Radiometric dating thread number 34,587,398

[philadiddle]

Some of you will remember that a few weeks ago i went to a creationist seminar and asked about his views on radiometric dating on this forum. I didn't have any references for the data so of course I couldn't be helped. I've emailed Dr. Jay Wile and he responded with many references. The text in italics is copied from that email.

This is one on C-14 in things that are supposedly too old to have C-14. It contains a table of references to other peer-reviewed articles:

http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

This is a poster presented at the American Geophysical Union conference discussing the materials in the article above as well as the presence of C-14 in diamonds:

http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/AGUC-14_Poster_Baumgardner.pdf

Here is a list of peer-reviewed articles discussing the problem of argon in new igneous rock:

Krummenacher, D., Isotopic Composition of Argon in Modern Surface Volcanic Rocks, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 8 (1970), pp. 109-117

Fisher, D.E., Excess Rare Gases in a Subaerial Basalt from Nigeria, Nature, 232 (1971), pp. 60-61.

Esser, R.P., McIntosh, W.C., Heizler, M.T. and Kyle, P.R., Excess Argon in Melt Inclusions in Zero-Age Anorthoclase Feldspar from Mt Erebus, Antarctica, as Revealed by the 40Ar/39Ar Method, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 61 (1997), pp. 3789-3801.

McDougall, I., Polach, H.A. and Stipp, J.J., Excess Radiogenic Argon in Young Subaerial Basalts from the Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 33 (1969), pp. 1485-1520.

Funkhouser, J.G., Barnes, I.L. and Naughton, J.J., Problems in the Dating of Volcanic Rocks by the Potassium-Argon Method, Bulletin of Volcanology, 29 (1966), pp. 709-717.

Armstrong, R.L., K-Ar Dating: Late Cenozoic McMurdo Volcanic Group and Dry Valley Glacial History, Victoria Land, Antarctica, New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 21:6 (1978), pp. 685-698.


This is one that discusses the evidence for radioactive decay rates being accelerated at one time:

http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf

It is true that many samples are taken, but the result is based on the totality of the samples. Certainly, outliers are eliminated, but in the dating examples I discussed and those given by the references above, the outliers have already been removed. These are the results based on ALL samples AFTER outliers have been removed.

...I am saying (as admitted in the literature) that the layer from which the sample is taken is used as a way of eliminating outliers. This, of course, leads to the phenomenon of focusing. If you continually reject outliers that do not agree with your initial assumption, your results are going to end up being consistent with your initial assumption. ALL areas of science are affected by focusing of results, but I think that radiometric dating is one of the more strongly affected endeavors.


So, any thoughts?

 

[Asimov]

Um...why is it that all your sources are taken from no later than 1978?

 

[Garnett]

Philadiddle, one of your links is for HTML code to get rounded edges on text boxes (a useful page, which I might use, but that fails to bring weight to a creationist argument), and the other is some pdf authored by John R. Baumgardner, Los Alamos National Laboratory, MS B216, Los Alamos, NM 87544, USA, D. Russell Humphreys, Institute for Creation Research, 10946 Woodside Avenue N., Santee, CA 92071, USA, Andrew A. Snelling, Geo-Research Pty Ltd, P.O. Box 1208, Springwood, Queensland, 4127, Australia, Steven A. Austin, Institute for Creation Research, 10946 Woodside Avenue N., Santee, CA 92071, USA. (I've highlighted random sections which might help determine the veracity of anything in it)

I'll have to get back to you on that one, but in the meantime can you tell me where it appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific press?

 

[Western_geologist]

Here is a list of peer-reviewed articles discussing the problem of argon in new igneous rock:

Krummenacher, D., Isotopic Composition of Argon in Modern Surface Volcanic Rocks, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 8 (1970), pp. 109-117

Fisher, D.E., Excess Rare Gases in a Subaerial Basalt from Nigeria, Nature, 232 (1971), pp. 60-61.

Esser, R.P., McIntosh, W.C., Heizler, M.T. and Kyle, P.R., Excess Argon in Melt Inclusions in Zero-Age Anorthoclase Feldspar from Mt Erebus, Antarctica, as Revealed by the 40Ar/39Ar Method, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 61 (1997), pp. 3789-3801.

McDougall, I., Polach, H.A. and Stipp, J.J., Excess Radiogenic Argon in Young Subaerial Basalts from the Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 33 (1969), pp. 1485-1520.

Funkhouser, J.G., Barnes, I.L. and Naughton, J.J., Problems in the Dating of Volcanic Rocks by the Potassium-Argon Method, Bulletin of Volcanology, 29 (1966), pp. 709-717.

Armstrong, R.L., K-Ar Dating: Late Cenozoic McMurdo Volcanic Group and Dry Valley Glacial History, Victoria Land, Antarctica, New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 21:6 (1978), pp. 685-698.

Hi philadiddle,

I missed your original thread, so I'm not clear on the point you're trying to make. Are you arguing that excess argon invalidates radiometric dating? Are you arguing that recognition of excess argon is based on the "focusing" you described? Would you mind clarifying?

 

[Garnett]

Looks like it all originated from the liar Stephen Austin as is documented here.

How can anyone who worships the Christain god actually side with this man?

 

[jwu]

http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf

Ah, Humphreys...

His helium diffusion rate is errnonous. It was measured ina vacuum, which is known to increase the diffusion rate by 3-6 orders of magnitude - so the supposed 5 orders of magnitude that there is too much helium in the zircons according to his math falls well in line with this. That's exactly what we would expect to see if the zircons were old.

Furthermore, as an interesting side effect, the amount of helium based on erronous diffusion rates being in line with a young earth implies that the amount of helium based on the real rates is not. There is at least three orders of magnitude too few helium in the zircons for a young earth and accellerated decay.

(Besides, squeezing the decay of 4 billion years into 6000 years would turn the earth into a ball of superheated plasma)

 

[Garnett]

[/i] There is at least three orders of magnitude too few helium in the zircons for a young earth and accellerated decay.

What, you mean the YEC model is up for as much scrutiny as any other? Whoa! I don't know if any YECists signed up to that...

(Besides, squeezing the decay of 4 billion years into 6000 years would turn the earth into a ball of superheated plasma)

But that's not right, because the second law of thermodynamics helps YECists, just like it says in your signature. Unless you know of some massive source of energy hiding behind the sun or something.

 

[Split Rock]

This article in talkorigins.org talks about radioisotope dating and debunks the common creationist arguments against radioisotope dating methods.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html#h8

from the Summary page:

"Radiometric dating methods provide a reliable means of determining the ages of critical points in geologic and planetary history, including the age of the Earth, the Moon, and meteorites. That the age of the Earth is billions of years is virtually beyond question because it is supported by a wide variety of independently determined scientific evidence which indicates that the Earth is 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old. Scientists are continually refining this age, but it is highly unlikely that it will change in the future by more than a few percent. In the past, the age of the Earth was the subject of much dispute, but the past few decades have seen the development of new techniques not previously available. There is virtually no dispute among knowledgeable scientists about the antiquity of the Earth and her sister planets.

Radiometric dating has independently confirmed and quantified the geologic time scale (Figure 1), which originally was constructed on the basis of stratigraphic and faunal succession, before the development of modern isotopic dating techniques. Although radiometric dating has allowed scientists to assign ages and to establish the length of the various eras, periods, and epochs, the relative order of these geologic time units has remained unchanged. This is powerful proof that both the dating techniques and the paleontologic and stratigraphic principles on which the time scale was originally based are sound.

There is also no doubt that the rocks now exposed on the surface of the Earth or accessible to scientists by drilling were deposited and emplaced over the geologic epochs, starting in the earliest Precambrian more than 3.8 billion years ago. There are more than 100,000 radiometric ages in the scientific literature that date rock formations and geologic events ranging in age from Holocene to earliest Precambrian. These data and all the accumulated knowledge from the science of geology show conclusively that the Earth we now see is the result of natural processes operating over vast periods and not the product of one or two worldwide catastrophic events.

The geologic corollaries of “scientific” creationism — namely, that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old and that the sedimentary rocks of the geologic column were deposited within about one year during a worldwide flood about 7000 years ago — are demonstrably wrong. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support these tenets and no scientific grounds for seriously considering “scientific” creationism, as described by Morris (92, 95), Kofahl and Segraves (77), Gish and others (54), and Morris and Parker (97) as a valid scientific theory. Indeed, most of the “research” presented in these publications consists of quoting each other’s mistakes.

Moreover, creationists’ criticisms of geologic principles in general and of radiometric dating in particular are invalid. Examined objectively, these criticisms invariably turn out to be based on obsolete or nonexistent data, misrepresentations of the scientific evidence, and incomplete, erroneous, or superficial understanding of the methods.

Creationist authors claim that there is scientific evidence for a very young Earth, but their reasoning is invariably flawed by false initial assumptions and a total disregard for the scientific evidence concerning the history of the Earth, its geology, its physics, and its chemistry. Their calculations are meaningless and cannot be taken seriously.

“Scientific” creationism does not provide any rational basis for meaningful scientific investigations of the Earth, the Solar System, or the universe. To accept or even take seriously the tenets of “scientific” creationism requires total abandonment of the results of two centuries of scientific investigations and of the principles of objectivity, rationality, and open-minded inquiry that are fundamental to science."