Dating Methods

[EternalDragon]

ED, there is some truth to your generalization and that is what young earthers play on, the generalization as if it were all there was to it, excluding "those facts" that destroy the assertion.

Here are the facts. Decay rates are stable. However, the cosmogenic nuclides, such as 14C, 10Be and 36Cl do oscillate with respect to the distance from the sun and angle of inclination during earth's orbit. That is not a rate change and it only amounts to a fraction of a percent and in no way influences any dating methods. The non-cosmogenic nuclides, of which deep time is measured are unaffected due the nature of their origin.

May I ask with what "scientific" data is your claim that rates are not stable during the process of planet formation based on?

Well, are you tracing it backwards or do you actually have a starting
measurement? Or is it just assumed?

 

[RickG]

Well, are you tracing it backwards or do you actually have a starting measurement? Or is it just assumed?

Would you please clarify what you are asking? An example perhaps, and in your own words.

 

[florida2]

Well, there is the logical side and the scientific side. Science says
decay rates are stable but they really are not. Especially when
considering the creation of a planet and land in one day (or 6).
They can be accelerated.

https://answersingenesis.org/geolog...eration-of-radioactivity-shown-in-laboratory/

The logical side is, that if God were to make a cake, he would not
bother to mix ingredients and bake it. He would just produce it in
a second. If you were to dissect and study said cake it would show
all the ingredients needed to make the cake and appear baked for the
allotted time period. As if it were really mixed and baked for a few
hours.

And before everyone yells, "God deceived us!", God did very clearly
state that he made everything in 6 days. (which would normally take
much longer under natural processes.)

Can you find some evidence from a scientific paper and not Answers In Genesis or another creationist site?

 

[juvenissun]

There a numerous dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric. I know there have numerous threads on the topic, but I have yet to have any actual serious discussion on the topic.

For those who insist they are unreliable, I would genuinely like to have an honest open discussion concerning them. In this discussion I want to discuss the actual method(s) and follow the process through. I am not interested at all in seeing any copy/paste material. Please read and try to understand from whatever source(s) you choose and express your/their concerns in your own words.

If you think you are ready to defend the technique with your knowledge of physics, then it is obvious that you do not know what the question is. What you said has nothing to do with the real question.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Enjoying the read -- thanks to the thread starter for the invite.

 

[RickG]

If you think you are ready to defend the technique with your knowledge of physics, then it is obvious that you do not know what the question is. What you said has nothing to do with the real question.

If you wish to discuss a particular dating method, then please state that method and describe your concerns in your own words. As I stated in the OP, there are numerous methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric, or if you prefer, Absolute and Relative dating methods.

I have no idea what you mean by the statement: "it is obvious that you do not know what the question is." There are no questions asked in the OP, although I did note two typos which are now corrected.

 

[High Fidelity]

Excellent subject.

Just subscribing so I can remember to read through when I wake up.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Hello Rick,
I see that ED has disappeared, so while he's busy reading up on this -- how about you give a break down for me, in layman's speak. (Unless of course, this is layman's speak -- in which case, send me p.m )

ED, there is some truth to your generalization and that is what young earthers play on, the generalization as if it were all there was to it, excluding "those facts" that destroy the assertion.

Here are the facts. Decay rates are stable. However, the cosmogenic nuclides, such as 14C, 10Be and 36Cl do oscillate with respect to the distance from the sun and angle of inclination during earth's orbit. That is not a rate change and it only amounts to a fraction of a percent and in no way influences any dating methods. The non-cosmogenic nuclides, of which deep time is measured are unaffected due the nature of their origin.

May I ask with what "scientific" data is your claim that rates are not stable during the process of planet formation based on?

 

[EternalDragon]

Would you please clarify what you are asking? An example perhaps, and in your own words.

In the testing of Zircon or Potassium-40-Argon-40, all you have is
current levels. Since the decay material is found in a certain amount
and is determined to have a half life, you are tracing that back to
the parent material. Correct? So you are assuming X amount of time
has passed based on the half life of said detected materials.

Where is the starting point? Zero? Do you have a measurement from
the start to go by or are you extrapolating backwards?

Here is another question for you. If God created plants all over the
earth in a day, how did they mature and grow so fast? If you had been
there a second later you would have said the forests are very old.
Same thing for Adam and Eve and all the animals in their habitats.
Now scientists are taking radiometric samples and saying they must be
old.

I guess you can reject God's word over man's word if you prefer but
I do not prefer to do that.

 

[EternalDragon]

Hello Rick,
I see that ED has disappeared, so while he's busy reading up on this -- how about you give a break down for me, in layman's speak. (Unless of course, this is layman's speak -- in which case, send me p.m )

I had to work 4 hours on New Years Eve, then stayed up very late. I just got up
at noon after sleeping in all day. That is where I disappeared to.

 

[RickG]

In the testing of Zircon or Potassium-40-Argon-40, all you have is current levels. Since the decay material is found in a certain amount and is determined to have a half life, you are tracing that back to the parent material. Correct?

Incorrect. The time passed is determined from the ratios of daughter to parent material. How much parent there was to begin with is completely irrelevant. Of course I know you are concerned about excess daughter material which may or may not be present. Any excess argon can easily be detected through the Ar/Ar method.

So you are assuming X amount of time
has passed based on the half life of said detected materials.

That assumption is based on countless measurements of half-lifes of the nuclide, they don't change. And minor oscillations in some cosmogenic radionuclides are just that, oscillations, as previously explained and amount to only a fraction of a percent. Additionally, numerous isotopes have been exposed to conditions far exceeding those which they could possible encounter in nature and found not to change, with the exception of only a few that may have varied as much as a "whopping" 2%, which is completely insignificant.

Where is the starting point? Zero? Do you have a measurement from
the start to go by or are you extrapolating backwards?

Well, since you mentioned the K/Ar method I'll explain. To be specific we are talking about 40K/40Ar. The starting point begins when the mineral cools. 40K decays into the gas 40Ar and is trapped in the mineral. To determine how much 40K has decayed into 40Ar in the lab, the mineral is heated to the melting point and the gas is measured by a mass spectrometer. A second sample is used to determine the 40K content by use of an atomic absorption spectrophotometer or flame photometer. The ratio of the two gives the time of the mineral was solidified. In this process there are two fundamental "assumptions". The first one is that the sample has remained closed following solidification. Loss of 40Ar can occur if the sample has undergone weathering or if there has been a reheating episode. However, petrographic examination will reveal any such evidence, while the presence of any secondary minerals unique to recrystallization such as xenocrysts, will be prevalent. Additionally, any possible Ar loss can be determined by comparing whole rock fractions to determine whether they are concordant or not.

A second "assumption" is that all the 40Ar is derived for 40K and not any atmospheric 40Ar. This is easily determined by measuring any 36Ar in the sample which is of atmospheric origin and correlates to any atmospheric 40Ar.

Glad to help ED, any more questions?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I had to work 4 hours on New Years Eve, then stayed up very late. I just got up
at noon after sleeping in all day. That is where I disappeared to.

That's horrid! I'm glad to see you're back, and am enjoying your exchange with RickG.

A Good New Year to you and yours. (and all round here, to readers and fellow CF members.)

 

[EternalDragon]

Incorrect. The time passed is determined from the ratios of daughter to parent material. How much parent there was to begin with is completely irrelevant. Of course I know you are concerned about excess daughter material which may or may not be present. Any excess argon can easily be detected through the Ar/Ar method.

That assumption is based on countless measurements of half-lifes of the nuclide, they don't change. And minor oscillations in some cosmogenic radionuclides are just that, oscillations, as previously explained and amount to only a fraction of a percent. Additionally, numerous isotopes have been exposed to conditions far exceeding those which they could possible encounter in nature and found not to change, with the exception of only a few that may have varied as much as a "whopping" 2%, which is completely insignificant.

Well, since you mentioned the K/Ar method I'll explain. To be specific we are talking about 40K/40Ar. The starting point begins when the mineral cools. 40K decays into the gas 40Ar and is trapped in the mineral. To determine how much 40K has decayed into 40Ar in the lab, the mineral is heated to the melting point and the gas is measured by a mass spectrometer. A second sample is used to determine the 40K content by use of an atomic absorption spectrophotometer or flame photometer. The ratio of the two gives the time of the mineral was solidified. In this process there are two fundamental "assumptions". The first one is that the sample has remained closed following solidification. Loss of 40Ar can occur if the sample has undergone weathering or if there has been a reheating episode. However, petrographic examination will reveal any such evidence, while the presence of any secondary minerals unique to recrystallization such as xenocrysts, will be prevalent. Additionally, any possible Ar loss can be determined by comparing whole rock fractions to determine whether they are concordant or not.

A second "assumption" is that all the 40Ar is derived for 40K and not any atmospheric 40Ar. This is easily determined by measuring any 36Ar in the sample which is of atmospheric origin and correlates to any atmospheric 40Ar.

Glad to help ED, any more questions?

Just one. Do you think that a newly created planet, by whatever process
is required to make a fully habitable planet in around a day or so by an
unknown intelligent designer, would show the same parent and daughter
ratios or would it exclude one, the other or both?

 

[lasthero]

Just one. Do you think that a newly created planet,

Just a small thing, here, but shouldn't you really say 'newly created universe'? We found and dated material from off the planet, too.

 

[RickG]

Just one. Do you think that a newly created planet, by whatever process is required to make a fully habitable planet in around a day or so by an unknown intelligent designer, would show the same parent and daughter ratios or would it exclude one, the other or both?

It would make no difference. It is the sub-atomic structure of each element of which there are some 1700 known nuclides of which some 430 are stable that determines how they react and the type of decay they will follow for those that are unstable and useful for radiometric dating. Each element has a specified number of protons in its nucleus given by it atomic number. The chemical behavior of an element however is due primarily to the number of electrons orbiting around the nucleus of the atom.

Radioactive isotopes decay by one of three processes: beta decay, alpha decay, or nuclear fission. In this process they may produce either unstable or stable isotopes. Some decay through a series unstable isotopes before finally arriving to a stable isotope. The Uranium and Thorium series are excellent examples of this and lend themselves to a number of different dating techniques within the series.

Simply put in laymans terms ED, isotopes behave (react) in specific ways due to their sub-atomic makeup. No ifs, ands, or buts about it; and we know the hows, whens, whys, and wheres as well.

BTW ED, I gather since you had no questions concerning my previous post you understand what I said and agree with the specific process described in 40K/40Ar and 40Ar/36Ar dating. The whole point of this thread is to present various dating methods in their "full context", not just what is described and vaguely alluded to in the YEC literature, ignoring all the methods and techniques for assuring precision and accuracy.

 

[Papias]

Rick wrote:

Then ED would need to show, in his own words, where and how these illogical assumptions are being made in the scientific literature.

For once I'll disagree with Rick.

No, that's the second thing a dating method denier like Rick needs to show. I think a different question should be looked at first, since it is more accessible because it doesn't get into a technical discussion that is beyond the reach of many, maybe most, people.

That first question is this:

"why do the various dating methods (including C14, K-Ar, varves, dendrochronology, ice cores, obsidian, protein racecimization, speleotherms, superposition, geologic event dating, geomagnetic polarity, Pb/U, association, Rb/St, and literally dozens of others), agree with each other when more than one can be used on the same sample?"


If methods are wrong, they'll give wrong answers. It seems odd to suggest that they'll happen to all give the same "wrong" answer, again and again over hundreds of samples and thousands of tests.​

After this, then perhaps look at "assumptions".

For both questions, of course, the dating method deniers like ED don't have a leg to stand on, any more than those who deny a spherical earth. I just happen to think that the fact they don't have a leg to stand on becomes apparent more quickly when the "agreement across methods" question is discussed first.

Happy New Year-

Papias

 

[EternalDragon]

It would make no difference. It is the sub-atomic structure of each element of which there are some 1700 known nuclides of which some 430 are stable that determines how they react and the type of decay they will follow for those that are unstable and useful for radiometric dating. Each element has a specified number of protons in its nucleus given by it atomic number. The chemical behavior of an element however is due primarily to the number of electrons orbiting around the nucleus of the atom.

Radioactive isotopes decay by one of three processes: beta decay, alpha decay, or nuclear fission. In this process they may produce either unstable or stable isotopes. Some decay through a series unstable isotopes before finally arriving to a stable isotope. The Uranium and Thorium series are excellent examples of this and lend themselves to a number of different dating techniques within the series.

Simply put in laymans terms ED, isotopes behave (react) in specific ways due to their sub-atomic makeup. No ifs, ands, or buts about it; and we know the hows, whens, whys, and wheres as well.

BTW ED, I gather since you had no questions concerning my previous post you understand what I said and agree with the specific process described in 40K/40Ar and 40Ar/36Ar dating. The whole point of this thread is to present various dating methods in their "full context", not just what is described and vaguely alluded to in the YEC literature, ignoring all the methods and techniques for assuring precision and accuracy.

I don't have a problem with the detecting methods nor what is detected.
I've never had a problem with any evidence we have. We all have the
same evidence, the same earth, the same universe to examine.

 

[RickG]

I don't have a problem with the detecting methods nor what is detected.
I've never had a problem with any evidence we have. We all have the
same evidence, the same earth, the same universe to examine.

Then why do you continue to present dating methods as being wrong?

 

[Split Rock]

Well, there is the logical side and the scientific side. Science says
decay rates are stable but they really are not. Especially when
considering the creation of a planet and land in one day (or 6).
They can be accelerated.

https://answersingenesis.org/geolog...eration-of-radioactivity-shown-in-laboratory/

The logical side is, that if God were to make a cake, he would not
bother to mix ingredients and bake it. He would just produce it in
a second. If you were to dissect and study said cake it would show
all the ingredients needed to make the cake and appear baked for the
allotted time period. As if it were really mixed and baked for a few
hours.

And before everyone yells, "God deceived us!", God did very clearly
state that he made everything in 6 days. (which would normally take
much longer under natural processes.)

How do you know what God would and would not "bother" to do? According to you, he made a "perfect" creation that is has to continually tinker with and fix... and he isn't even done fixing it yet. What constittutes more of a "bother?" Doing it right the first time, or having to continually fret over and fix it?

 

[EternalDragon]

How do you know what God would and would not "bother" to do? According to you, he made a "perfect" creation that is has to continually tinker with and fix... and he isn't even done fixing it yet. What constittutes more of a "bother?" Doing it right the first time, or having to continually fret over and fix it?

We have His word. That's how.