238 you also have some U237 and you measure the Pb206 and Pb208 and get two largely independent dates. If they agree they are "concordant" and pretty solidly established. If they disagree they are "discordant" and a pretty solid age may be establishable. Nobody call this "U238 dating".