Non-Radiometric Dating Methods

[RickG]

There are numerous non-radiometric dating methods and techniques most people are unaware of. I thought it would be nice to get off the radiometric horse for a while and discuss some of these other methods. For those of you not familiar with them here's a list.

Annually Banded Records

Dendrochronology
Varve Chronology
Lichenometry
Ice Cores
Speleothems
Corals
Molluscs​

Relative Dating Methods

Rock Surface Weathering
Obsidian Hydration Dating
Pedogenesis
Relative Dating of Fossil Bone
Amino Acid Geochronology​

Age Equivalence

Oxygen Isotope Chronostratigraphy
Tephrochronology
Paleomagnetism
Palaeosols​

 

[Ophiolite]

Could you explain to us why the depth of moon dust is a dating method? Could you also explain why the depth of moon dust is a dating method for rocks found on the earth?

In reverse order:
1. The OP does not state that dating techniques are restricted to the Earth.

2. Influxes of dust to the surface of the moon may be expected to be comparable in magnitude since the close of the Late Heavy Bombardment. A knowledge of current influx rates is available. Therefore we can calculate the length of time required to build up the dust layer on the moon. i.e. we can date the initiation of dust layer formation on the moon. Creationists have claimed that the comparatively thinness of this layer is evidence that the moon is much younger than conventional science claims.

This notion not only can be refuted, it has been (reluctantly) refuted. Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System.
This is a paper by Snelling and Rush. At the time of publication Snelling was with the Creation Science Foundation and Rush was formerly with the Creation Science Institute. They note:

It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense meteorite and meteoritic dust bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system.

(@RickG - I'm not especially surprised you may not have heard of the notion. I am surprised you didn't see the implied methodology at once. Perhaps you were just being coy.)

 

[Michael]

Well, they are. Either one in isolation would be. But as well all know, YECs are not concerned by facts.

I agree. With two techniques to work with however we can even cross verify the techniques for accuracy. If we include tree rings, and seasonal layers found in lakes and ponds and such, the evidence of an ancient Earth tends to accumulate rapidly and regularly.

 

[AV1611VET]

With two techniques to work with however we can even cross verify the techniques for accuracy.

After how many tries?

 

[Michael]

After how many tries?

Should it matter? If we can start to correlate seasonal tree rings, and layers in ponds and ice core samples with written accounts of volcanic events in history, and cross check them with radiocarbon tests, it gives us a way to "calibrate" our tests to be sure we're using the techniques correctly.

 

[RickG]

After how many tries?

They are completely independent methods that can be utilized by the same sample. For example, an ice core dates to a specific date through annual rings. Within those rings can be volcanic ash. Dating the ash radiometrically yields the same date as the ice core with that specific annual layer.

 

[AV1611VET]

If we can start to correlate seasonal tree rings, and layers in ponds and ice core samples with written accounts of volcanic events in history, and cross check them with radiocarbon tests, it gives us a way to "calibrate" our tests to be sure we're using the techniques correctly.

Sounds like someone playing connect-the-dots.

 

[AV1611VET]

They are completely independent methods that can be utilized by the same sample. For example, an ice core dates to a specific date through annual rings. Within those rings can be volcanic ash. Dating the ash radiometrically yields the same date as the ice core with that specific annual layer.

After how many tries?

 

[Michael]

Sounds like someone playing connect-the-dots.

It's more like "trust but verify". Even if they have to "fine tune" a couple of the techniques along the way, the fact that we have multiple means of corroborating dates using other methods gives us much better confidence in the various techniques. If they weren't able to connect the dots, then we'd have a real problem.

 

[Ophiolite]

Sounds like someone playing connect-the-dots.

Of course it sounds like that. <staff edit>

And you fail to note that a "connect the dot" puzzle really does reveal an actual picture - but only when you understand the rules by which the dots should be connected.<staff edit>But if you take the time to learn the rules and apply them appropriately then you get the picture.<staff edit>

 

[AV1611VET]

It's more like "trust but verify". Even if they have to "fine tune" a couple of the techniques along the way, the fact that we have multiple means of corroborating dates using other methods gives us much better confidence in the various techniques. If they weren't able to connect the dots, then we'd have a real problem.

And what if connect-the-dots disagrees with the Bible?

 

[AV1611VET]

And you fail to note that a "connect the dot" puzzle really does reveal an actual picture - but only when you understand the rules by which the dots should be connected.

Here is my favorite example of your connect-the-dots game:

 

[Loudmouth]

Sounds like someone playing connect-the-dots.

Sounds like you don't care what the evidence is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sounds like you don't care what the evidence is.

Evidence can take a hike.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evidence can take a hike.

Then hike your way to a thread that doesn't deal in evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then hike your way to a thread that doesn't deal in evidence.

The truth of the matter is, you guys are so demanding of evidence, you will even unabashedly demand evidence for creatio ex nihilo.

Now that's desperation.

 

[Loudmouth]

The truth of the matter is, you guys are so demanding of evidence, you will even unabashedly demand evidence for creatio ex nihilo.

Now that's desperation.

Now would be the time to start that hike to the threads that don't require evidence.

 

[4x4toy]

If I can watch three or four shooting stars within a couple hours that get burned up , don't expect me to believe moon dust is only 3/8ths of an inch not counting meteor impact dust after billions of years .. Bwahaha

Mt St Helens radiometric testing shows known 6yr old new formed rock tested way more than 6yrs old , All known ages of various volcanoes also test millions of yrs old ..

Go ahead and throw in Mary Schweitzer's T-Rex blood for extra giggles ..

You boys need to reset and update ... Again !!!!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Back on topic: I would love to know how molluscs fall under the classification for a dating a method.

 

[RickG]

Back on topic: I would love to know how molluscs fall under the classification for a dating a method.

Dating molluscs yields itself to several different methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric. One of the non-radiometric methods is sclerochronology, which uses ratio changes in stable isotopes such as 18O. But most importantly stable isotope ratios provide a proxy to the paleoenvironment somewhat similar to that of dendrochronology. Another method would be amino acid geochronology or aminostratigraphy, which is a relative dating method.