analyzing the dating systems

[archaeologist]

some here have mentioned with out doubt that the dating systems are correct and without fault, (that is the impression one gets from their words).

having studied the different systems and the creationist arguments against their validity, i thought it would be of interest to investigate these highly touted tools and get both sides of the argument.

these tools are used by the secular world to determine the age of the word and the universe and often come up with dates that contradict the Bible, so it is relevant to have a constructive discussion on these tools in this forum.

the issue is NOT how much i do or do not know but the different systems that are in use today, their strong and weak points, their half-lives, the ideal situation and is it obtainable for each system and so on.

please keep comments restricted to the topic at hand (the thread title)

 

[archaeologist]

p.s.: it would be good to start with a list of all the dating systems in use, their target artifact or object for dating and their half-life expectancy so we all have an idea on what is being talked about and we all start on the same page

 

[KerrMetric]

Well put up your list.

 

[archaeologist]

sorry, i am leaving it up to all who participate. <staff edit>

 

[USincognito]

p.s.: it would be good to start with a list of all the dating systems in use, their target artifact or object for dating and their half-life expectancy so we all have an idea on what is being talked about and we all start on the same page

Well put up your list.

sorry, i am leaving it up to all who participate.

What is it like to go though life lacking a sense of irony?

 

[archaeologist]

let's do this again and STAY ON TOPIC:

some here have mentioned with out doubt that the dating systems are correct and without fault, (that is the impression one gets from their words).

having studied the different systems and the creationist arguments against their validity, i thought it would be of interest to investigate these highly touted tools and get both sides of the argument.

these tools are used by the secular world to determine the age of the word and the universe and often come up with dates that contradict the Bible, so it is relevant to have a constructive discussion on these tools in this forum.

the issue is NOT how much i do or do not know but the different systems that are in use today, their strong and weak points, their half-lives, the ideal situation and is it obtainable for each system and so on.

please keep comments restricted to the topic at hand (the thread title)

 

[metherion]

Fine. I will start with a couple.

Carbon 14.
Potassium-Argon.
Uranium-Lead
Rubidium-Strontium
Uranium 238
Thorium/Protactinium.

There are more.

Metherion

 

[USincognito]

USGS links page for isotopic analysis.
http://www.usgs.gov/science/science.php?term=609
Radiometric dating.
http://www.usgs.gov/science/science.php?term=954
"How do geologists date rocks?"
http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/parks/gtime/radiom.html

 

[KerrMetric]

Er...isn't all this dating science? I thought there was no science according to the thread starter.

 

[archaeologist]

1.Carbon 14.
2. Potassium-Argon.
3. Uranium-Lead
4. Rubidium-Strontium
5. Uranium 238
6. Thorium/Protactinium

1. half-life 5730 +/- 100 years or so.

2. The Potassium-Argon method is useful for sites dated between 50,000 and 2 billion years ago.

3. half-life of 4.46 billion years and 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 704 million years

4. The half-life of this decay is known to a few percent, so our determinations will be uncertain to at least that much. We shall consider the uncertainty in the age a little later in this write up, but for the present, we state that age uncertainties less than 10 percent are entirely feasable

5. Around 99.284% of natural uranium is uranium-238, which has a half-life of 1.41 × 1017 seconds (4.46 × 109 years, or 4.46 billion years)

6. 232Th decays very slowly (its half-life is about three times the age of the earth) but other thorium isotopes occur in the thorium and uranium decay chains. Most of these are short-lived and hence much more radioactive than 232Th, though on a mass basis they are negligible. India is believed to have 25% of the world's Thorium reserves. [4]

**all half-lives taken from several sources on the internet.

it would be nice if you included information asked for in the original post. it saves time and work.

 

[metherion]

Sorry, was just doing a list at that point.

However, I will go into some of the weaknesses of C-14 dating.
Primarily useful for: 500-50000 years.
Throw-offs: Fire
Mold
Radiation
non-atmospheric carbon sinks, like deep sea life.

Metherion

 

[archaeologist]

When scientists first began to compare carbon dating data to data from tree rings, they found carbon dating provided "too-young" estimates of artifact age. Scientists now realize that production of carbon-14 has not been constant over the last 10,000 years, but has changed as the radiation from the sun has changed. Carbon dates reported in the 1950s and 1960s should be questioned, because those studies were conducted before carbon dating was calibrated by comparision with other dating methods

here is another fault and i have my doubts about the tree ring corroborration. but you can see that scientists disagree with 'too young of dates' which is a problem , more for them than anyone else.

looks like manipulation to me

 

[notto]

here is another fault and i have my doubts about the tree ring corroborration. but you can see that scientists disagree with 'too young of dates' which is a problem , more for them than anyone else.

looks like manipulation to me

Source?

How is taking additional evidence and using it to make a method MORE ACCURATE = manipulation.

That is called science.

You doubts are based on absurdity.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Archie, how is your research into C-14 flaws progressing? Will you be publishing it soon?

 

[notto]

Archie, how is your research into C-14 flaws progressing? Will you be publishing it soon?

Apparently their weakness is that we have been making them more accurate.

That's the problem with secular science. It just keeps getting more accurate showing how weak of a methodology it really is.

Just look at meteorology, medical diagnosis, measurement instruments of all sorts. Every time we make them more accurate, it is only showing us how unreliable they are. It looks like manipulation. Weathermen and doctors should just stick with the less accurate methods because by becoming more accurate they are just showing the weakness of secular science.


(or something like that)

 

[USincognito]

USGS links page for isotopic analysis.
http://www.usgs.gov/science/science.php?term=609
Radiometric dating.
http://www.usgs.gov/science/science.php?term=954
"How do geologists date rocks?"
http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/parks/gtime/radiom.html

it would be nice if you included information asked for in the original post. it saves time and work

Did you miss my post which, for your conveinence I have quoted again?

Can you address the myriad of resources listed or will you just ingore them because you want others to do your homework?

 

[archaeologist]

Did you miss my post which, for your conveinence I have quoted again

i haven't got to them, sorry. i will ry to today

Source?

sorry, i forgot here it is:

http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/BIOL/classes/bio302/Pages/CarbonDatingBack.html

Apparently their weakness is that we have been making them more accurate

manipulate was the best word i could use but over the years as i have encountered these dating systems, i do not find anything that i could be confident with as the assumptions made just do not lend themselves to being accurate.

too much is dependent on ideals and a slowing of the rate of decay after the 1st half life and i have not been able to read Libby's work on that particular aspect.

i am quite interested in his work on this area of the field as i want to know how the half life slows down by 50%. there is no logic to that event and i need more information. before commenting on that aspect.

logically, c-14 should be gone by 10,000 years +/- which would lend credence to the young dates scientists got before they manipulated the results.

 

[KerrMetric]

itoo much is dependent on ideals and a slowing of the rate of decay after the 1st half life and i have not been able to read Libby's work on that particular aspect.

WHAT?????????????????????????????????????????

What slowing is that?

 

[archaeologist]

[QUOTEWhat slowing is that?][/QUOTE]

you haven't noticed? libby and about every other scientist have noted that c-14 decays at a constant rate but with each subsequent half-life, that rate slows by 50% and i cannot find any explanation for that anomaly.

there is no reason for that change in rate. if the decay rate is constant then c-14 should decay within 11,000 years +/-.

according to Libby, 50% of c-14 decays in the first 5-6,000 years +/- then the next 5-6,000 +/- 50% of the remaining c-14 decays. but that translates into only 25% of the original amount which means the decay rate has slowed and no one explains it.

so i am and have been searching for libby's notes on the subject to verify what he claimed and see how he addresses this change.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

[QUOTEWhat slowing is that?]

you haven't noticed? libby and about every other scientist have noted that c-14 decays at a constant rate but with each subsequent half-life, that rate slows by 50% and i cannot find any explanation for that anomaly.

there is no reason for that change in rate. if the decay rate is constant then c-14 should decay within 11,000 years +/-.

according to Libby, 50% of c-14 decays in the first 5-6,000 years +/- then the next 5-6,000 +/- 50% of the remaining c-14 decays. but that translates into only 25% of the original amount which means the decay rate has slowed and no one explains it.

so i am and have been searching for libby's notes on the subject to verify what he claimed and see how he addresses this change.

If all that is known - and even accepted by you - how does that invalidate the early dating process?