Methods Of Dating Rock & Fossils

[dad]

Let's start by noting that the term "false" in your first sentence applies to YOUR beliefs about possible CHANGES in the atmosphere, and their effect on the technique, not my description of the technique.

False. I have not claimed an atmosphere change did squat. Absurd.

First of all, while the changes you proposed might affect ring tree counts (assuming it's even physically possible to grow a tree in a month), it would have little or no effect at all on the amount of C14 it contained, and no effect on the dating technique.

False.

" radiocarbon levels have remained relatively constant in most of the biosphere due to the metabolic processes in living organisms and the relatively rapid turnover of carbonates in surface ocean waters. However, changes in the atmosphere over the ages are a source of uncertainty in the measurements."


After the organism dies, carbon-14 continues to decay without being replaced.

Carbon-14 Dating

In a different nature with different laws we would not know that things continue to decay...(or even decayed at all!) The flood waters may also be a factor...ocean waters....and of course changes in the atmosphere. We already know life processes and life spans were different. So forget trying to assume uniform metabolic processes also! Your whole method is same state religion that is ungodly and not fact or proven.

The only thing that would/could affect the C14 dating technique is a CHANGE in the amount of C14 in the atmosphere at some point in time. To my knowledge, no such evidence exists.

You have evidence the atmosphere was the same?

In fact we have ice core samples going back hundreds of thousands of years that detect no such changes in our atmosphere during the past 50K years, and that's the only time frame that can be measured using the C14 technique.

No. The ice was likely flood waters rapidly frozen. No old ages at all.

IMO that particular technique is MORE reliable than some of the radiometric methods related to longer decaying isotopes because of the timeframes involved, and the fact that solar flare activity can and has been shown to have some effect on those decay rates. The sun's output could in fact have 'some' influence on those numbers, but even still it would be a "limited" effect IMO.

No. The present way that our sun behaves is part of our present state. Forget trying to make it do anything to hurt or help you in the far past as is.

 

[NGC 6712]

Name on SN measurement that is so...? 1987a?

Not just 1987A.

 

[dad]

Not just 1987A.

Hit us with your best shot. Example?

 

[Michael]

False. I have not claimed an atmosphere change did squat. Absurd.

Um, technically you're right. You talked about tree rings. I evidently attempted to "translate" your argument a bit. My bad.

My statements in terms of how the C14 methods work is still accurate. It's your "doubt" of the accuracy of those methods we're debating.

" radiocarbon levels have remained relatively constant in most of the biosphere due to the metabolic processes in living organisms and the relatively rapid turnover of carbonates in surface ocean waters.However, changes in the atmosphere over the ages are a source of uncertainty in the measurements."

Notice here that I attempted to TRANSLATE your argument to actual physics. Once the metabolic process stops dad, the decay of C14 begins. It doesn't matter how quickly the living organism formed. The technique only depends on two factors, when the organism died, and a relatively LOW and CONSTANT amount of C14 in the atmosphere. That's it. The only thing that MIGHT influence the dating technique are *IF* the *ATMOSPHERE* (not the organism) was radically different in the past than today. Fortunately we can cross check that idea using ice core samples that date back hundreds of thousands of years. They capture the atmosphere over that period of time. At no time in the past 55K years have C14 levels risen substantially, therefore that factor has been looked at, considered and dismissed as a possible source of contamination.

After the organism dies, carbon-14 continues to decay without being replaced.

Right. It doesn't matter how QUICKLY THE ORGANISM FORMED. It only matters when they died. At that point the FORM stops producing/accumulating C14 and it dissipates into the atmosphere at a relatively constant rate.

In a different nature with different laws we would not know that things continue to decay...(or even decayed at all!)

Everything decays in *THIS* reality. You're now talking about completely HYPOTHETICAL concepts of reality where the LAWS OF PHYSICS as we know them no longer apply. I'm talking about THIS REALITY.

The flood waters may also be a factor...

ocean waters....and of course changes in the atmosphere.

Such an event would have NO effect whatsoever on C14 levels. If they did, we would observe such changes in the ice core samples we have drilled and studied from around the world. No such changes to C14 levels occurred over the past 55K years.

We already know life processes and life spans were different. So forget trying to assume uniform metabolic processes also! Your whole method is same state religion that is ungodly and not fact or proven.

You're wrong on both counts I'm afraid. It's not "ungodly". Everything about nature is GODLY because it was created by GOD. To claim otherwise is simply silly IMO. Nothing in science can actually be "proven", but there is plenty of physical EVIDENCE to support the fact that C14 is accumulated in living organisms and decays at a relatively constant rate after death. That's pretty much all that the technique depends upon. The only other factor that MIGHT influence the decay rate is a massive change of the amount of C14 in the atmosphere. Since that has already been studied and eliminated as a possible source of contamination, the method has been shown to provide USEFUL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

You have evidence the atmosphere was the same?

Sure. Absolutely. Study ice core samples from around the world. Pay close attention to the levels of C14 specifically. That specific form of carbon is the one that is critical. Were it to have VARIED SUBSTANTIALLY over the past 55K years, your argument might have merit. Since they didn't, your argument is moot.

No. The ice was likely flood waters rapidly frozen. No old ages at all.

Ya know....

There was a reason I gave up debating YEC.

Just as tree rings are DEPENDENT upon SEASONAL CHANGES, all ice core samples have SEASONAL layers, that require SEASONAL melting and seasonal snowfalls to create. Those layers can even be cross-checked for KNOWN historical volcanic events to verify the technique works and works accurately. It's a whole science unto itself. It could NOT have formed all at once. It could NOT have happened that way anymore than tree rings can form without seasonal changes.

No. The present way that our sun behaves is part of our present state. Forget trying to make it do anything to hurt or help you in the far past as is.

You and I evidently don't even think in the same way. I tend to assume nature is relatively constant and relatively predictable in terms of how the laws of physics operate. You're sort of 'assuming' that the laws of physics are meaningless. We aren't even speaking the same language I'm afraid.

 

[dad]

Um, technically you're right. You talked about tree rings. I evidently attempted to "translate" your argument a bit. My bad.

My statements in terms of how the C14 methods work is still accurate. It's your "doubt" of the accuracy of those methods we're debating.

For it to have any merit you MUST have our laws in place, hence processes, decay, etc.

All you need to do is FIRST prove to us here that such a state existed. Otherwise I will recommend accepting dates derived from the bible.

Notice here that I attempted to TRANSLATE your argument to actual physics. Once the metabolic process stops dad, the decay of C14 begins

In this state yes. So? We are talking long ago. Translate that.

. It doesn't matter how quickly the living organism formed. The technique only depends on two factors, when the organism died, and a relatively LOW and CONSTANT amount of C14 in the atmosphere.

False. It depends on the forces and laws of the present existing! Then we can look at whether rays from space did what they do to the atmosphere proding what they do...etc etc.

That's it. The only thing that MIGHT influence the dating technique are *IF* the *ATMOSPHERE* (not the organism) was radically different in the past than today. Fortunately we can cross check that idea using ice core samples that date back hundreds of thousands of years. They capture the atmosphere over that period of time. At no time in the past 55K years have C14 levels risen substantially, therefore that factor has been looked at, considered and dismissed as a possible source of contamination.

False. The flood waters froze fast most likely producing the bulk of the ice. So you cannot check anything. (save the time since our state existed perhaps)

If some agent came up with the waters from the deep, or down from space with the waters (liquid nitrogen or some such similar) then layers would exist also.

Right. It doesn't matter how QUICKLY THE ORGANISM FORMED. It only matters when they died. At that point the FORM stops producing/accumulating C14 and it dissipates into the atmosphere at a relatively constant rate.

False. Only in this state is that true. We do not know about the processes of the former state. It seems that mammals and man did not fossilize for example. We also had long long life spans...etc. You cannot enforce present state rules for the past.

Everything decays in *THIS* reality. You're now talking about completely HYPOTHETICAL concepts of reality where the LAWS OF PHYSICS as we know them no longer apply. I'm talking about THIS REALITY.

Then prove that these laws existed at the flood time, or you are talking a different time. Who cares how things now do what they do here?

Such an event would have NO effect whatsoever on C14 levels. If they did, we would observe such changes in the ice core samples we have drilled and studied from around the world. No such changes to C14 levels occurred over the past 55K years.

False. You have no clue where the change was. You are dealing in imaginary time. You also would not know what to look for. Stop making wild claims.

You're wrong on both counts I'm afraid. It's not "ungodly". Everything about nature is GODLY because it was created by GOD.

False. It is godly to accept His word. He created the heavens and earth and man.

To claim otherwise is simply silly IMO. Nothing in science can actually be "proven", but there is plenty of physical EVIDENCE to support the fact that C14 is accumulated in living organisms and decays at a relatively constant rate after death.

Of course it does. So? The issue is not what it now does.

That's pretty much all that the technique depends upon. The only other factor that MIGHT influence the decay rate is a massive change of the amount of C14 in the atmosphere. Since that has already been studied and eliminated as a possible source of contamination, the method has been shown to provide USEFUL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

False. Wow I can't recall having to grade remarks with false so often. You are in NO position to claim that the ONLY thing that affected C14 was atmosphere. We do not know for example what was produced by what back then. Example if a tree used nitrogen now and gave off carbon (just a what if example) but the reverse was true in the past, the levels would need looking at another way! We don't know.

Sure. Absolutely. Study ice core samples from around the world. Pay close attention to the levels of C14 specifically. That specific form of carbon is the one that is critical. Were it to have VARIED SUBSTANTIALLY over the past 55K years, your argument might have merit. Since they didn't, your argument is moot.

False. The record of ice likely goes back no more than 4500 plus years. The rest is pure belief of a present state projected onto the ice by you.

Just as tree rings are DEPENDENT upon SEASONAL CHANGES, all ice core samples have SEASONAL layers,

False. The changes are cyclical, and only seasonal in the present state.

Those layers can even be cross-checked for KNOWN historical volcanic events to verify the technique works and works accurately.

Circular! You would need to know when the volcano blew!!!!

It's a whole science unto itself. It could NOT have formed all at once. It could NOT have happened that way anymore than tree rings can form without seasonal changes.

False. It could in the former state when the ice actually formed.

You and I evidently don't even think in the same way. I tend to assume nature is relatively constant and relatively predictable in terms of how the laws of physics operate.

Science is not about how you tend to feel or think. You do not know. God's word then can be looked to.

You're sort of 'assuming' that the laws of physics are meaningless.

False! They have great meaning here for us in this state.
They limit the life spans of wicked men. They separate the spiritual levels from direct contact with men. etc...

 

[Elendur]

Essentially, dad, you're correct. We can't prove it.


We can't prove a same state past.
Just as you can't prove a different state past.

Proof doesn't matter in the physical world.
Evidence on the other hand does.

The evidence points to a same state past.

What are your thoughts about this? I've tried to put it as simple as possible for you.

 

[Michael]

For it to have any merit you MUST have our laws in place, hence processes, decay, etc.

All you need to do is FIRST prove to us here that such a state existed. Otherwise I will recommend accepting dates derived from the bible.

Therein lies the rub dad. You and I don't even view the universe the same way, nor do we *INTERPRET* that book the same way.

I thought about going through your response item by item, but it all comes back to one thing. You SUBJECTIVELY CHOOSE to *INTERPRET* a single book in a single way, whereas I am open to a larger universe of physics, and a universe that includes that book. I simply don't INTERPRET that one book as you do.

If you don't accept that the laws of physics tell us something useful about the universe around us, there really isn't that much for us to discuss. I'm not sure how or why you derived any dates related to carbon dating or ice core science from that book since the largest group of 'Christians' on the planet are Catholics and they embrace evolutionary theory and an ancient Earth. I'm not Catholic mind you, but I'm utterly mystified as to how we might have a logical conversation on this topic if you're intent on tossing out the laws of physics in favor of YOUR PERSONAL interpretation of ONE BOOK.

 

[hisgrace26]

Yes, the decay equation (see Elendur's link). I thought that was pretty clear, but maybe I should have used "calculate" instead of "determine".

Think of it like measuring your heartbeat: You don't sit there for a minute and count all the beats, you count the number of beats in 6 seconds and multiply by 10. It's slightly different from the decay calculation because that's an exponential process, but the principle is the same.

Edit: since the Wiki article is a tad confusing, the important equation is this -

N(t)=Ne^(lambda*t)

Where N(t) is the amount of parent material at time t, N is the initial amount of parent material, lambda is the decay constant, and t is the time.

So if you have a known quantity of parent material, then measure that again after a period of time you'll have N, N(t), and t and can solve for lambda.

Your equation look a little weird to me. Is that the same as M= to the amount radioactive isotope started with (1/2) t/half life? This is the radioactive half-life equation. Is this the same as your or different? I'm just a little confuse here.

If I want to know how much is left, given that the amount started was known, I can just plug in the formula. But in actuality how do I even know how much to start off with? :/

 

[RickG]

Name on SN measurement that is so...? 1987a?

I'm not sure what you are asking. I venture a guess that you may be referring to Knödlseder, et al 2000.

Constraints on stellar yields and Sne from gamma-ray line observations. New Astronony Reviews 44: 315-320

You can source the paper here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9912131.pdf

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Your equation look a little weird to me. Is that the same as M= to the amount radioactive isotope started with (1/2) t/half life? This is the radioactive half-life equation. Is this the same as your or different? I'm just a little confuse here.

If I want to know how much is left, given that the amount started was known, I can just plug in the formula. But in actuality how do I even know how much to start off with? :/

Mine is the more general form of that equation (though I did forget a negative sign on the exponent). You can simplify to your equation using substitution. Unfortunately, it wouldn't make much sense typed, but here it is written out for you:

Let me know if you need anything explained.

To determine initial quantities, we use a different equation - the above equation is really only useful for determining the decay constant or half-life of an isotope. The only way you could use it to determine the initial quantity is if you already knew the age.

If you are using a system where the initial daughter quantity is known to be zero (i.e. the zircon uranium-lead system), you can use this equation:

D = D(initial) + N(t)(e^(lambda*t)-1)

Where:
D = the current amount of daughter material
D(initial) = the initial daughter material (zero, in this case)
and the rest of the variables are the same as the decay equation.

Since you can measure D, N(t), and the decay constant, you can determine t.

However, the most common way to determine the age is via the isochron method, which doesn't require an assumption of the initial daughter content of the mineral. This method uses ratios of stable isotopes to parent and daughter isotopes.

For example, the rubidium-strontium method (87-Rb decays to 87-Sr) plots 87-Rb/86-Sr vs. 87-Sr/86-Sr. 86-Sr is stable, so the amount in the rock should remain constant over time. If the ratios plot in a straight line, then you have a usable age (the slope of the line). If they don't, then there was some contamination, either in the lab or with excess 87-Sr in the rock.

Hope this explains it for you - let me know if you have any further questions.

 

[sandwiches]

Good analogy --

But it has a serious flaw: it operates on uniformitarianism.

In those 54 remaining seconds, an arrhythmia could occur.

The Bible reports major arrhythmias in the earth's past.

It mentions no arrhythmia on decay rates.

 

[AV1611VET]

It mentions no arrhythmia on decay rates.

Really? what's this, then?

Deuteronomy 29:5 And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.

 

[sandwiches]

Really? what's this, then?

Not made in China, it would seem.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not made in China, it would seem.

A menos que el desierto era el desierto de Gobi.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Essentially, dad, you're correct. We can't prove it.


We can't prove a same state past.
Just as you can't prove a different state past.

Proof doesn't matter in the physical world.
Evidence on the other hand does.

The evidence points to a same state past.

What are your thoughts about this? I've tried to put it as simple as possible for you.

Now here's a mind bender: how do we know the meaning of words was the same when the Bible was written? What if at some point "up" became "down" and "good" became "evil"?

Whoa!

 

[AV1611VET]

Now here's a mind bender: how do we know the meaning of words was the same when the Bible was written? What if at some point "up" became "down" and "good" became "evil"?

Whoa!

What do you mean by, 'when the Bible was written'?

Do you mean, for instance, than when Jesus said, 'Let us go up to Jerusalem,' they traveled south?

Or do you mean in 1611?

 

[dad]

Essentially, dad, you're correct. We can't prove it.


We can't prove a same state past.
Just as you can't prove a different state past.

Proof doesn't matter in the physical world.
Evidence on the other hand does.

The evidence points to a same state past.

What are your thoughts about this? I've tried to put it as simple as possible for you.

False. Evidence points to a DSP. So does the bible and history. But you are right. You can't prove the foundational premise of ALL so called science claims. That is an honest approach.

 

[dad]

Therein lies the rub dad. You and I don't even view the universe the same way, nor do we *INTERPRET* that book the same way.

Either science knows or not.

I thought about going through your response item by item, but it all comes back to one thing. You SUBJECTIVELY CHOOSE to *INTERPRET* a single book in a single way, whereas I am open to a larger universe of physics, and a universe that includes that book. I simply don't INTERPRET that one book as you do.

You chose to believe stuff. OK.

If you don't accept that the laws of physics tell us something useful about the universe around us, there really isn't that much for us to discuss.

Good. Bye.

I'm not sure how or why you derived any dates related to carbon dating or ice core science from that book since the largest group of 'Christians' on the planet are Catholics and they embrace evolutionary theory and an ancient Earth. I'm not Catholic mind you, but I'm utterly mystified as to how we might have a logical conversation on this topic if you're intent on tossing out the laws of physics in favor of YOUR PERSONAL interpretation of ONE BOOK.

Cop out. The dates are not my interpretation. And you cannot give us a case for another interpretation against a different state past and future if that is what you mean. In all ways, you lose.

 

[dad]

I'm not sure what you are asking. I venture a guess that you may be referring to Knödlseder, et al 2000.

Constraints on stellar yields and Sne from gamma-ray line observations. New Astronony Reviews 44: 315-320

You can source the paper here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9912131.pdf

If you want to post a link, quote a relevant sentence or paragraph. Are you offering a SN light curve here?

 

[Elendur]

False. Evidence points to a DSP. So does the bible and history. But you are right. You can't prove the foundational premise of ALL so called science claims. That is an honest approach.

Can you state that evidence again? I seem to have missed it.