Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Independent tests of any sample can only test according to the assumptions already at work before the tests are made. It's the assumptions of things having to be a certain way and not knowing if that is the reality of it that are at the core of the validity of radiometric dating.
Independent tests of any sample can only test according to the assumptions already at work before the tests are made. It's the assumptions of things having to be a certain way and not knowing if that is the reality of it that are at the core of the validity of radiometric dating.
God Bless
Jim Larmore
I don't think that you've done a good job of show that this assumptions are either large or wrong. If the assumptions were wrong then the different dating techniques would give conflicting answers.
I don't think that you've done a good job of show that this assumptions are either large or wrong. If the assumptions were wrong then the different dating techniques would give conflicting answers.
How so? Radiometric dating is based on the same principle of radioactive decay ratios whether it's Uranium-thorium-lead or Rubidium-strontum or Postassium Argon. Besides they do indeed show conflicting answers on a regular basis, with results varying at times several million years.
Isolated from the environment with radiometric dating simply means that parent and daughter atoms can no longer enter the sample. Zircon crystals fit this definition.
Even large fluctuations in the relative saturation of H2O or large changes in pressure in the atmosphere could change the rate.
Radiometric decays is a nuclear process, this means that it is influenced by the intra-molecular forces. The relative abundance of atoms outside of the sample is irrelevant because they simply can not influence the rate.
For instance any change in high energy particle bombardment of neutrinos, mesons, or cosmic rays from the Van Allen belt would drastically change the rate.
High energy bombardment does not influence U-Pb dating, it does influence C14 dating but that is rarely used to date anything but human artifacts and creatures that have died since the last Ice Age.
Neutrinos rarely influence ordinary mater.
Mesons are subatomic particles that exist only in protons and neutrons. If they manage to get out they will decay in less than a billionth of a second so they can’t get far. These particles can only be produced by stars and particle colliders anyways so they will never influence an atom.
Cosmic rays do not come from the Van Allen Belt, they are usually a byproduct in solar wind traveling at 99% the speed of light. When these particles are usually atomic nuclei and they will break up almost instantly after hitting the atmosphere leaving no trace on the ground. They do influence the conversion of C12 to C14 however.
Without knowing what existed in times past we can't make these determinations without making some large assumptions.
These 'large assumptions' are usually "you know, maybe the stuff we see going on today can explain what happened yesterday." Until we see evidence that conflicts with this assumption, we might as well go on it.
Isolated from the environment with radiometric dating simply means that parent and daughter atoms can no longer enter the sample. Zircon crystals fit this definition.
Zircon crystals are not isolated from near by radioactive sources or physical pressures that can change the rate of decay.
Radiometric decays is a nuclear process, this means that it is influenced by the intra-molecular forces. The relative abundance of atoms outside of the sample is irrelevant because they simply can not influence the rate.
High energy bombardment does not influence U-Pb dating, it does influence C14 dating but that is rarely used to date anything but human artifacts and creatures that have died since the last Ice Age.
According to the laws of physics high energy bombardment can indeed effect decay rates by altering the emission of atomic particles producing a nuclide at a rate different than one without high energy bombardment.
These 'large assumptions' are usually "you know, maybe the stuff we see going on today can explain what happened yesterday." Until we see evidence that conflicts with this assumption, we might as well go on it.
Very true, but you know that won't fly in most cases in science. Most of the time science demands evidence to support what they are claiming. For instance there are all kinds of ideas about what dark matter is but without knowing more about what it really is they call it all speculation. The decay rate we see today cannot be considered to have always been like it is. There are just too many variable that could have effected it in the past.
How do you explain the many examples of radiometric, dendrochronologic, and ice core dating yielding the same ages, Jim? Convenient coincidence? Conspiracy, maybe?
__________________ "There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood
__________________ "There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood
How do you explain the many examples of radiometric, dendrochronologic, and ice core dating yielding the same ages, Jim? Convenient coincidence? Conspiracy, maybe?
Having a degree in Biology/Chemistry/Engineering really helps you know. Since growth rings in trees are nothing more than the growth of the vascular cambium or outer lateral meristem. We know that certain things can effect it. The truth of the matter is this. Dendrochronology is not as accurate as you would think , i.e. making each ring count for a year and heres the reasons.
A. In some growing seasons ( depending on the conditions, rain, temperature and day light length , even insect investation) some trees (pines are a great example of this ) can show multiple growth rings in one year. How many times would that have to happen to a long lived tree like the "Bristlecone" to show a long age like 10,000 years?
B. Weather related flucuations caused by volcano eruptions have been known to cause multiple growing seasons in one year.
Varves? These are good examples of liquifaction during cyclic on off pressure not annual sedimentation. The reasons are these;
1. They for the most part are too uniform and show no evidence of erosion as you would expect from the dynamic forces of hydrology.
2. They are deposited over much wider areas than the streams that supposedly made them. Lakes and their feeding streams didn't produce most of the varves seen today.
God Bless
Jim Larmore
Last edited by Jim Larmore; 21st May 2008 at 02:36 PM.
Having a degree in Biology/Chemistry/Engineering really helps you know. Since growth rings in trees are nothing more than the growth of the vascular cambium or outer lateral meristem. We know that certain things can effect it. The truth of the matter is this. Dendrochronology is not as accurate as you would think , i.e. making each ring count for a year and heres the reasons.
A. In some growing seasons ( depending on the conditions, rain, temperature and day light length , even insect investation) some trees (pines are a great example of this ) can show multiple growth rings in one year. How many times would that have to happen to a long lived tree like the "Bristlecone" to show a long age like 10,000 years?
B. Weather related flucuations caused by volcano eruptions have been known to cause multiple growing seasons in one year.
Varves? These are good examples of liquifaction during cyclic on off pressure not annual sedimentation. The reasons are these;
1. They for the most part are too uniform and show no evidence of erosion as you would expect from the dynamic forces of hydrology.
2. They are deposited over much wider areas than the streams that supposedly made them. Lakes and their feeding streams didn't produce most of the varves seen today.
God Bless
Jim Larmore
Please present peer reviewed published evidence so that we can review the data supporting your assertions on dendrochronology, varves, etc.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. dir="ltr">
I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it.
Linear Mode
