How radiometric dating works and why it's wrong

[ThaiDuykhang]

Sunny Day, Cloudy Day, Clear Day, Snowy Day??

I've got layers like that in my back yard right now.

What are you doing there? that proved the layers you see in ice aren't anual layers.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

You still refuse to explain why multiply layers are formed.

Just to make sure we are on the same page, you are talking about the multiple layers by the airplanes?

If so, then I presume you get multiple layers from melts in between significant snowfalls. (Melts that you would get along the coast, but not necessarily inland away from the moderating influence of the ocean.)

If you can't explain how should 5.5ft snow with only one/two anual layer when you can see lots of them,

Along the coast where there is heavy snow there is a difference between visible layers and annual layers.

[more browsing] Ah, okay

The ice cores are done in places where you don't get melting in order to avoid contamination of lower snow and ice by melting snow and ice at the top which occurs in the "percolation" zones.

Greenland has about 50% percolation zones, while Antarctica has only minimal coverage of such zones.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020107fa_FACT

Even in summer, when the sun never sets, the snow doesn't melt in central Greenland, though during a clear day some of the top layer will evaporate. Then at night—or what passes for night—this moisture will refreeze. The immediate effect is lovely to behold: one morning, I was wandering around North GRIP at about five o'clock, and I saw the hoarfrost growing in lacy patterns underfoot. As the summer snow gets buried under winter snow, it maintains its distinctive appearance; in a snow pit, summer layers show up as both coarser and airier than winter ones.​

The more rigorous GRIP sites alluded to this but I hadn't seen it spelled out quite so clearly as they were far more interested in more esoteric information.

As I have noted before these visible layers agree with other measurements all of which can be seen to occur on an annual basis.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

limerock melted in water will affect every creature evenly, so if you can't date a snail you can't date a human fossil either.

Most living creatures who live in the air get the carbon for their bodies from the CO2 in the air.

<sigh>

Amazing what happens when you do the correct search.

My bad for not finding this sooner.

http://www.radiocarbon.org/Subscribers/Fulltext/v41n2_Goodfriend_149.html

A number of earlier studies have established that land snail shell carbonate typically has a radiocarbon age anomaly: the measured 14C age is older than the actual age, as a result of ingestion of old carbonate (e.g., limestone) and its incorporation into the shell (Evin et al. 1980; Burleigh and Kerney 1982; Goodfriend and Stipp 1983; Goodfriend and Hood 1983; Goodfriend 1987). The ingested carbonate dissolves in the stomach acid, producing CO2, which dissolves in the body fluids to become part of the bicarbonate pool. This bicarbonate pool is the source material from which calcium carbonate is precipitated during the process of shell growth (Goodfriend and Hood 1983).​

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Most living creatures who live in the air get the carbon for their bodies from the CO2 in the air.

<sigh>

Amazing what happens when you do the correct search.

My bad for not finding this sooner.

http://www.radiocarbon.org/Subscribers/Fulltext/v41n2_Goodfriend_149.html

A number of earlier studies have established that land snail shell carbonate typically has a radiocarbon age anomaly: the measured 14C age is older than the actual age, as a result of ingestion of old carbonate (e.g., limestone) and its incorporation into the shell (Evin et al. 1980; Burleigh and Kerney 1982; Goodfriend and Stipp 1983; Goodfriend and Hood 1983; Goodfriend 1987). The ingested carbonate dissolves in the stomach acid, producing CO2, which dissolves in the body fluids to become part of the bicarbonate pool. This bicarbonate pool is the source material from which calcium carbonate is precipitated during the process of shell growth (Goodfriend and Hood 1983).​

That's a miserable find for TEs. Humans also take in lots of carnates from minerals for example Na2CO3 and NaHCO3. How many pizzas have you eaten? How much soda waters have you drunk? Your bone might indicate you're thousands of years old.

Keep in mind of bones next time you bash snailshells. it grows the same way as snailshells.

Everytime you try to prove why snailshells can't be dated, you also prove why everything else can't be dated as well.

 

[notto]

What are you doing there? that proved the layers you see in ice aren't anual layers.

That's right. The layers that Hovind talks about (and that you apparently referenced) are not annual layers and can be explained by non annual patterns of snow, melting, and freezing. Just like the layers in my back yard.

The layers that are used for dating ice core and determined based on annual phenomen such as pollen, dust, density, and composition - not thickness or even visible boundaries. Unlike the layers in my back yard.

See how that works. They are DIFFERENT.

You need to understand this before you keep making uninformed comments about the methods. You are only showing your inability to comprehend the material that has been provided you. Read everything twice and ask questions. You need to focus, read carefully, and pay attention to the details. You are all over the place and you are missing clear and simple concepts and in the process, saying things that make no sense.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Just to make sure we are on the same page, you are talking about the multiple layers by the airplanes?

If so, then I presume you get multiple layers from melts in between significant snowfalls. (Melts that you would get along the coast, but not necessarily inland away from the moderating influence of the ocean.)

Along the coast where there is heavy snow there is a difference between visible layers and annual layers.

[more browsing] Ah, okay

The ice cores are done in places where you don't get melting in order to avoid contamination of lower snow and ice by melting snow and ice at the top which occurs in the "percolation" zones.

Greenland has about 50% percolation zones, while Antarctica has only minimal coverage of such zones.


http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020107fa_FACT

Even in summer, when the sun never sets, the snow doesn't melt in central Greenland, though during a clear day some of the top layer will evaporate. Then at night—or what passes for night—this moisture will refreeze. The immediate effect is lovely to behold: one morning, I was wandering around North GRIP at about five o'clock, and I saw the hoarfrost growing in lacy patterns underfoot. As the summer snow gets buried under winter snow, it maintains its distinctive appearance; in a snow pit, summer layers show up as both coarser and airier than winter ones.​

The more rigorous GRIP sites alluded to this but I hadn't seen it spelled out quite so clearly as they were far more interested in more esoteric information.

As I have noted before these visible layers agree with other measurements all of which can be seen to occur on an annual basis.

Yes, I'm talking about the layers form above the downed plane. However Deamiter has shown snow/ice doesn't need melt to form layers. (Try refute this!)

so even the temperature variation within a day is enough. either north or south. it's the variation that matters not the temperature itself.

And? Given a some layers You simply don't know how they formed.

Look at these layers. They're quite visible, right?
http://p38assn.org/images/p38s/gg/downunder.jpg
Tell me how they're different to your "anual layers".
you simply can't distinguish your "anual" layer from daily layers. when someone dig up 100000(or 10000 I forget the exact number) layers of ice, no one can tell which is anual layer which is daily layer

If you like lower snow fall, go to the northern most part of Greenland and watch the ice core there. Very thin or no ice core you can find. according to you that indicate a young earth.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

The layers that are used for dating ice core and determined based on annual phenomen such as pollen, dust, density, and composition - not thickness or even visible boundaries. Unlike the layers in my back yard.

See how that works. They are DIFFERENT.

not thickness nor visible boundaries? any TE agrees with that?
How thick is an anual layer? 5.5 feet? any TE agrees with that?

Do you understand what an anual layer is?


*Edit* I agree anual layer has no visible boundaries. it's totally fictious, what one observed is daily layer.

 

[shernren]

Basic biology. Let's have a carbon biology pop quiz!

1. How does carbon enter the human body?

2. What happens to bicarbonate / carbonate ions in the water we drink? (Actually, I just realized that I don't really know this one.)

3. What is the comparative ratio between the carbon we ingest through food and the carbon we intake through water?

4. What are bones made of?

5. What does 14C decay into, and what is its half-life?

5. When 14C is chemically incorporated into carbon compounds does it still decay?

Although the questions are chiefly directed at Thai just to figure out why he's saying what he's saying (anyone I can't understand is either too smart or too stupid for me ), they're open for everyone to answer once he does. let the fun begin!

 

[gluadys]

not thickness nor visible boundaries? any TE agrees with that?
How thick is an anual layer? 5.5 feet? any TE agrees with that?

It's got nothing to do with TE. It is science. Physics to be precise. Evolution is a branch of biology not physics. And neither is about theology.

So don't ask if a TE agrees with it. It is irrelevant to TE.

Ask if a physicist agrees with it.

You are all too quick to mock something you haven't taken time to learn.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

That's a miserable find for TEs. Humans also take in lots of carnates from minerals for example Na2CO3 and NaHCO3. How many pizzas have you eaten?

Which contains carbon which came from the air around the wheat plants, that is basic photosynthesis.
(Well, not so basic, you actually have to get into the Krebs cycle to see why plants get their carbon from the air.)

How much soda waters have you drunk?

<Belch>
Excuse me.
Compared to the amount of carbon I take in via plant and animal matter, very little. I probably get more carbon from a single bite of a sandwich than the average teenager gets from a month's worth of carbonated drinks.

 

[notto]

not thickness nor visible boundaries? any TE agrees with that?
How thick is an anual layer? 5.5 feet? any TE agrees with that?

Do you understand what an anual layer is?

Yes, but apparently you don't. An annual layer that is used in ice core dating is determined by the patterns of composition of materials in the ice core, not on a measured thickness or even a visible boundary.

You have been given clear references from the labs that do this work that clearly discuss the methods for determining annual layers.

Not sure what else to tell you. You are either not reading the material provided, are not paying attention to what you are reading, or are just incredibly underprepared to understand what is being presented.

From a source that was provided just a few posts ago. I encourage you to read it.

It was possible to count annual layers in the GRIP core to obtain an excellent dating, particularly back to the Younger Dryas period. Parameters used to date the core included ECM, dust, nitrate and ammonium, which all give excellent annual layers,

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

And? Given a some layers You simply don't know how they formed.

Look at these layers. They're quite visible, right?
http://p38assn.org/images/p38s/gg/downunder.jpg
Tell me how they're different to your "anual layers".
you simply can't distinguish your "anual" layer from daily layers. when someone dig up 100000(or 10000 I forget the exact number) layers of ice, no one can tell which is anual layer which is daily layer

Repeating it doesn't make it true.
Go back and read what I wrote carefully, read in an attempt to learn, if your English and/or science background isn't good enough to understand, let me know what parts you are having trouble with, what your best guess is about its meaning, and I'll walk through it with you.

You should also spend some time reading some articles on the ice core measurements written to explain what is going on.

 

[notto]

Tell me how they're different to your "anual layers".

Parameters used to date the core included ECM, dust, nitrate and ammonium, which all give excellent annual layers

you simply can't distinguish your "anual" layer from daily layers. when someone dig up 100000(or 10000 I forget the exact number) layers of ice, no one can tell which is anual layer which is daily layer

Parameters used to date the core included ECM, dust, nitrate and ammonium, which all give excellent annual layers

If you like lower snow fall, go to the northern most part of Greenland and watch the ice core there. Very thin or no ice core you can find. according to you that indicate a young earth.

Parameters used to date the core included ECM, dust, nitrate and ammonium, which all give excellent annual layers

(not thickness)

 

[The Lady Kate]

Parameters used to date the core included ECM, dust, nitrate and ammonium, which all give excellent annual layers

Parameters used to date the core included ECM, dust, nitrate and ammonium, which all give excellent annual layers

Parameters used to date the core included ECM, dust, nitrate and ammonium, which all give excellent annual layers

(not thickness)

I get the impression that you're trying to make some kind of a subtle point here... but I think I'm missing it.

 

[Deamiter]

That's a miserable find for TEs. Humans also take in lots of carnates from minerals for example Na2CO3 and NaHCO3. How many pizzas have you eaten? How much soda waters have you drunk? Your bone might indicate you're thousands of years old.

Indeed. Contrary to what's been said before, most of OUR carbon doesn't come from the atmosphere directly. It comes from plants (and animals that EAT plants). Of course THOSE plants and animals eventually got it from the atmosphere -- and at MOST a dozen years ago... Not nearly enough time for the C14 to decay.

So yes, we get carbon from Pizza (which is organic). Yes we get carbon from soda (which is from the atmosphere). No we don't get carbon from old limestone.

Keep in mind of bones next time you bash snailshells. it grows the same way as snailshells.

Sure. Bones accumulate carbon. They're "made" the same way as snailshells. The DIFFERENCE is that humans don't eat more limestone than plants and animals.

If a human DID happen to develop a diet consisting of a whole lot of limestone, their bones would give inflated ages too. Of course I've never heard of a culture that ate more limestone than useful biomass...

Everytime you try to prove why snailshells can't be dated, you also prove why everything else can't be dated as well.

EXACTLY right! We're showing why mollusk shells can't be dated -- why seals can't be dated, why penguins are bad candidates etc...

There's decades of research into this -- we're not coming up with anything new! C14 dating is NOT accurate for EVERY living thing. That's been stated up front, so this shouldn't come as a suprise to you.

 

[notto]

Google Search on Carbon Dating Reservoir Effect.

 

[Deamiter]

Indeed, scientists have occasionally counted individual layers visually, but it takes a heck of a long time! And it's never (to my knowledge) been done to actually date the different layers since it's so subjective.

Running electrodes along the sample is MUCH faster and gives much more accurate (repeatable) results since acidity levels change with the season.

Other methods like radiometric, dust, nitrate, ammonium etc... (as notto pointed out) are also used to "count" back to a date to confirm all the other methods. They take a long time too -- longer than visually counting. But they're not subjective, and they can be repeated. Scientists don't like techniques that rely on opinion to get the data. There's always some interpretation, but the data should ALWAYS be repeatable.

That's why scientists don't use visual identification of annual layers for precise dating.

 

[notto]

Of course that whooshing sound is all of this going over the head of the poster is is being presented to and being ignored.

Claims that soda pop shows the earth is young in 3...2...1

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

So yes, we get carbon from Pizza (which is organic). Yes we get carbon from soda (which is from the atmosphere).

Actually, the carbonation in sodas often comes from the exhaust of burning fossil fuels. Gross but true. (It goes through a lengthy scrubbing process, but still.)

Everytime you try to prove why snailshells can't be dated, you also prove why everything else can't be dated as well.

EXACTLY right! We're showing why mollusk shells can't be dated -- why seals can't be dated, why penguins are bad candidates etc...

There's decades of research into this -- we're not coming up with anything new! C14 dating is NOT accurate for EVERY living thing. That's been stated up front, so this shouldn't come as a suprise to you.

Very well put.

As was the entire post.

 

[KerrMetric]

1. It's a land snail
2. whenever there's date from carbon dating there're C14 in it. failure to detect C14 means the sample is infinitely old

NO the 27000 year old dated snail was a freshwater aquatic snail in Texas if I remember where the carbon in the shell was from dissolved CO2 in an underground aquifer.

You really need to learn what you are talking about or you're just confirming the commonly held conception that most if not all ardent creationists are scientific neophytes who don't know a darn thing about anything technical.