radiometric dating

[whois]

post your stuff here instead of the circular reasoning thread.

 

[whois]

rick,
Originally Posted by RickG

I said nothing of the kind. Please don't misrepresent what I post. I suggest reviewing the post you got that idea from and ask questions concerning your interpretation. There are a number of published papers concerning cosmogenic oscillations that described the processes in detail. Not a single one of those papers describes anything nor do any of them make any claims that those oscillations or fluxes affects radiometric dating.
​

i see.
so all of these tiny little changes don't mean a thing over the course of billions of years.
uh huh.

the simple fact of the matter is, nuclear decay IS NOT constant.

what are the causes of these "fluctuations"?
any idea?

 

[Strathos]

If the rate of nuclear decay was significantly different, earth would either burn up or freeze.

 

[whois]

If the rate of nuclear decay was significantly different, earth would either burn up or freeze.

the question is what is the cause of these fluctuations.
radiometric dating depends on this decay as being a constant, and it isn't.
the causes of these fluctuations can have a very significant impact on radiometric dating.

 

[Strathos]

No it wouldn't, because if it fluctuated enough to make a difference (let alone a difference on a scale of millions of times like what most creationists propose), then the earth would burn up from heat due to the vastly increased decay rates.

 

[lifepsyop]

Radiometric dating is a one-way ratchet of confirmation bias.

Favorable dating results = credit dating method.
Unfavorable dating results = blame nature. (contamination)

One can only imagine how much unfavorable data has been discarded because it didn't align with old-earth expectations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Radiometric dating is a one-way ratchet of confirmation bias.

Favorable dating results = credit dating method.
Unfavorable dating results = blame nature. (contamination)

One can only imagine how much unfavorable data has been discarded because it didn't align with old-earth expectations.

Hardly. The dates that are anomalous are the exception rather than the rule. Why and how the error occurred is always a matter of interest. Creationists are infamous for misusing them. If you misuse a screwdriver you will find that it is almost worthless as a hammer. Does that mean that screwdrivers do not work?

 

[lasthero]

One can only imagine how much unfavorable data has been discarded because it didn't align with old-earth expectations.
__________________

You're right.

You can only imagine it, because it's not like you have any evidence.

 

[RickG]

for the record and the discussion:
Recently, Jenkins, et al. have reported the detection of correlations between fluctuations in nuclear decay rates and Earth-Sun distance, which suggest that nuclear decay rates can be affected by solar activity. In this paper, we report the detection of a significant decrease in the decay of 54Mn during the solar flare of 13 December 2006, whose x-rays were first recorded at 02:37 UT (21:37 EST on 12 December). Our detector was a 1 uCi sample of 54Mn, whose decay rate exhibited a dip coincident in time with spikes in both the x-ray and proton fluxes recorded by the GOES-10 and 11 satellites. A secondary peak in the x-ray and proton fluxes on 17 December at 12:40 EST was also accompanied by a coincident dip in the 54Mn decay rate. These observations support the claim by Jenkins, et al. that nuclear decay rates vary with Earth-Sun distance.
-arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156

i patiently await crjmurray swooping in here with a retraction from the satellites.
what a laugh.

Please cite the specific part in the paper (Jenkins, et al.) where they suggest that their work describes a problem with radiometric dating. What you have copy and posted above in nothing more than the abstract of that paper.

In the first paragraph of the paper (abstract) is the following:

"In this paper, we report the detection of a significant decrease in the decay of 54Mn during the solar flare of 13 December 2006."
​

Would a decrease in decay not yield a "younger" age?

 

[RickG]

Radiometric dating is a one-way ratchet of confirmation bias.

Favorable dating results = credit dating method.
Unfavorable dating results = blame nature. (contamination)

One can only imagine how much unfavorable data has been discarded because it didn't align with old-earth expectations.

Please provide a specific example of discarded data with citation to the original source, then we can examine the "actual" reason(s) for discarding data and see if it supports your claims.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Please cite the specific part in the paper (Jenkins, et al.) where they suggest that their work describes a problem with radiometric dating. What you have copy and posted above in nothing more than the abstract of that paper.

In the first paragraph of the paper (abstract) is the following:

"In this paper, we report the detection of a significant decrease in the decay of 54Mn during the solar flare of 13 December 2006."
​

Would a decrease in decay not yield a "younger" age?

So if it decreases during periods of high solar activity - would you then agree it would increase during periods of low solar activity???? Since this is your reasoning for ignoring it?

http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif

So we can then reasonably conclude that only during those very short periods of intense solar activity would it decrease (yeild a younger age) - while in the long periods between those peaks it would actually increase and yield an older age?

Or did you just make that excuse to ignore the data and not really believe what you implied?

The facts agree with Relativity - the more energy the slower clocks tick - the slower the atomic decay - the less energy the faster they tick - the faster the atomic decay.

The laws of thermodynamics - the more energy put into a system - the longer it takes to decay - the less energy the faster it decays.

Entropy - we could go on and on and on - the science speaks for itself.

 

[RickG]

So if it decreases during periods of high solar activity - would you then agree it would increase during periods of low solar activity???? Since this is your reasoning for ignoring it?

No, it does not increase, it decays at the normal rate which is not much different from the observed decrease.

http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif

Milankovitch cycles have nothing to do with solar fluxes. NOTHING!

So we can then reasonably conclude that only during those very short periods of intense solar activity would it decrease (yeild a younger age) - while in the long periods between those peaks it would actually increase and yield an older age?

As stated above, NO! A lack of any solar flux influence would yield 54Mn normal decay rates, which are very close to the decreased rates due to isolated short-lived solar flux events.

Are you even aware that 54Mn only has a half-life of 312 days, thus limiting it use in geology to a very short time span. The only manganese radionuclide that actually yields itself to radiometric dating is 53Mn with a half-life of 3.7 Ma. Additionally 53Mn decays through electron capture, not beta decay, thus is unaffected by solar fluxes.

Or did you just make that excuse to ignore the data and not really believe what you implied?

I ignored nothing. Conversely you keep making claims that are easily shown to be erroneous.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, it does not increase, it decays at the normal rate which is not much different from the observed decrease.



Milankovitch cycles have nothing to do with solar fluxes. NOTHING!



As stated above, NO! A lack of any solar flux influence would yield 54Mn normal decay rates, which are very close to the decreased rates due to isolated short-lived solar flux events.

Are you even aware that 54Mn only has a half-life of 312 days, thus limiting it use in geology to a very short time span. The only manganese radionuclide that actually yields itself to radiometric dating is 53Mn with a half-life of 3.7 Ma. Additionally 53Mn decays through electron capture, not beta decay, thus is unaffected by solar fluxes.



I ignored nothing. Conversely you keep making claims that are easily shown to be erroneous.

We are not talking a mere tiny solar flux measured at the high peak. Apparently you believe those long periods of ice ages are due to something other than energy input. The only time you have measured any decay rates is near the top of the peak - and even a small fluctuation yielded dramatic changes. We are not talking a solar flux that causes a non-detectable change in global temperature - but the difference between 100 feet - or more - of ice over a continent and none at all - and you really expect us to believe this does not matter?

Even the little ice age occurred near the top of the current peak - we have never witnessed the dramatic change that would occur in the troughs between. A small solar flux changes the dacay rate - and you want me to believe that a change that would enable the cooling of the planet to enable 100's of feet of ice to form on the planet would change nothing at all?

I thought we were discussing science here? All you seem to be doing is attempting to avoid it for some reason and making assumptions no respectable scientist would ever make.

A tiny little solar flux changed the decay rates - which is nothing more than a tiny little addition of energy. And now the reduction of energy to enable cooling to a degree that would cover continents with ice - of course would make no difference in your view. If you say so.

 

[lifepsyop]

Hardly. The dates that are anomalous are the exception rather than the rule.

And you know this how? Because of what's published?

 

[RickG]

We are not talking a mere tiny solar flux measured at the high peak. Apparently you believe those long periods of ice ages are due to something other than energy input. The only time you have measured any decay rates is near the top of the peak - and even a small fluctuation yielded dramatic changes. We are not talking a solar flux that causes a non-detectable change in global temperature - but the difference between 100 feet - or more - of ice over a continent and none at all - and you really expect us to believe this does not matter?

You are only demonstrating another very incorrect analogy. The Solar fluxes discussed in the paper are not related in the least to the type of solar energy received on earth that causes us to enter and exit Milankovitch cycles. Furthermore, by such an analogy we should see a slowing of decay rates in winter and an increase in summer. The fact is, during summer in the northern hemisphere we are further from the sun than in winter.

Even the little ice age occurred near the top of the current peak - we have never witnessed the dramatic change that would occur in the troughs between. A small solar flux changes the dacay rate - and you want me to believe that a change that would enable the cooling of the planet to enable 100's of feet of ice to form on the planet would change nothing at all?

Again, completely unrelated types of solar irradiation.

I thought we were discussing science here? All you seem to be doing is attempting to avoid it for some reason and making assumptions no respectable scientist would ever make.

Science is precisely what I have been presenting by showing where your claims are in error. BTW if you wish to discuss Milankovitch cycles I will be more than happy to discuss them with you in another thread. The concentration area in my M.S. degree in Earth Science was in Paleoclimatology, and my Thesis was on the Occurrence and Causes of Ice Ages.

A tiny little solar flux changed the decay rates - which is nothing more than a tiny little addition of energy. And now the reduction of energy to enable cooling to a degree that would cover continents with ice - of course would make no difference in your view. If you say so.

No, significant solar flux is what is described in the paper you are citing. Furthermore, the slight decay rate change described in the paper showed a decrease in decay rate, not an increase, which is exactly the opposite of a "young earth" view.

Oh! Did you notice the statement made by Jenkins, et al. on page three? Here, I'll quote it for you.

From page 3 of the paper we are discussing:

"As stated before, solar flares are known to produce a variety of electromagnetic effects on Earth, including changes in the Earth's magnetic field, and power surges in the electric grids. It is thus conceivable that the observed dips in the 54Mn counting rate could have arisen from the response of our detection system (rather than the 54Mn atoms themselves) to the solar flare."
​

 

[whois]

Please cite the specific part in the paper (Jenkins, et al.) where they suggest that their work describes a problem with radiometric dating.

does radiometric dating depend on nuclear decay rates?
the above abstract specifically states that nuclear decay rates are significantly affected by solar activity.
there can be no doubt that nuclear decay rates are not constant.
furthermore, depending on the exact cause, these rates can be affected by other sources other than solar.

Would a decrease in decay not yield a "younger" age?

i have no idea, my point is that radiometric dating could very well be in extreme error.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

does radiometric dating depend on nuclear decay rates?
the above abstract specifically states that nuclear decay rates are significantly affected by solar activity.
there can be no doubt that nuclear decay rates are not constant.
furthermore, depending on the exact cause, these rates can be affected by other sources other than solar.

i have no idea, my point is that radiometric dating could very well be in extreme error.

it would indeed cause it to appear younger - as the lack of energy input would make it appear older.

Of course we all know the truth - that energy input can drastically alter the rate at which the atomic structure decays - being the atomic structure is an electromagnetic process. Yet suddenly - the sun has no affect when it is in it's quiet periods, well below the level we observe today or have ever observed. Yet we observe changes in the real world due to very small changes in energy levels compared to past changes. This is a subject they wish not to discuss - and so will of course brush it aside - as is always done with facts that do not fit theory.

If the facts as we observe and measure them do not match theory it is the facts that are wrong - never the theory.

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We seem to find the real world does not behave as their theory predicts. Not just in this subject - but in their belief of strata formation, dating methods, fossil classifications, mutation research in plant and animal husbandry etc, etc, etc.

We of course must ignore the laws of thermodynamics and Relativity in which the addition of energy alters entropy and decay rates. Unless of course it conforms to evolutionary theory in which case it can be accepted.

I've said it many times. Evolution has become a religion - a religion in which no amount of actual data can disturb it's core beliefs. It is no longer able to be falsified because the falsifying data is simply ignored or judged to be incorrect by the very theory that is to be judged by the data. The scientific method has been turned completely upside down for the purpose of holding onto theory long ago falsified. The facade may be altered - but the foundation which is rotting beneath them is sacrosanct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you know this how? Because of what's published?

That is usually the way that one reads about radiometric dating.

Are you proposing some deep dark conspiracy? Really? You do not seem to realize that scientists check out each other's work all of the time with the hope of showing that the work is in error. The number one way to get famous in science is to come up with new information and hopefully a new theory. The number two way to get famous is to show that there are serious flaws in accepted work, and more scientists actually do this. Why is there no real evidence that scientists are wrong?

 

[Aggie]

Please provide a specific example of discarded data with citation to the original source, then we can examine the "actual" reason(s) for discarding data and see if it supports your claims.

Here's an example I came across yesterday: C14 dinos - creation.com

A team of researchers gave a presentation at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13–17, at which they gave 14C dating results from many bone samples from eight dinosaur specimens. All gave dates ranging from 22,000 to 39,000 years, right in the ‘ballpark’ predicted by creationists. But if dinosaurs really were millions of years old, there should not be one atom of 14C left in them.

This was a joint event of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS). It appears that the researchers approached the matter with considerable professionalism, including taking great pains to eliminate contamination with modern carbon as a source of the 14C signal in the bones. The lead presenter was Dr Thomas Seiler, a German physicist whose PhD is from the Technical University of Munich. The video of his presentation was up on YouTube at the time of writing this report.

The researchers seem to be associated with Catholic creationist groups, which have reported the conference earlier and more vocally than evangelical creationists. One of these reports states that afterwards, “the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings. Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors or even to the AOGS officers, until after an investigation. It won’t be restored.”

Indeed, one can go online to see a screen shot of the original program. But going to the official conference site, the talk has clearly been removed. (Go to Wednesday, room Leo 2, double-click on BGO2, which is the session that had the presentation. The numbers go from 4 to 6, omitting 5, which was the one on 14C in dino bones.) So much for science’s alleged openness to the data. The ‘power of the paradigm’ can be clearly seen.

I can't include the YouTube video in the the quote, but it's here.

As most of the people at this forum are aware, I accept an old Earth, but I'm curious what the explanation for this is. I don't approve of the idea of censoring this data rather than trying to explain it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's an example I came across yesterday: C14 dinos - creation.com



I can't include the YouTube video in the the quote, but it's here.

As most of the people at this forum are aware, I accept an old Earth, but I'm curious what the explanation for this is. I don't approve of the idea of censoring this data rather than trying to explain it.

I do believe that was removed because the authors were not honest in their presentation. Peer review is the process where scientists check to see if their work is correct and I do believe that none of those findings went through peer review. There is no excuse for avoiding peer review unless you know that your work is bogus.