Geological dating techniques

[PeterRobertson]

*Sigh*

Once again I will point out that there are MANY DIFFERENT TYPES of radiometric dating.

If one or more types are incorrect, we would expect to see them give very different results. Like I said back in post 56, we don't see one technique say the Earth is a billion trillion years old, while another technique says it is three weeks old. They all give the same results, within their known margins for error.

Kind of a big coincidence if they were all wrong.

I think he is trying to wriggle out of accepting an old Earth by suggesting that there could be something systematically wrong with ALL radiometric dating methods that affects them all in the same way. It's know as clutching at straws.

 

[Astrophile]

Do you have a scientific technique apart from radiometric dating?

Did you read my post 72?

Not only do different methods of radiometric dating give consistent results but there are non-radiometric methods that show that the Earth and the solar system are hundreds or thousands of millions of years old.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Hello Kylie.

Probably the same dating technique on different isotopes returning the same expected results. We need more than one dating methodology.

The key in radiometric dating is that we have a variety of isotopes, whose decay rates are all different.

The only thing in common among them is what is called a First Order Rate Kinetic, meaning the rate of decay is only influenced by the original amount of the compound.

This same rate kinetic is used even in non-radioactive decay. Some chemical reactions show a rate that follows the same mathematical form, even though they are not radioactive.

The fact that when we have many DIFFERENT radioisotopes that converge on a single age is very strong evidence that the technique is solid and the age is likely correct. They are, effectively, multiple independent pieces of evidence!

 

[klutedavid]

Did you read my post 72?

Hello Astrophile.

Yes.

 

[klutedavid]

*Sigh*

Once again I will point out that there are MANY DIFFERENT TYPES of radiometric dating.

If one or more types are incorrect, we would expect to see them give very different results. Like I said back in post 56, we don't see one technique say the Earth is a billion trillion years old, while another technique says it is three weeks old. They all give the same results, within their known margins for error.

Kind of a big coincidence if they were all wrong.

Hello Kylie.

I do not believe that radioactive decay is a random event, hence, I cannot accept the given rates of decay of isotopes over vast periods of time. Nor do I accept that radioactive decay is insulated from all external criteria.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Hello Kylie.

I do not believe that radioactive decay is a random event, hence, I cannot accept the given rates of decay of isotopes over vast periods of time. Nor do I accept that radioactive decay is insulated from all external criteria.

Why do you not accept the given rates of decay over time?

I realize there was some talk a few years ago that solar neutrino flux might induce "seasonal variability" but as I understand it in 2014 some of the isotopes were re-measured and no such seasonal variability was seen (SOURCE) (SOURCE2).

But let's talk about the age of the earth. There are a number of different isotope pairs that can be used to estimate the age and no matter the isotope pair the values converge on similar ages (SOURCE). If your hypothesis of some unknown mechanism alters the decay rates why would they all change in the same way such that they all converge on similar dates?

We know a goodly amount about the decay rates of radioactive isotopes (SOURCE). Perhaps there is more to learn, but right now the original idea of constant decay rate seems reasonably solid.

 

[klutedavid]

Why do you not accept the given rates of decay over time?

I realize there was some talk a few years ago that solar neutrino flux might induce "seasonal variability" but as I understand it in 2014 some of the isotopes were re-measured and no such seasonal variability was seen (SOURCE) (SOURCE2).

But let's talk about the age of the earth. There are a number of different isotope pairs that can be used to estimate the age and no matter the isotope pair the values converge on similar ages (SOURCE). If your hypothesis of some unknown mechanism alters the decay rates why would they all change in the same way such that they all converge on similar dates?

We know a goodly amount about the decay rates of radioactive isotopes (SOURCE). Perhaps there is more to learn, but right now the original idea of constant decay rate seems reasonably solid.

Hello Obliquinaut.

We are in the very infancy, at the very start of the scientific quest, the monkey is reaching for the stars. So we would expect that many assumptions in science will be incorrect.

For a very long time the speed of light was held to be a constant.

Speed of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicists Say.
(Livescience.com)

We were also told that space was a near perfect vacuum, yet this is also not the case.

There is so much in science that is based on assumption and axiom.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Obliquinaut.

We are in the very infancy, at the very start of the scientific quest, the monkey is reaching for the stars. So we would expect that many assumptions in science will be incorrect.

For a very long time the speed of light was held to be a constant.

Speed of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicists Say.
(Livescience.com)

We were also told that space was a near perfect vacuum, yet this is also not the case.

There is so much in science that is based on assumption and axiom.

There are plenty of scientists in the world. One will always be able to dig up a scientist that makes claims that he cannot support. The claim that light speed may not be constant is neither well supported nor widely accepted. And changing light speed would be disastrous for creationists. It may get them out of one jam, but it puts them in the middle of another one.

 

[PeterRobertson]

Proof? Bible has all the proof I need of them being first because...

Translation: La la la...I'm not listening.

 

[Kylie]

I think he is trying to wriggle out of accepting an old Earth by suggesting that there could be something systematically wrong with ALL radiometric dating methods that affects them all in the same way. It's know as clutching at straws.

And what could it possibly be that would cause such different techniques to be altered in exactly the same way?

 

[Kylie]

Hello Kylie.

I do not believe that radioactive decay is a random event, hence, I cannot accept the given rates of decay of isotopes over vast periods of time. Nor do I accept that radioactive decay is insulated from all external criteria.

The rate of radioactive decay is not random.

 

[PeterRobertson]

And what could it possibly be that would cause such different techniques to be altered in exactly the same way?

I don't think you understand their (lack of) logic. Any bogus scientific-sounding inanity is enough in their minds to refute anything. If they find simple science too confusing, they always fall back to "god did it".

 

[Obliquinaut]

Hello Obliquinaut.

We are in the very infancy, at the very start of the scientific quest, the monkey is reaching for the stars. So we would expect that many assumptions in science will be incorrect.

For a very long time the speed of light was held to be a constant.

Speed of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicists Say.
(Livescience.com)

We were also told that space was a near perfect vacuum, yet this is also not the case.

There is so much in science that is based on assumption and axiom.

So what makes you think that radioactive decay rates are not constant? I mean without any reason for this belief it would seem you are simply hoping it can't be relied upon for dating. BUT I bet you'd be more accepting of what we know about radioactive decay rates if you were to need the services of nuclear medicine.

Merely pointing out that science makes new discoveries all the time is not sufficient criticism of a part of science that has a pretty good amount of support for it.

There's no doubt new things can be discovered but it isn't really appropriate to simply say that the science have a pretty good handle on simply because it is inconvenient for some unrelated belief we may or may not have

 

[Job 33:6]

Hello SZ.

Just asking if any scientific dating techniques are free from the risk of contamination?

I just wanted to give this as an example. You can have elements forming a definite crystal lattice, that...if contamination of the sample were to occur, you could identify an obstruction in the lattice.

So, to better explain, lets say element A (unstable) forms in a mineral lattice the shape of a cube. And element B (stable) forms in a mineral lattice the shape of a larger cube which encompasses element A without obstruction.

So, imagine a purple cube (unstable) inside a transparent cube (table).

Now, take mineral lattice A (the small one) and take your unstable isotopes within mineral A, and decay it. What was once a cube, now has an altered crystal lattice and no longer conforms neatly within crystal lattice B (stable). So you end up with say, a purple oval, trapped inside a complete, unobstructed transparent cube.
-------------------------------------------------------------
At times you have unobstructed crystal lattices encasing decayed elements, demonstrating that the sample is uncontaminated.

This occurred in the allende meteorite, in which the decayed isotopes would have taken 7+ million years to decay. Its just an example, but is plenty to demonstrate an old earth (at least 7 million years old) with little effort.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ende_CAI_with_the_NanoSIMS_50L_Ion_Microprobe

@Astrophile
@Subduction Zone

And if you two arent aware of this, you might appreciate it. But given the decay rate between aluminum and magnesium, dating of the allende meteorite is believed to give a relatively narrow amount of time between our prehistoric supernova and the formation of the sun.

 

[Job 33:6]

Hello SZ.

How many techniques are available for the date of the earth?

For dating an old age of the earth, you probably have at least 10 methods. If you include dating methods with shorter half lives, along with other non radioactive dating methods, you might be around 20 or 30.

 

[Non sequitur]

Hello Kylie.

I do not believe that radioactive decay is a random event, hence, I cannot accept the given rates of decay of isotopes over vast periods of time. Nor do I accept that radioactive decay is insulated from all external criteria.

By "random event", do you mean when a particular atom will (start to) decay?

 

[pshun2404]

For dating an old age of the earth, you probably have at least 10 methods. If you include dating methods with shorter half lives, along with other non radioactive dating methods, you might be around 20 or 30.

Yes and no method alone is 100% reliable. As Gem said on the first page, reliability is really only considered valid when after a number of these tests are performed (a variety) AND there is a correlation, should we surmise a plausible date to be at all accurate.

Even the standard mantra that radioactive decay has been proven to be constant is not accurate. Scientists at MIT and other reputable institutions, having put the mantra (once accepted as scientific fact) to the test, have discovered this is INCORRECT and in fact, environmental influences DO effect the rate of decay.,

"In the last few years...a number of new results have threatened to overturn this picture. Various groups have shown that the rate of alpha, beta, and electron capture decays all depend on temperature and whether they are placed in an insulating or a conducting material. That’s exciting because it raises the possibility of treating radioactive waste products. But it also raises a problem for particle physicists whose entire standard model assumes that decay rates cannot be influenced by external factors."

Do Nuclear Decay Rates Depend on Temperature?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Yes and no method alone is 100% reliable. As Gem said on the first page, reliability is really only considered valid when after a number of these tests are performed (a variety) AND there is a correlation, should we surmise a plausible date to be at all accurate.

Even the standard mantra that radioactive decay has been proven to be constant is not accurate. Scientists at MIT and other reputable institutions, having put the mantra (once accepted as scientific fact) to the test, have discovered this is INCORRECT and in fact, environmental influences DO effect the rate of decay.,

"In the last few years...a number of new results have threatened to overturn this picture. Various groups have shown that the rate of alpha, beta, and electron capture decays all depend on temperature and whether they are placed in an insulating or a conducting material. That’s exciting because it raises the possibility of treating radioactive waste products. But it also raises a problem for particle physicists whose entire standard model assumes that decay rates cannot be influenced by external factors."

Do Nuclear Decay Rates Depend on Temperature?

This is interesting, albeit from 2009. I am unable to find anything about this particular hypothesis since about 2009-2011.

The other findings that solar neutrinos or seasonal variation on decay rates of some isotopes apparently has been shown to not be real (SOURCE). So I'll likely wait until more information is on the books about external factors affecting the rate of decay of radioisotopes.

The bigger questions would be:

1. IF it is shown that some other factor would effect radioactive decay rates how much would the factor affect the rates?

2. How extreme would the conditions have to be? (note in the article you posted they took the temperature down to 12degrees K...that's -438degF. Can you conceive of a situation where the rocks that are being dated via radioactive decay or the organic material was taken down to that low a temperature?

3. Why would multiple radioisotopes decay in such a way as to converge on a single date, that a change would impact them all the same way even if they don't have the same type of decay process?

 

[pshun2404]

Then there is a second issue which is how one finally assesses which information is accurate....

Here are some dates for just the Boxgrove bones…

Thermoluminescence = 175,000-230,000 years

Electron-spin resonance = 205,000-281,000

Racemization = 400,000 years

Aminostratigraphy with marine species = 303,000-524,000 years

The uranium series differed even from these…Roberts reports uranium series methods gave a lower limit of only 350,000 years

Bowen and Sykes (How old is “Boxgrove Man”?, Nature, 27/10/94, 751) Dr. Chris Stringer (the Natural History Museum, The Times, 21 June 95

A Middle Pleistocene Hominid Site at Eartham Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex, Mark Roberts, English Heritage, 1999, Mark Roberts is the archaeologist that led the team from the University College London’s Archaeological Institute

So it was also for the Heidelberg jaw, which originally was dated to 700,000 years for decades, and later re-determined to be 350,000 years… (so it could fit the theory?)…but what we should notice (the sore thumb) is that the two pieces (Boxgrove and Heidelberg Jaw) should NOT even go together, OR be considered the same type of creature. Also note the dating ranges are many years apart.

The Steinhem skull which is judged by many to be quite Sapien, only dates to about 250,000 years, while the Bodo skull dates back 600,000 years (older than them all, definitely NOT related to either Heidelberg or Boxgrove), and yet was previously classified as Erectus with Sapien qualities and the alleged parts of Heidelbergensis have they been put all together (and then add a little media and a bombardment from neo-Darwinians declaring their perspective in a whole slew of articles and viola…)! So to cover their proverbial butts it is stated generally that Heidel is somewhere between 600,000 and 200,000 years old....

But the point is, the line of best guess dating in textbooks is not true…these creatures range from anywhere from about 175,000 years to over a half a million years I agree (depending on the dating method used), but the truth is, it could just as possibly be the early OR the later dating, OR that they are not actually even related to one another.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Then there is a second issue which is how one finally assesses which information is accurate....

Here are some dates for just the Boxgrove bones…

Thermoluminescence = 175,000-230,000 years

Electron-spin resonance = 205,000-281,000

Racemization = 400,000 years

Aminostratigraphy with marine species = 303,000-524,000 years

The uranium series differed even from these…Roberts reports uranium series methods gave a lower limit of only 350,000 years

Bowen and Sykes (How old is “Boxgrove Man”?, Nature, 27/10/94, 751) Dr. Chris Stringer (the Natural History Museum, The Times, 21 June 95

A Middle Pleistocene Hominid Site at Eartham Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex, Mark Roberts, English Heritage, 1999, Mark Roberts is the archaeologist that led the team from the University College London’s Archaeological Institute

So it was also for the Heidelberg jaw, which originally was dated to 700,000 years for decades, and later re-determined to be 350,000 years… (so it could fit the theory?)…but what we should notice (the sore thumb) is that the two pieces (Boxgrove and Heidelberg Jaw) should NOT even go together, OR be considered the same type of creature. Also note the dating ranges are many years apart.

The Steinhem skull which is judged by many to be quite Sapien, only dates to about 250,000 years, while the Bodo skull dates back 600,000 years (older than them all, definitely NOT related to either Heidelberg or Boxgrove), and yet was previously classified as Erectus with Sapien qualities and the alleged parts of Heidelbergensis have they been put all together (and then add a little media and a bombardment from neo-Darwinians declaring their perspective in a whole slew of articles and viola…)! So to cover their proverbial butts it is stated generally that Heidel is somewhere between 600,000 and 200,000 years old....

But the point is, the line of best guess dating in textbooks is not true…these creatures range from anywhere from about 175,000 years to over a half a million years I agree (depending on the dating method used), but the truth is, it could just as possibly be the early OR the later dating, OR that they are not actually even related to one another.

Sounds like Boxgrove is a tough one overall. (LINKY)

At least from this book from 2007 the overall findings are quite complicated. Some of the dating methods based on the fluvial gravels are "not unambiguous" (how's that for litotes?) and that radiometric dating has been fraught with difficulties. I am fascinated to learn about the "OIS" scheme of classifying time frames.