Salvaging something I wrote for the fairytale forum, that received practically zero replies and was killed when the forum was magically deleted. I thought I would post it for some of our new creationists, though I fear it is too long of a read for some of the more hyper ones.
Radiometric dating
Radiometric dating being false is a very important part of the young earth view, since it provides evidence that the earth is much older than 6000 years old. I thought I would go over a general complaint and two of the more famous methods, Carbon 14 (C-14) and Potassium-Argon (K-Ar).
Assumptions
First lets talk about the all encompassing assumptions. Creationist groups assert that there are certain assumptions that must be accepted before one can accept the dates given by radiometric dating. Now, when doing anything there are certain assumptions that we must accept, and you accept a huge amount every time you wake up or turn on your computer. The thing is whether these assumptions are baseless or not. If there is support to make these assumptions then we can trust them. Here they are,
"To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:
The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
Decay rates have always been constant.
Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
The first assumption is only valid for certain dating methods to begin with and differs depending on the method. It's relation with the two methods I will be discussing will be addressed later.
The second assumption can be looked for. Decay produces by products such as heat. For decay rates to have changed enough for the earth to be 6000 years old, they would need to have increased over 750,000 times. This huge change would have most likely produced tell tale signs, scaring the earth in many places and the hurting or killing plants and animals. Possibly even creating a nuclear explosion, at least one natural nuclear reactor has been discovered in Oklo. It's reactions and speed are consistent with standard decay rates, if the rates were increased by enough it could lower critical mass and may have caused an explosion. So far, no evidence of this huge change has been found.
There is also no known way to adjust alpha decay. So far only one way has been found for beta decay and it is irrelevant in this discussion. It is possible for beta decay to be increased by application of a huge amount of heat and pressure, the amount is so huge it may not even exist at the center of the earth. Many beta decay dating methods (such as K-Ar) get reset if they become hot enough to melt the rocks, so this type of beta decay increase can't effect methods such as K-Ar.
This appears to be the rehashing of the first assumption.
Carbon-14 Dating
How it works.
C-14 is produced in the atmosphere at a rather constant rate. It is absorbed into plants and animals eat those plants absorbing their C-14. When the plant or animal dies it's absorption of C-14 stops and the C-14 in it's system sits there decaying. C-14 has a half life of a bit under 6000 years. The ratio of C-14 to C-12 in an animal is compared to the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere which gives us information about how long the C-14 has been decaying.
Now, the first question that is always asked is, How do we know what the ratio of C-14 to C-12 was a couple thousand years ago. Not a bad question. This is the reason why C-14 had to be calibrated. There are multiple ways to calibrate C-14, two are tree rings and ice-cores. Ice-cores hold the added benefit that they have actually trapped air in them allowing for it's ratio to be compared to the layers and for both to be compared to tree-rings and other dating methods.
There are two different ways to check the amount of C-14 in a sample.
The traditional technique which detects radiation from the decay of C-14 in the sample, the number of decays compared to the amount of time can give the amount of C-14 in a sample, it can be insensitive which limits it's abilities.
The mass-spectrometric technique is much more accurate although more expensive, and is relatively new. In the Mass-spectrometric technique individual C-14 atoms are counted.
The traditional technique can date back to 20,000 - 30,000 year and the Mass spec technique can theoretically date back 100,000 but in practice it is often limited to 50,000 years.
Arguments Against
Incorrect dating.
There are some arguments about incorrect dating that have been floating around for awhile, living seals, certain snails, mollusks being dated as being a couple thousand years old. Some sites even get the number wrong and claim they were dated to a couple million.
So far every incorrect dating I have seen the answer is always the same. You can't date organisms that get their C-14 from the water. C-14 dating is based on the ratio of C-12 to C-14 in the air, since the water ratios are different C-14 dating can't be used on them.
It is also important to mention that it is hard to date samples 50 years or younger because the modern world has changed the ratio in the atmosphere, requiring adjustments and calibrations.
Dating in Conflict.
In this argument AiG claims that wood that was found in sandstone which is supposably millions of years old dates to 36,440 years BP ± 330 years when carbon dated and thus one of the dating methods is wrong. The full article can be read here, http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/dating.asp
I have commented on the whole article before (on other forums) so I will just simplify it here. They don't mention in the article that they used the traditional technique, nor do they mention the limitations of that technique. In the traditional technique the radiation from the C-14 is counted, but the problem is that it is impossible to get a radiation free environment. Things such as the cosmic background produce noise in the results. So at a certain point background radiation becomes stronger than the decay and is measured instead. That point happens at around 20,000 - 30,000 years. The lab will generally send back the dates given no matter what, since they don't know what your experiment is as they expect you to understand the limitations.
So a date of of 36,440 should be treated as an undetermined age because of background radiation. A sample that is millions of years old would be expected to give these results and thus there isn't any conflict.
Carbon dating carbon.
In this argument coal and fossil fuels have been data using the Mass Spec method and were given an age. If the coal and fossil fuels are as old as geology claims, they shouldn't have any C-14 left in them.
This is an interesting argument that is actually relevant to current science. The C-14 dating of coal deposits vary greatly, some seem to have a lot of C-14 while others date at the expected no C-14 levels. There has been a question of why for sometime. It appears the answer is the uranium-thorium isotope series. It's decay is causing new C-14 in the old deposits. A correlation has been found between the the amount of C-14 in a deposit and the amount of radioactive isotopes such as uranium-thorium isotopes is the surrounding rock.
This is important to current science because fossil fuels are used in the detection of neutrinos and a very clean sample of fossil fuels with very little C-14 needs to be used, so research into this problem has shown them where to look
More about this can be read here,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html
Fossilized wood dates young.
This appears to be a newer type of dating in conflict. A piece of "wood" which is supposably a couple hundred million years old was dated using the Mass spec technique and dated to only 33,000 years, so one or both of the dates is wrong.
The sample was most likely not wood at all but iron concretion in a structure that resembled wood and is rather porous. Past studies of iron concretion shows that it absorbs C-13 from the surrounding soil and that it isn't a closed system allowing for C-14 to be added to it after formation.
More info here,
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/crefaqs.htm#who
One of the problems with Mass spec dating is that as we date further and further back in time the amount of contamination needed to effect the final date. Because it is very hard to make sure all contamination (including from the soil itself, such as the last example) is gone it puts a cap on how far back C-14 can effectively date samples.
K-Ar dating
How it works.
Potassium-Argon dating can date samples much much older than carbon dating and works on rocks instead of the fossils themselves. Potassium 40 decays into calcium 40 and argon 40 in a known ratio. The ratio of potassium in a rock compared to the argon 40 can be used to tell how long the potassium has been decaying. Since argon is a gas most of it escapes when the rock melts and so the clock starts after the rock hardens again. Making K-Ar great for dating lava flows. The very long half life of Potassium 40 makes it great for dating very old samples but not too good for young samples.
Argument Against
Although there are multiple versions of this argument there is basically one kind of argument against K-Ar dating. The argument is K-Ar dating assumes that there is no excess or parentless argon trapped in the rock and that all the argon comes from the decay. This isn't always true as young samples of known age have been found that date old, most likely from excess argon. If a sample that is young can date old, how can we know if samples that date old are really old or just contain excess argon. Thus the method is ineffective.
This is actually one of the reasons why young samples aren't dated using this method because excess argon can effect the results, where as in older samples it is statistically negligible. However, they do have a point. Studies show that statistically parentless argon is very rare, although picking very young samples or samples that have a high rate of contamination increases these odds. Parentless argon is assumed to not exist in a perfect sample, but things aren't always perfect.
The short answer is Ar-Ar dating. Not only can Ar-Ar dating be used to double check the dates given by K-Ar, it can be used to effectively date younger samples than K-Ar and the most important (as far as this is concerned) thing it can do is check for parentless argon in a sample. Unfortunately AiG likes to group Ar-Ar with K-Ar and ignore it, but it could answer some of their questions. Ar-Ar can be used to either date the sample or check it for excess argon, although it is more expensive many geologists have been using Ar-Ar more.
Radiometric dating
Radiometric dating being false is a very important part of the young earth view, since it provides evidence that the earth is much older than 6000 years old. I thought I would go over a general complaint and two of the more famous methods, Carbon 14 (C-14) and Potassium-Argon (K-Ar).
Assumptions
First lets talk about the all encompassing assumptions. Creationist groups assert that there are certain assumptions that must be accepted before one can accept the dates given by radiometric dating. Now, when doing anything there are certain assumptions that we must accept, and you accept a huge amount every time you wake up or turn on your computer. The thing is whether these assumptions are baseless or not. If there is support to make these assumptions then we can trust them. Here they are,
"To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:
The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
Decay rates have always been constant.
Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
The first assumption is only valid for certain dating methods to begin with and differs depending on the method. It's relation with the two methods I will be discussing will be addressed later.
The second assumption can be looked for. Decay produces by products such as heat. For decay rates to have changed enough for the earth to be 6000 years old, they would need to have increased over 750,000 times. This huge change would have most likely produced tell tale signs, scaring the earth in many places and the hurting or killing plants and animals. Possibly even creating a nuclear explosion, at least one natural nuclear reactor has been discovered in Oklo. It's reactions and speed are consistent with standard decay rates, if the rates were increased by enough it could lower critical mass and may have caused an explosion. So far, no evidence of this huge change has been found.
There is also no known way to adjust alpha decay. So far only one way has been found for beta decay and it is irrelevant in this discussion. It is possible for beta decay to be increased by application of a huge amount of heat and pressure, the amount is so huge it may not even exist at the center of the earth. Many beta decay dating methods (such as K-Ar) get reset if they become hot enough to melt the rocks, so this type of beta decay increase can't effect methods such as K-Ar.
This appears to be the rehashing of the first assumption.
Carbon-14 Dating
How it works.
C-14 is produced in the atmosphere at a rather constant rate. It is absorbed into plants and animals eat those plants absorbing their C-14. When the plant or animal dies it's absorption of C-14 stops and the C-14 in it's system sits there decaying. C-14 has a half life of a bit under 6000 years. The ratio of C-14 to C-12 in an animal is compared to the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere which gives us information about how long the C-14 has been decaying.
Now, the first question that is always asked is, How do we know what the ratio of C-14 to C-12 was a couple thousand years ago. Not a bad question. This is the reason why C-14 had to be calibrated. There are multiple ways to calibrate C-14, two are tree rings and ice-cores. Ice-cores hold the added benefit that they have actually trapped air in them allowing for it's ratio to be compared to the layers and for both to be compared to tree-rings and other dating methods.
There are two different ways to check the amount of C-14 in a sample.
The traditional technique which detects radiation from the decay of C-14 in the sample, the number of decays compared to the amount of time can give the amount of C-14 in a sample, it can be insensitive which limits it's abilities.
The mass-spectrometric technique is much more accurate although more expensive, and is relatively new. In the Mass-spectrometric technique individual C-14 atoms are counted.
The traditional technique can date back to 20,000 - 30,000 year and the Mass spec technique can theoretically date back 100,000 but in practice it is often limited to 50,000 years.
Arguments Against
Incorrect dating.
There are some arguments about incorrect dating that have been floating around for awhile, living seals, certain snails, mollusks being dated as being a couple thousand years old. Some sites even get the number wrong and claim they were dated to a couple million.
So far every incorrect dating I have seen the answer is always the same. You can't date organisms that get their C-14 from the water. C-14 dating is based on the ratio of C-12 to C-14 in the air, since the water ratios are different C-14 dating can't be used on them.
It is also important to mention that it is hard to date samples 50 years or younger because the modern world has changed the ratio in the atmosphere, requiring adjustments and calibrations.
Dating in Conflict.
In this argument AiG claims that wood that was found in sandstone which is supposably millions of years old dates to 36,440 years BP ± 330 years when carbon dated and thus one of the dating methods is wrong. The full article can be read here, http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/dating.asp
I have commented on the whole article before (on other forums) so I will just simplify it here. They don't mention in the article that they used the traditional technique, nor do they mention the limitations of that technique. In the traditional technique the radiation from the C-14 is counted, but the problem is that it is impossible to get a radiation free environment. Things such as the cosmic background produce noise in the results. So at a certain point background radiation becomes stronger than the decay and is measured instead. That point happens at around 20,000 - 30,000 years. The lab will generally send back the dates given no matter what, since they don't know what your experiment is as they expect you to understand the limitations.
So a date of of 36,440 should be treated as an undetermined age because of background radiation. A sample that is millions of years old would be expected to give these results and thus there isn't any conflict.
Carbon dating carbon.
In this argument coal and fossil fuels have been data using the Mass Spec method and were given an age. If the coal and fossil fuels are as old as geology claims, they shouldn't have any C-14 left in them.
This is an interesting argument that is actually relevant to current science. The C-14 dating of coal deposits vary greatly, some seem to have a lot of C-14 while others date at the expected no C-14 levels. There has been a question of why for sometime. It appears the answer is the uranium-thorium isotope series. It's decay is causing new C-14 in the old deposits. A correlation has been found between the the amount of C-14 in a deposit and the amount of radioactive isotopes such as uranium-thorium isotopes is the surrounding rock.
This is important to current science because fossil fuels are used in the detection of neutrinos and a very clean sample of fossil fuels with very little C-14 needs to be used, so research into this problem has shown them where to look
More about this can be read here,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html
Fossilized wood dates young.
This appears to be a newer type of dating in conflict. A piece of "wood" which is supposably a couple hundred million years old was dated using the Mass spec technique and dated to only 33,000 years, so one or both of the dates is wrong.
The sample was most likely not wood at all but iron concretion in a structure that resembled wood and is rather porous. Past studies of iron concretion shows that it absorbs C-13 from the surrounding soil and that it isn't a closed system allowing for C-14 to be added to it after formation.
More info here,
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/crefaqs.htm#who
One of the problems with Mass spec dating is that as we date further and further back in time the amount of contamination needed to effect the final date. Because it is very hard to make sure all contamination (including from the soil itself, such as the last example) is gone it puts a cap on how far back C-14 can effectively date samples.
K-Ar dating
How it works.
Potassium-Argon dating can date samples much much older than carbon dating and works on rocks instead of the fossils themselves. Potassium 40 decays into calcium 40 and argon 40 in a known ratio. The ratio of potassium in a rock compared to the argon 40 can be used to tell how long the potassium has been decaying. Since argon is a gas most of it escapes when the rock melts and so the clock starts after the rock hardens again. Making K-Ar great for dating lava flows. The very long half life of Potassium 40 makes it great for dating very old samples but not too good for young samples.
Argument Against
Although there are multiple versions of this argument there is basically one kind of argument against K-Ar dating. The argument is K-Ar dating assumes that there is no excess or parentless argon trapped in the rock and that all the argon comes from the decay. This isn't always true as young samples of known age have been found that date old, most likely from excess argon. If a sample that is young can date old, how can we know if samples that date old are really old or just contain excess argon. Thus the method is ineffective.
This is actually one of the reasons why young samples aren't dated using this method because excess argon can effect the results, where as in older samples it is statistically negligible. However, they do have a point. Studies show that statistically parentless argon is very rare, although picking very young samples or samples that have a high rate of contamination increases these odds. Parentless argon is assumed to not exist in a perfect sample, but things aren't always perfect.
The short answer is Ar-Ar dating. Not only can Ar-Ar dating be used to double check the dates given by K-Ar, it can be used to effectively date younger samples than K-Ar and the most important (as far as this is concerned) thing it can do is check for parentless argon in a sample. Unfortunately AiG likes to group Ar-Ar with K-Ar and ignore it, but it could answer some of their questions. Ar-Ar can be used to either date the sample or check it for excess argon, although it is more expensive many geologists have been using Ar-Ar more.
