Methods of dating

[Illuminatus]

I don't have your text at hand. Could you do the favor of looking up the reference to the chinese pottery study and posting it here? (just the citation).

This textbook has an absolutely horrible bibliography. As far as I can tell, I think the referenced material is Palaeomagnetism, by D.H. Tarling, 1983, Chapman & Hall, London. I think. There's a complete lack of footnotes.

 

[Dr.GH]

Perhaps while I read up more on this subject, you can present your views to recent findings of accelerating radioactive decay,

Sure, no problemo!

They are spurious. Furgidabodit.

See how easy it is to blow off phoney results?


For the decay rate of isotopes to have changed implies that the speed of light and a handfull of other constants have also changed. Some of the brighter creationists have tried to make these claims as fact.

However, changes in such fundamental physical relationships would have distorted and disrupted the entire universe.

Simply, neither we nor any other form of life would be possible.

But? Here we are!

 

[Dr.GH]

"Renfrew and Bahn"

That was Collin Renfrew? Very good archaeologist.

But not an expert on archaeometrics.

 

[JohnR7]

I'm converting to YECism out of spite.

You would get more attention that way. A true YEC would never bore anyone with real science. They make science more interesting.

 

[Grengor]

Too true...

 

[OC1]

Perhaps while I read up more on this subject, you can present your views to recent findings of accelerating radioactive decay, specifically nuclear decay revolving around U238 and 4He in ZrSiO4 (zircon). The RATE program seems to have found experimental evidence for rapid radioactive decay, shortening time estimates from millions of years to thousands. If this is the case, our view of the world's history may be much elongated than we think.

I did some searches on CF here and to my dismay found nothing on variable decay rates. I'm interested in hearing what other scientists say about the research done on this by RATE and ICR. Google searches bring up very little when I filter out "creation" and "genesis".

RATES "evidence" consists of the fact that the He dating method they used yielded a date millions of years less than U/Pb dates for the same formation.

The problem with that is that RATES He dating method is very mathematically complicated, relies on some questionble data, and uses a lot of assumptions that may or may not hold.

For example, they use a simplified, isotropic model to calculate He diffusion rates (even though they are using an anisotropic mineral).

They use some very questionable experimental results to determine diffusion coefficients for the minerals they use.

Also, they completely IGNORE the possibility of contamination of their samples by natural helium. He is extremely mobile (much more mobil than U, Pb, or even Argon (used in K/Ar dating)) so contamination (from He generated in other rocks nearby) is a very real possibility.

But the biggest problem with RATES He dating, in my view, is that it is dependant on the same basic conditions as U/Pb dating: that the mineral has always been a closed system wrt U and Pb. (Note, the RATE guys never come out and actually say this. But since He, along with Pb, is one of the products of the U decay chain, RATE uses the Pb concentration in their samples to calculate how much He has been generated; eg, X grams of Pb present means the Y grams of He were also produced. Open the system, wrt U or Pb, and it screws up their results, too).

Now, very often the closed conditions hold. And when they do hold, you can get a U/Pb date just by plugging your concentrations into a simple equation. No need to uses RATE's complicated, assumption-laden method.

What RATE has done is abandoned a simple method for a much more complicated one, despite the fact that both methods rely on the exact same basic conditions!

When faced with the different results, any objective scientist would reason that the simple method is more likely to be correct, because it is dependant
on alot fewer variables.

The RATE "scientists" however, have not concluded that their convoluted methodolgy is wrong, they have concluded that the fundamental rules of the universe have changed by many orders of magnitude, some time in the last 6000 years!

The RATE stuff is complete and utter crap, ****-poor science on innummerable levels.

(Sorry I don't have a link for the RATE stuff. I have RATE's He dating "paper" as a PDF, but I don't have the link to where I got it)

Some final thoughts before I return with something (hopefully) useful. The posts in this thread don't deal with common criticisms with dating methods such as sample contamination/leaching, and initial quantities at "year zero," both which are assumed and both which can dramatically effect the calculated date of the sample.

Yes, these things can occur, but there are methods that can be used to determine if contamination, etc., have occurred (like the use of isocrons).

BTW, because He is so mobile, RATEs method is much more subject to these problems than other dating methods!

I'll be back in a week or two as I research more.

Just stay away from AIG or ICR (unless you want to get you kahunas handed to you).

 

[Lycaenidae]

Methods of dating

Is dinner and a movie too pedestrian?

 

[Illuminatus]

Is dinner and a movie too pedestrian?

These days, I'll take anyone who's willing to go for a short walk in the park, much less anything else.

 

[Buho]

Hey all. I still haven't seriously delved into the accelerated radioactive decay theory.

But in my travels, I ran across another ICR RATE white paper on C14 being uniformly present in samples that are dated via other means with dates so old as the samples should be "C14-dead". For instance, samples conventionally dated over a million years old have C14 amounts of anywhere between 0.1 pmc and 0.6 pmc (a half-life age of 23,000 to 40,000 years).

Here's the paper:
http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf

Here are some quotes from it, for those that don't want to read the whole paper. The quotes give an accurate idea of their findings (be they right or wrong):

"Although tests showed some surface contamination [in 120,000 year old samples, considered "C14-dead"], it was not possible to reach lower 14C levels through cleaning, indicating the contamination to be intrinsic to the sample.... So far, no theory explaining the results has survived all the tests." -- Nadeau et al., secular scientists.

The measurements reported in this [Nadeau] paper obviously represent serious anomalies relative to what should be expected in the uniformitarian framework. There is a clear conflict between the measured levels of C14 in these samples and the dates assigned to the geological setting by other radioisotope methods.... The position the authors take in the face of these conflicts is that this C14, which should not be present according to their framework, represents ‘contamination’ for which they currently have no explanation. On the other hand, in terms of the framework of a young earth and a recent global Flood, these measurements provide important clues these organisms are much younger than the standard geological time scale would lead one to suspect.

The paper has a section that addresses the accelerated nuclear decay project RATE is also working on. Although the details escape me, they seem to show up front (showing their work) for anyone interested, that accelerated nuclear decay (which should shorten C14 dating too) falls within the limit of uncertainty of initial carbon levels in the "pre-flood" world (20% uncertainty).

Commentary on the above paragraph: I was actually expecting the authors to dismiss the theory of accelerated nuclear decay (AND) in light of the C14 findings, but they managed to let both (C14 in old samples, and AND) persist as valid theories, which surprised me. Part of my presupposition is based on initial claims against AND, plus a recollection of ICR later dismissing AND as well.

Also, they completely IGNORE the possibility of contamination of their samples by natural helium. He is extremely mobile (much more mobil than U, Pb, or even Argon (used in K/Ar dating)) so contamination (from He generated in other rocks nearby) is a very real possibility.

Today I also ran across the problem with helium and how it can contaminate the most "air-tight" samples such as diamonds, where C14 is also found.

I just did a search for "helium" in the PDF. The only occurance is in reference 23: Humphreys, D.R., Baumgardner, J.R., Austin, S.A., Snelling, A.A., Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay, 2003. This is also the most recent reference, strangely, the only way I know how to determine the date of this paper. (A forum post I found linking this paper is dated spring 2004, so this gives us a window.) So, this paper doesn't address helium contamination. I still don't fully understand the process implied when helium is used as a refutation. OC1, can you explain or post a resource for me?

Just stay away from AIG or ICR (unless you want to get you kahunas handed to you).

Totally understand what you mean. And that's why I'm here. I want to know the story behind what they're saying. However, the approach that seems to be working for me involves using minority viewpoints (creationists), and then focusing study on that. The alternative is to check out evolutionary-friendly resources, sort through possible, unknown bias, and see how it measures up. But I grew up as an evolutionist, so I don't have a very good way of sorting, or seeing things fresh, or unbiased.

They are spurious. Furgidabodit.

See how easy it is to blow off phoney results?

Well, I was hoping for something more detailed, but I value your professional opinion too, Doc. Thanks. (Yes, I've read your other posts here and I recognize your wisdom and experience.)

A true YEC would never bore anyone with real science. They make science more interesting.

Well, I'm making a serious attempt to boot that generalization. (Although I think it's safe to say some science truly challenges the imagination, string theory case in point!)

(Sorry I don't have a link for the RATE stuff. I have RATE's He dating "paper" as a PDF, but I don't have the link to where I got it)

I'm not not positive which PDF I was reading. Admittedly, I still haven't put much research into accelerated radioactive decay yet.

Oh, here's a paper (I don't think I've read yet) titled "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay" Immediately I have a problem with this because it's hosted by a creation-friendly site (decidedly biased). I'll read it in the coming week. EDIT: duh, this is the reference in the PDF I linked at the top of this post!

OC1, again, thanks for the reply. I'm still absorbing through what you said.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hey all. I still haven't seriously delved into the accelerated radioactive decay theory.

It might not be worth your time. The needed amount of decay would boil the oceans just from the decay of K40 alone.

But in my travels, I ran across another ICR RATE white paper on C14 being uniformly present in samples that are dated via other means with dates so old as the samples should be "C14-dead". For instance, samples conventionally dated over a million years old have C14 amounts of anywhere between 0.1 pmc and 0.6 pmc (a half-life age of 23,000 to 40,000 years).

First, you need to understand how C14 is made in the first place. C14 starts out as nitrogen. In the upper atmosphere, bimolecular nitrogen is bombarded by solar radiation. This radiation causes nitrogen atoms to take on an extra neutron which ultimately results in C14 in the form of carbon dioxide. Organisms that derive their carbon from the air (e.g. plants, herbivores, and the predators that feed on those herbivores) will have the same C14 to C12 levels as that found in the air. When they die no carbon is replaced. The organism can then be dated by calculating the amount of C14 that has decayed compared to historical values.

You will notice that C14 is produced by cosmic radiation. C14 is also produced in the ground due to small amounts of radiation found in some ores. For instance, coal found close to uranium ores usually have "high" levels of C14 due to the decay of uranium. Think of it like this, if a radiation source 92 million miles away (i.e. the Sun) can create C14 in our atmosphere, then why can't the same thing happen in the ground? Coal, oil, and even diamonds contain nitrogen, and so they produce C14 in low levels if they are close to a radiation source such as uranium ores.

 

[OC1]

I still don't fully understand the process implied when helium is used as a refutation. OC1, can you explain or post a resource for me?

I'm not sure what you are asking here; can you rephrase it?

In the meantime, I found this link to a bunch of RATES He dating stuff:

http://www.trueorigins.org/helium01.asp

Go down to the "notes" and you will find links to several He dating papers, as well as some Talkorigins stuff that discusses them. (You might want to search Talkorigins for more stuff on He dating, and radiometric dating in general. Also google "Joe Meert"; he's a geochemist, and I think he has a page somewhere that critiques the He dating stuff).

The 2004 paper you mentioned is in there (I had the 2003 paper only).

I didn't go through the 2004 paper ("Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 Years Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay") closely, but i did find this interesting bit:

"Thus our new diffusion data support the main hypothesis of the RATE research initiative: that God drastically accelerated the decay rates of long half-life nuclei during the earth’s recent past. For a feasibility study of this hypothesis—including God’s possible purposes for such acceleration, Biblical passages hinting at it, disposal of excess heat, preserving life on earth, and effects on stars— see Humphreys (2000, pp. 333–379). The last three problems are not yet fully solved, but we expect to see progress on them in future papers".

I agree with the RATE guys here. The fact that the accelerated nuclear decay they propose would boil the oceans, fry all life on earth, and cause the stars to go supernova is a bit of an unsolved problem with their theory!

 

[Buho]

Loudmouth and OC1, thank you for your replies. You've provided a wealth of research material!

After absorbing the papers, I've posted a summary of this whole topic here. Doctor GH, I'd very much like you to chime in there. This topic is an uphill battle for me and my academic background.