Circular Reasoning

[RickG]

huh?
from the abstract:
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.

nuclear decay is what radiometric dating depends on.
the above paper says this is not constant.

How many times do I have to tell you those are oscillations due to the distance of the earth from the sun during earth's orbit. Furthermore, those fluxes described by solar events are isolated extremely short-lived events. And why don't you try actually reading the entire paper rather than drawing erroneous conclusion for an Abstract. There is nothing in any of your sources even hinting that what they are describing affects any radiometric dating method. NOTHING!

 

[whois]

There is nothing in any of your sources even hinting that what they are describing affects any radiometric dating method. NOTHING!

are you saying radiometric dating does not depend on a constant nuclear decay rate?

 

[RickG]

I'm not sure you understand fossil dating at all or how it's done.

So which index layer does this fossil belong to????

Oh! I get it now. You are trying to GOAD me. I suggest that you actually try to engage in "respectful" debate as described in the forum rules specifically under this particular forum. One particular problem is with your citations. Here's what the forum rules suggest.

Generally, the point of citing is to ensure that you are not simply making things up by attributing them to another person/thing. Also, this provides a way for other people to verify the validity of your source as well as proving that your argument is correct/superior.
​

Justa, when I source your citations, I see nothing that supports anything you are claiming. You need to provide context. In doing that you will find in all of those citations you provided they do not support what you claim they do. Please review your sources with proper and full context.

 

[justlookinla]

Yep, ignoring the science as usual. Couldn't even get models to match predictions, yet you are going to assure me that a 200 to 300% increase wouldn't matter at all. Sounds like ignoring science again.

What index fossils? Fossils based upon the age of rocks they are not even found in???? Rocks who's dating is ignored by an increase of 200-300% yet calculated by today's average????

I'm not sure you understand fossil dating at all or how it's done.

So which index layer does this fossil belong to????

Interesting question. The responses will be interesting also, I suspect.

 

[RickG]

are you saying radiometric dating does not depend on a constant nuclear decay rate?

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.

 

[Split Rock]

are you saying radiometric dating does not depend on a constant nuclear decay rate?

He indicated the following:

1. Events that affect nuclear decay are either very short-lived or
2. Result in very small changes.

Thus, they have no significant effect on radiometric dating.

 

[whois]

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?

 

[Split Rock]

e.

So which index layer does this fossil belong to????

Ah yes.... the often repeated "problem" of the polystrate fossil trees!

From wikipedia:

In geology, such fossils are referred to as upright fossils, trunks, or trees. Brief periods of rapid sedimentation favor their formation.[2][4] Upright fossils are typically found in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano. Typically, this period of rapid sedimentation was followed by a period of time, decades to thousands of years long, characterized by very slow or no accumulation of sediments. In river deltas and other coastal plain settings, rapid sedimentation is often the end result of a brief period of accelerated subsidence of an area of coastal plain relative to sea level caused by salt tectonics, global sea level rise, growth faulting, continental margin collapse, or some combination of these factors
Polystrate fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Geologists don't assume such starta represent milliosn of years. They know that sedimentation rates can vary. Show us any such strata that are claimed by scientists to represent millions of years. I bet you can't.

 

[Split Rock]

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?

Why don't you show us the calculations that demonstrate the effects of these ossillations significantly alter radiometric dating?

 

[lasthero]

Interesting question.

Not really. It's been answered many, many times.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Interesting question. The responses will be interesting also, I suspect.

Avoidance will be the response.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your ignorance on the off topic subject you continue to expound upon is more than obvious. Your sources do not support what you are claiming they do in the slightest.

And your reliance on ad hominem tactics to avoid the science is getting quite old. And quite boring.

 

[Split Rock]

Avoidance will be the response.

Like your avoidance of the fact that no geologist claims that strata with polystrate trees represent millions of years? How many more times will you imply they do? I bet you will continue to do so in other threads and hope no one understands the truth.

 

[lasthero]

And your reliance on ad hominem tactics to avoid the science is getting quite old. And quite boring.

You really should stop accusing people of ad hominem attacks if you don't know what that word means.

Rick's offered to take you on in a one-on-one debate. Why don't you accept it and put it all on the line, Justa?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The reason we know about those past 14C production rates is because we can not only measure them but we can date them through non-radiometric means.

Such as belief???

For the last time, the production rate of atmospheric 14C has absolutely nothing to do with its decay rate. And again, the fact that a 10-fold increase in that production rate is known, it is easily accounted for.

And you are making the claim that it is known throughout all of recorded geological history? This is what I am to take from this???? You only discovered this anomaly from a few thousand years ago a few years ago. But know what happened claimed billions of years ago with certainty? Somehow I doubt this.

Or any material/organism that received a continuous absorption of atmospheric 14C during its life span. 14C dating can exceed 60,000 years, however the limiting factor there is that the calibration scale only goes to there.

So any claimed accuracy beyond is merely wishful thinking?

Nope, those are hoaxes created by the creationists community. Any 14C found in dinosaur bones are not of cosmogenic origin, rather from the influence of uranium or thorium.

Yet didn't you just state it was fixed at the time of death above? Now it comes from other sources?

Carbon-14 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or instead of contamination which seemingly can occur anywhere but in fossils, your dating is just plain incorrect.

Again, I will glad to engage you in a formal debate on any "specific" topic of any dating method.

No you won't, you'll just participate in avoidance and ad hominem attacks as demonstrated consistently.

Willard Libby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"was an American physical chemist noted for his role in the 1949 development of radiocarbon dating..."

Fermi's interaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"is an explanation of the beta decay, proposed by Enrico Fermi in 1933."

Weak interaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"it was assumed to be a universal law.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction#cite_note-20 However, in the mid-1950s Chen Ning Yang and Tsung-Dao Lee suggested that the weak interaction might violate this law. Chien Shiung Wu and collaborators in 1957 discovered that the weak interaction violates parity, earning Yang and Lee the 1957 Nobel Prize in Physics."

So please show me where radiocarbon dating was revised to match current theory after 1957 when Fermi's theory of Beta Decay was found to violate symmetry????

No claims, just facts please.

 

[lasthero]

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Sure it does. If the amount of C14 varies according to solar activity - then unless you know what the sun was doing at all times in the past - your basis of C14 content is invalid.

Carbon-14 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"As of 2008, the rate of carbon-14 production was poorly known – while the reaction can be modelled or the current concentrations and the global carbon budget can be used to backtrack, attempts to directly measure the production rate had not agreed with these models very well..."


"...Production rates vary because of changes to the cosmic ray flux incident, such as supernovae, and due to variations in the Earth's magnetic field. The latter can create significant variations in carbon-14 production rates, although the changes of the carbon cycle can make these effects difficult to tease out."

Cosmic RaysHit Space Age High - NASA Science

"In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we've seen in the past 50 years," ..."

"Hundreds of years ago, cosmic ray fluxes were at least 200% to 300% higher than anything measured during the Space Age."

Although we can discount any theory which relies on cosmic rays anyways, since the data shows mainstream's cosmic ray theory is evidently wrong:

Voyager 1 Discovers Bizarre and Baffling Region at Edge of Solar System | WIRED

"So what’s the problem? Well, if the solar wind was completely gone, galactic cosmic rays should be streaming in from all directions. Instead, Voyager found them coming preferentially from one direction"

As a matter of fact - all their models were incorrect:

Heliosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The IBEX results are truly remarkable! What we are seeing in these maps does not match with any of the previous theoretical models of this region."

So we will ignore C14 varies according to solar activity - varies according to cosmic ray influxes - which models were all wrong - and ignore decay rates change with energy content - all so we can keep preaching the same old falsified dogma we have always preached?

I fail to see anything scientific in that stance.

You seem to be completely unaware of calibration of carbon 14 dating by comparing with known age material including lake varves and tree rings.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You seem to be completely unaware of calibration of carbon 14 dating by comparing with known age material including lake varves and tree rings.

Which is only accurate to within 10,000 years. Beyond that the error rises exponentially due to parity violation, which you seem to be completely unaware of or feel the need to ignore for some specific reason???

Calibrating to what - the oldest trees around 4-5,000 years?

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wi.../the-worlds-10-oldest-living-trees/methuselah

No one is objecting you might be close to within the last 10,000 years.

 

[sfs]

Which is only accurate to within 10,000 years. Beyond that the error rises exponentially due to parity violation, which you seem to be completely unaware of or feel the need to ignore for some specific reason???

Perhaps because the "error due to parity violation" is something you made up that has no connection to real physics? Why do you do this?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Which is only accurate to within 10,000 years. Beyond that the error rises exponentially due to parity violation, which you seem to be completely unaware of or feel the need to ignore for some specific reason???

Calibrating to what - the oldest trees around 4-5,000 years?

The world's 10 oldest living trees: Methuselah | MNN - Mother Nature Network

No one is objecting you might be close to within the last 10,000 years.

Tree ring dating verification only goes back to the end of the last ice age; the ice age made finding the right kind of tree kind of hard for those dates.

about 12000 years ago.

Lake varve verification, however, goes back over 40,000 years.

Original at http://thenaturalhistorian.com/2012...tsu-c14-radiocarbon-callibration-creationism/