How radiometric dating works and why it's wrong

[Deamiter]

1. It's a land snail
2. whenever there's date from carbon dating there're C14 in it. failure to detect C14 means the sample is infinitely old

Right. So since they detected very LITTLE C14, they got the date they reported.

Honestly, do you know what bicarbonate is? Do you understand why, in a snail's shell, the dissolved limestone will COMBINE with atmospheric carbon and severely bring down the ratio? I cited a pretty detailed source about how snail shells form -- did you look into it?

2nd you need to explain why professionals date the seal. it's a severe blow to their reputation.

It's quite simple. The labs that do the tests will date anything you throw at them. They are commercial operations, not research facilities. You could give them a rock, or a computer screen, or even a sample of pure C14 (though you might want to warn them that it's very radioactive!). They give guidelines for how to submit. Here's a page from one lab that gives submission tips and guidelines. Note this quote in particular:
http://lrc.geo.umn.edu/services/ams/

We report the radiocarbon date provided by the AMS facility. Data interpretation, including calibration, is left up to the submitter, unless the service is conducted on consulting or collaborative bases.

In short, they'll gladly take your money and give you a date. But they're in NO way guarenteeing that the date is a valid interpretation of their measurement! It's always up to the scientist (submitter) to make sure the dating method is appropriate to the sample, that the sample is not contaminated etc...

I've given you my sources. where's yours? If you think tree can be joined accurately and used to calibrate radiocarbon dating, then why radiocarbon dating still date a fresh snail shell 20000 years old? You can choose joining tree ring is wrong or the radiocarbon dating is wrong. if you choose radiocarbon dating is wrong, let's discuss the earth is 6000 years old or 10000 years old.

As shown above, dating of the snail is not "wrong" it's invalid. The date would be correct IF the snail's shell was built of carbon primarily derived from the atmosphere. Since a snail's shell is primarily from bicarbonate from dissolved lilmestone, it will be a combination of MOSTLY the age of the limestone and a bit of the age from the atmospheric ratio.

Guess why dating of rocks mixed with a bit of atmospheric C14 would give an inflated age!

Here's a couple sources (on dendrochronolgoy) as you requested:
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro/
http://rla.unc.edu/lessons/lesson/L204/L204.htm

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Do snails eat rocks? all material in a snail comes from its everyday diet which doesn't include rocks right?

http://www.lhsfoss.org/newsletters/archive/FOSS19.CritterCare.html

If the [snail] shells begin to get thin and fragile, it is very easy to damage them. This is a sign that the snails are not getting enough calcium. In the wild they graze on high-calcium sources, such as limestone, cement, and dirt.​

Actually the primary source of Ca+2 for land snails would appear to be from the soil they ingest. The soil contains both organic materials from decaying plant material and inorganic minerals such as ground up limestone. Moisture in the soil disolves the limestone and releases the Calcium ions.

Really kinda interesting.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Then explain why multiple layers are built up within one year.

Because the process involved in an area of high snowfall is different than the process in an area of low snowfall. Using ratio methods such as I describe below allmost certainly in the Antarctic, but I suspect also at Greenland it would be possible to find the annual boundries even in areas of high snowfall but it would be more difficult than in areas of low snow fall.

All these dating method are based on the assumption earth is older than 6000 years. without this assumption, you won't have any dating method. it's circula reasoning.

Errr, no.

If you go back and look for volcanic erruptions that we know the dates of you can often find evidence of them in the Greenland ice core.

The fact that the number of ice layers between the ash layers correspond to the number of years between the erruptions is independent of any assumptions of the age of the world.

A primary method of dating in the Antarctic icefloes is by looking at Oxygen isotope ratios. The ratios differ between summer and winter and the different ratios can be observed in alternating layers of the ice core.

I believe the links I gave detailed this, certainly a google of GISP and/or GRIP and/or Antarctic ice core will provide information. Isotope ratios might be useful to add to your search

 

[Deamiter]

Thanks to Robert for bringing this up again. Indeed, all of these dating methods we have discussed so far have been SHOWN to work for the last few thousand years. They've been checked against each other, they've been checked against famous volcanic eruptions (which spreads detectable ash across the globe) and they've been checked against large environmental changes (like local droughts, cold periods etc... that are recorded in historical documents). They've even been checked against records wherever possible! Ice cores have been taken for many years, though the surface annual layers are still rather delicate since they haven't yet been compressed. There are many examples of trees that were cut down in a known year -- they have further validated tree-ring comparison methods.

The dating methods are shown to be accurate when used on valid samples within this testable historical range. No, C14 dating can't date a seal or a snail. Nobody ever claimed it COULD (except creationists trying to give C14 dating a bad name). Neither can tree-ring chronologies date iron artifacts -- trying to do so just doesn't make sense.

When looking even FURTHER back into the past, there is no break in any of the records. Tree-ring chronolgies go back over 8000 years, ice cores go back hundreds of thousands of years. C14 dating overlaps both, as does varve dating.

These dating methods have all been calibrated against historical events, and when checked further back, there is no sudden change as you'd expect with a global flood.

So in the end, old age is a CONCLUSION not an assumption. The dating methods are designed based on how the world works NOW -- radioisotopes decay at a constant rate. Ice layers haven't changed since we started measuring annual precipitation in Greenland and Antarctica -- they have recorded the same rates back to historical volcanic eruptions like Mt. Vesuvius. The ice rings have recorded radiation fluctuations caused by the Sun's measured 11-year cycle. And they appear to go back uninterrupted for many tens and hundreds of thousands of years beyond that.

So no, you don't NEED an old earth for these dating methods to work. They've been SHOWN to work in recent times, and there's neither a change in the data nor even a basic theoretical model that COULD account for their accuracy now while invalidating the data at some arbitrary point. Given that such a catestrophic event is utterly absent in ice cores, tree rings, varves etc... back over 10,000 years, scientists have concluded that the Earth is much older than this.

Add other radiometric dating techniques and you can go back millions of years uninterrupted. THIS is why scientists have concluded that there was no global flood. It has nothing to do with atheism or assumptions -- just conclusions based on the data.

 

[mark kennedy]

This is the article that did if for me. The radiometric dating is based on a faulty premise and I never got the answer to a central question. How does the radiometric clock get set back to zero. I was also told on a number of occasions that the wrong test was used. If this were true then the argon level should have been zero. They observe decay rates for a few months or years and extrapolate this over billions of years. I find the biological reasoning far more forminable and interesting. Radiometric dating has not been even remotely persuasive in these discussions.

"What can one observe about these results? First and foremost is simply that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been "zero argon" indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 0.35-2.8 million years! Why is this? A good possibility is that solidification of magma does not reset the radioisotope clock to zero. Probably some argon-40 is incorporated from the start into newly formed minerals giving the "appearance" of great age. It should also be noted that there is poor correspondence between the different samples, each taken from the same rock. "

http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm

 

[Deamiter]

This is the article that did if for me. The radiometric dating is based on a faulty premise and I never got the answer to a central question. How does the radiometric clock get set back to zero. I was also told on a number of occasions that the wrong test was used. If this were true then the argon level should have been zero. They observe decay rates for a few months or years and extrapolate this over billions of years. I find the biological reasoning far more forminable and interesting. Radiometric dating has not been even remotely persuasive in these discussions.

"What can one observe about these results? First and foremost is simply that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been "zero argon" indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 0.35-2.8 million years! Why is this? A good possibility is that solidification of magma does not reset the radioisotope clock to zero. Probably some argon-40 is incorporated from the start into newly formed minerals giving the "appearance" of great age. It should also be noted that there is poor correspondence between the different samples, each taken from the same rock. "

http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm

Interesting how an article on creationism.org has led you to doubt ALL radiometric dating even though all we've discussed in this thread (up to your recent post) was C14 dating and dendrochronology. I guess your post is technically on the topic of the OP, but it hasn't got anything to do with the subject we've been debating for pages and pages...

To answer though, yes he GOT this date. Yet he totally failed to document the information necessary to show other professionals that the date is accurate. It's precisely the same issue as with C14 dating snail shells. Any scientist in that area could tell you WHAT you did wrong which makes the "date" invalid. As always, if you misuse a tool, you will OBVIOUSLY get data that doesn't make sense!

In short (on the subject of argon-dating) the person who sent in samples of the Mt. St. Helens dome made no effort to prove that he went through the necessary steps to validate such a controversial claim. Even after criticism, he HASN"T published analysis of the samples proving that they are free of xenoliths (older crystals that are obviously included in many laval flows). He sent the samples to a lab that explicitly states, "We are not in a position to analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y." This by itself can easily cause statistical anomalies -- dating radioactive decay is NOT just like measuring a dropping water level.

He also sent rocks that had extremely low potassium levels to START with. Since there was such low potassium and argon levels, there was not enough time for a statistically significant equilibrium to form! Without an equilibrium, you're relying on data from a sample with very little argon and very little potassium, and then trying to compare the two... There likely wasn't enough of EITHER to give a statistically significant ratio between the potassium and the argon.

Of course he totally failed to mention that the samples were so new to the lab, and he didn't have ANY scientist who specializes in the area (creationist or not) review his methods, his data OR his conclusions.

So at best, we can conclude that it's not too difficult for somebody to get a totally unsupported date if they reject all published guidelines for submission or preparation of lava flows. At worst this is an example of a dishonest (or uneducated -- given his failure to document his procedure) person who submitted an invalid sample with incomplete (or at least undocumented) preparation. He failed to follow the LAB'S submission guidelines. Then he cries about how the METHOD failed when he failed to follow the method to begin with!

The "failure" in this instance is in the person who poorly prepared, poorly documented, and made unsupported conclusions.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Dead wrong. There is no even distribution. Do read the sources. Here are some with quotes.
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2004AM/finalprogram/abstract_80549.htm


http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr/OCMIP/phase2/poster/monfray.pdf
Warning: pdf (poster)

http://www1.whoi.edu/overview.html



Is that enough, or do you still think that the ocean has homogeneous CO2 levels? Since most the deep-sea CO2 hasn't seen the atmosphere recently (say, thousands of years minimum) the C14 ratio drops. This is not suprising.

Either the article or you have confused the concept. the absolute amount of CO2 in each level/part of sea isn't important. I apologize if I ever mean the absolute amount of C14/CO2 in water. it is the RELATIVE C14/C12 level that is important. Your source proves my point there's no place is sea that once received a large relative dose of C14 and now without(or with little) relative supply of C14.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

While the physics is superficially similar, i.e. both dating methods involve radioactive decay, the radiometric methods discussed in your link are considerably different from radiocarbon dating.

" A good possibility is that solidification of magma does not reset the radioisotope clock to zero."

The solidification is not what resets the clock to zero, it is the complete thorough melting of the rock that liberates the collected gases and resets the clock to zero.

Solidification is when the gases start collecting again and the clock starts ticking again

"It should also be noted that there is poor correspondence between the different samples, each taken from the same rock. "

http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm

If there is poor correspondence then that is a sign that melting was irregular and incomplete and that this sample is not a good candidate for dating.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

First of all, I do remember seeing Hovind's seminar. If I recall correctly, he never claimed to have seen the layers at the site of the buried airplane. He simply reported what one of the technicians at the site said. That tech was certainly experienced in drilling -- but with heat. They simply melted a hole through the ice to the airplane.

Taking ice cores is very different. They drill AROUND the core and take great pains to keep the core from melting and to avoid as much contamination as possible. The outer layers still exibit significant contamination, but the inside layers are very well preserved.

As you've requested sources, here's a very detailed account of precisely how ice cores are obtained. It discusses how the drilling works and how the ice cores are handled to avoid contamination:
http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/glaciology/national/drill_e.php


As for how annual rings are known to be annual, it's not just that there are two rings per year (though there is). And the snow doesn't melt -- it doesn't turn liquid and THEN crystalize. If you put a bunch of snow under pressure for years (more pressure = less time) it'll crystalize without ever getting near melting temperature. But that's not the point -- I just thought I'd clear up another misconception.

Anyway, scientists know that the layers are annual layers primarily through tests that correspond directly to the layers. It's not just some visual analysis. Here's some sources. And if you don't agree with the quote, PLEASE do look up the source. In this first case, they've even given you sources for who's been studying different aspects of the cores -- do type the names into Scirus and find the original papers yourself if you still disagree. I mean, you can always go on about how it's inconclusive, but if you've never bothered to do a basic internet search of scholarly sources, your dismissal is hardly authoritative.

http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/MoreInfo/Ice_Cores_Past.htm

Here's a citation. My institution has access to some of these papers, but it would be illegal for me to reproduce them. You'd easily be able to access them for free at your local public university if this isn't enough for you.
http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node2.html

Abstract to Neftel 1985:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v315/n6014/abs/315045a0.html

You still failed to explain why there're multiple rings in the ice. you have 5.5 feet of ice you don't even know it's formed within a year. you look for layers and there're lots of them (drill it using your way) . you measure the distance and it's hundreds of times thicker than a single layer
You successfully showed snow doesn't need to melt to form layers. that's only support my argument and I don't question it. the temperature variation of a day is enough to form a layer.

If snowfall had impact on the speed of formation of layers, how could they prove they were drilling at the place with proper snowfall? They can drill in the north extreme of Greenland with no snowfall. (and no ice)

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Right. So since they detected very LITTLE C14, they got the date they reported.

Honestly, do you know what bicarbonate is? Do you understand why, in a snail's shell, the dissolved limestone will COMBINE with atmospheric carbon and severely bring down the ratio? I cited a pretty detailed source about how snail shells form -- did you look into it?

I don't know if I know what bicarbonate is. it sure has a different name in my native language. The problem is if that's important. you're citing chemical reactions. but atoms don't change during a chemical reaction. C14 is still C14 and C12 is still C12. there's no nuclear fission or fusion in a snails shell. in other word a snail isn't a atom/hydrogen bomb. the ratio didn't change and there's no reason why the reason should be wrong except radiocarbon dating is wrong.

Will you please show me the link to the source (again?) . Chemical reaction doesn't bring down the ratio. limerock melted in water will affect every creature evenly, so if you can't date a snail you can't date a human fossil either.

Also Read the last paragraph before replying to this paragraph please.

It's quite simple. The labs that do the tests will date anything you throw at them. They are commercial operations, not research facilities. You could give them a rock, or a computer screen, or even a sample of pure C14 (though you might want to warn them that it's very radioactive!). They give guidelines for how to submit. Here's a page from one lab that gives submission tips and guidelines. Note this quote in particular:
http://lrc.geo.umn.edu/services/ams/

In short, they'll gladly take your money and give you a date. But they're in NO way guarenteeing that the date is a valid interpretation of their measurement! It's always up to the scientist (submitter) to make sure the dating method is appropriate to the sample, that the sample is not contaminated etc...

It's either
1) Fraud, they claim the sample is from the date they indicated. they should reject the money if they can't do the job
1.1) Radiocarbon dating professionals knows what can be dated and what can't be dated. if they know snail shell can't be dated and still takes the money and give a false result, it's still fraud.
2) Radiocarbon dating is a hoax, it doesn't show the age of the sample.

As shown above, dating of the snail is not "wrong" it's invalid. The date would be correct IF the snail's shell was built of carbon primarily derived from the atmosphere. Since a snail's shell is primarily from bicarbonate from dissolved lilmestone, it will be a combination of MOSTLY the age of the limestone and a bit of the age from the atmospheric ratio.

Guess why dating of rocks mixed with a bit of atmospheric C14 would give an inflated age!

Here's a couple sources (on dendrochronolgoy) as you requested:
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro/
http://rla.unc.edu/lessons/lesson/L204/L204.htm

You know limestone is pretty common. all river got to flow through some. so any tree can't be dated. any animal drink water can't be dated. any animal eats the leaves or fruit of trees can't be dated. any animal eat animals that eat the plant can't be dated. What can be dated?

Before giving me a long talk, consider the question: How bones are formed?

 

[notto]

I don't know if I know what bicarbonate is. it sure has a different name in my native language. The problem is if that's important. you're citing chemical reactions. but atoms don't change during a chemical reaction. C14 is still C14 and C12 is still C12. there's no nuclear fission or fusion in a snails shell. in other word a snail isn't a atom/hydrogen bomb. the ratio didn't change and there's no reason why the reason should be wrong except radiocarbon dating is wrong.

No, here you are wrong. The carbon doesn't change but the chemical reaction is still important. It is where the carbon (whether c14 or c12) comes from in the shell of the mollusk or snail. If it doesn't come from the atmosphere (which it doesn't in mollusks and snails) then it will skew the results of Carbon dating.

The assumption of carbon dating is that the carbon that is analysed comes from the atmosphere. Clearly, the carbon doesn't in animals that live in water, make their shells from another carbon source, or eat animals in those categories.

That you can't understand this limitation, accept it, and see why your source are wrong in the conclusions they are drawing is sad. It is a well understood effect, has been explained to you as plainly as possible, and backed up by several sources.

What is your malfunction?

 

[notto]

You know limestone is pretty common. all river got to flow through some. so any tree can't be dated. any animal drink water can't be dated. any animal eats the leaves or fruit of trees can't be dated. any animal eat animals that eat the plant can't be dated.

Can you show us how any carbon from these sources is consumed and stored in the bodies of trees, animals that drink water, and animal that eat leaves or fruit?

You have already been told what can be dated. Animal and plants who's primary source of carbon comes from the atmosphere or at least is not from old source of carbon like limestone. Unless you can show that any of these activies provide more old carbon to the source of the carbon looked at in C12/C14 dating than recently from the atmosphere, your simply grasping at straws and ad-hoc rebuts of something you clearly do not understand.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Because the process involved in an area of high snowfall is different than the process in an area of low snowfall. Using ratio methods such as I describe below allmost certainly in the Antarctic, but I suspect also at Greenland it would be possible to find the annual boundries even in areas of high snowfall but it would be more difficult than in areas of low snow fall.

Errr, no.

If you go back and look for volcanic erruptions that we know the dates of you can often find evidence of them in the Greenland ice core.

The fact that the number of ice layers between the ash layers correspond to the number of years between the erruptions is independent of any assumptions of the age of the world.

A primary method of dating in the Antarctic icefloes is by looking at Oxygen isotope ratios. The ratios differ between summer and winter and the different ratios can be observed in alternating layers of the ice core.

I believe the links I gave detailed this, certainly a google of GISP and/or GRIP and/or Antarctic ice core will provide information. Isotope ratios might be useful to add to your search

You still refuse to explain why multiply layers are formed. What process? in detail please. If there's no temperature variation, there would be no layer at all. Deamiter has shown snow doesn't need to melt to form layers. Have you read his post?

If you can't explain how should 5.5ft snow with only one/two anual layer when you can see lots of them, don't switch to other topics.

If you think less snow means better layers, you should go to northern part of Greenland. less or no snow, almost no ice -- direct prove the earth is young.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

No, here you are wrong. The carbon doesn't change but the chemical reaction is still important. It is where the carbon (whether c14 or c12) comes from in the shell of the mollusk or snail. If it doesn't come from the atmosphere (which it doesn't in mollusks and snails) then it will skew the results of Carbon dating.

The assumption of carbon dating is that the carbon that is analysed comes from the atmosphere. Clearly, the carbon doesn't in animals that live in water, make their shells from another carbon source, or eat animals in those categories.

That you can't understand this limitation, accept it, and see why your source are wrong in the conclusions they are drawing is sad. It is a well understood effect, has been explained to you as plainly as possible, and backed up by several sources.

What is your malfunction?

I guess you haven't read the last 2 paragraphs of my reply.

 

[notto]

You still refuse to explain why multiply layers are formed. What process? in detail please.

There are repeated annual seasonal patterns of dust, pollen, density, and atmospheric gases. This can be confirmed by observing exactly the same types of patterns in ice and snow forming recently . This is a well understood practice. These types of things are NOT found in the 'layers' of Hovinds claim. Hovind is purposely trying to deceive you (and apparently has done a great job of it)

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/document/gripinfo.htm#DatingtheGRIPCore

It was possible to count annual layers in the GRIP core to obtain an excellent dating, particularly back to the Younger Dryas period. Parameters used to date the core included ECM, dust, nitrate and ammonium, which all give excellent annual layers, particularly in the Holocene period. Comparison with the previously dated Dye 3 core, using volcanic and other tie-points, provided a starting point. Numerous volcanic eruptions were documented, allowing the possibility to make comparisons with other cores. Deeper ice was dated using ice flow models.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

There are repeated annual seasonal patterns of dust, pollen, density, and atmospheric gases. This can be confirmed by observing exactly the same types of patterns in ice and snow forming recently .

He is referring to the multiple layers observed in the digging out of the P38s in Greenland where there was very heavy snowfall.

 

[notto]

I guess you haven't read the last 2 paragraphs of my reply.

No, I read it. All it contained is more poorly constructed statements by you that have no basis in fact or reality. Things like this:

Chemical reaction doesn't bring down the ratio. limerock melted in water will affect every creature evenly, so if you can't date a snail you can't date a human fossil either.

This is completely untrue. Here is a hint. Humans don't live in water or get their carbon primarily from sources of old carbon other than the atmosphere. You can't simply make a silly claim and expect it to pass like that. Simple logic shows that your statement is simply stupid (sorry to be so blunt, but there really is no other word that quite grasps it).

You don't know what you are talking about.

You are a great creationist.

 

[notto]

He is referring to the multiple layers observed in the digging out of the P38s in Greenland where there was very heavy snowfall.

Sunny Day, Cloudy Day, Clear Day, Snowy Day??

I've got layers like that in my back yard right now.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Can you show us how any carbon from these sources is consumed and stored in the bodies of trees, animals that drink water, and animal that eat leaves or fruit?

You have already been told what can be dated. Animal and plants who's primary source of carbon comes from the atmosphere or at least is not from old source of carbon like limestone. Unless you can show that any of these activies provide more old carbon to the source of the carbon looked at in C12/C14 dating than recently from the atmosphere, your simply grasping at straws and ad-hoc rebuts of something you clearly do not understand.

You see them taking in low C14 materials all the time but you can't see low C14 material is dumped at a particular rate out of the body. where are they? stored in body of course. bones and snail shells are of similar chemical compound.

Professionals dated the shell is a direct prove it can be dated.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

No, I read it. All it contained is more poorly constructed statements by you that have no basis in fact or reality. Things like this:

Chemical reaction doesn't bring down the ratio. limerock melted in water will affect every creature evenly, so if you can't date a snail you can't date a human fossil either.

This is completely untrue. Here is a hint. Humans don't live in water or get their carbon primarily from sources of old carbon other than the atmosphere. You can't simply make a silly claim and expect it to pass like that. Simple logic shows that your statement is simply stupid (sorry to be so blunt, but there really is no other word that quite grasps it).

You don't know what you are talking about.

You are a great creationist.

Snails don't live in water either. snail drink water, human also drink water.

Looks like you've resorted to personal insults