radiometric dating

[Aggie]

I do believe that was removed because the authors were not honest in their presentation. Peer review is the process where scientists check to see if their work is correct and I do believe that none of those findings went through peer review. There is no excuse for avoiding peer review unless you know that your work is bogus.

Unless this conference was very different from most conferences of the sort, none of the presentations there were peer-reviewed. That's never done for these sorts of presentations. Peer review is something that happens later, when the results are eventually written up for a professional journal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unless this conference was very different from most conferences of the sort, none of the presentations there were peer-reviewed. That's never done for these sorts of presentations. Peer review is something that happens later, when the results are eventually written up for a professional journal.

Perhaps, but it looks like the title of their talk was very misleading. From your screen capture the title was on C13 amounts. C13 can be used as a temperature indicator since CO2 with C13 will react very slightly differently than CO2 with C12 in it. And that difference will be driven by temperature if I remember correctly. I am unaware of any work where C13 is used as part of C14 dating.

 

[mindlight]

post your stuff here instead of the circular reasoning thread.

A lot of the arguments here seem to focus on whether nuclear decay is broadly constant. Those opposed to a Creationist view argue that significant deviations from a constant rate of decay would have devastating consequences.

My questions are these:

1) Why do we assume that a 100% parent isotope decayed into whatever % of the daughter isotope we discern today? How can we know what % of parent or of daughter was present in the original sample?

2) Since the Creationist worldview hinges on a Creator of infinite power who would be able to absorb an infinite energy surge why do we need to even argue about radiometric dating at all. Any Divine intervention could result in radical changes in a very short order of time. Since these interventions e.g. Creation or the Flood are by definition unanalogous and unrepeatable miracles science has nothing to say here at all. God can age rocks whenever and however he wants basically without violating any of the laws of physics.

3) There are a lot of examples of big time failures in dating which do raise questions on how useful or reliable the method is. So why do we place so much trust in it?

4) If it can be shown that decay rates can vary in some circumstances then how safely can we make predictions back thousands of years. Can we ever know the full set of circumstances related to a specific variation anyway. Since no possibility of a thousand year audit trail exists how can we test scientific theories postulating a constant or variable rate of decay. It seems to me that whichever position we adopt is actually a matter of speculation since scientific experimentation and normal procedures cannot be applied in these cases. There is no repeatable experiment that demonstrates a thousand years of radiometric decay let alone a million years.

 

[lasthero]

A lot of the arguments here seem to focus on whether nuclear decay is broadly constant. Those opposed to a Creationist view argue that significant deviations from a constant rate of decay would have devastating consequences.

I have a question for you.

If radiometric dating isn't constant and reliable, why does this graph look like this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

A lot of the arguments here seem to focus on whether nuclear decay is broadly constant. Those opposed to a Creationist view argue that significant deviations from a constant rate of decay would have devastating consequences.

My questions are these:

1) Why do we assume that a 100% parent isotope decayed into whatever % of the daughter isotope we discern today? How can we know what % of parent or of daughter was present in the original sample?

That depends upon the dating method. Perhaps the easiest to understand is that of Potassium-Argon dating. Argon is an inert gas and will be excluded when a crystal forms. So we know that the starting amount in a crystal will be zero. It does not travel easily through a crystal once it forms, unless there was weathering of the sample and that is observable.

We can measure the amount of parent material left, that added to the daughter material and multiplied by a constant since only roughly 20% of radioactive potassium turns into argon, the rest becomes calcium, and this percentage is well known and well measured, will give us the total amount of both parent and daughter. Other tests have ways of determining the original amount. The original amounts are never assumed.

2) Since the Creationist worldview hinges on a Creator of infinite power who would be able to absorb an infinite energy surge why do we need to even argue about radiometric dating at all. Any Divine intervention could result in radical changes in a very short order of time. Since these interventions e.g. Creation or the Flood are by definition unanalogous and unrepeatable miracles science has nothing to say here at all. God can age rocks whenever and however he wants basically without violating any of the laws of physics.

Of course he could if he wanted to but then he would be misleading people. Very few Christians believe in a dishonest God.

3) There are a lot of examples of big time failures in dating which do raise questions on how useful or reliable the method is. So why do we place so much trust in it?

Because those "big time failures" have usually been misreported. Creationists are infamous for "trying to use a screwdriver as a hammer" and then claiming that screwdrivers do not work.

4) If it can be shown that decay rates can vary in some circumstances then how safely can we make predictions back thousands of years. Can we ever know the full set of circumstances related to a specific variation anyway. Since no possibility of a thousand year audit trail exists how can we test scientific theories postulating a constant or variable rate of decay. It seems to me that whichever position we adopt is actually a matter of speculation since scientific experimentation and normal procedures cannot be applied in these cases. There is no repeatable experiment that demonstrates a thousand years of radiometric decay let alone a million years.

The only decay rates that I know of that can vary are those involving beta decay, and it took methods that would not be found anywhere on or in the Earth by natural methods to get those changes. Under the conditions that rocks and minerals go under near the surface, and all rocks that you can see are from relatively near the surface, there is not change in rate.

 

[whois]

I have a question for you.

If radiometric dating isn't constant and reliable, why does this graph look like this?

how do you resolve this in light of the satellite data?
the satellite data is a direct measurement whereas the above graph is derived entity.

in my opinion, the satellite data is more plausible because it's a direct measurement.
if the above is true, then the years along the vertical axis in your graph are in error

the satellite data leaves no doubt that nuclear decay rates are not constant.

 

[lasthero]

how do you resolve this in light of the satellite data?
the satellite data is a direct measurement whereas the above graph is derived entity.

in my opinion, the satellite data is more plausible because it's a direct measurement.
if the above is true, then the years along the vertical axis in your graph are in error

Okay, let's say they're in error.

Why are they in error in the way they should be if they WEREN'T in error?

Because that's the way the graph should look if the islands formed the way scientists accept them to have formed.

 

[whois]

Okay, let's say they're in error.

Why are they in error in the way they should be if they WEREN'T in error?

Because that's the way the graph should look if the islands formed the way scientists accept them to have formed.

i'm not exactly sure what you mean.

the entire point of the thread is basically nuclear decay and radiometric dating.
i was told in school that this process (nuclear decay) was constant, these particles are emitted at a constant rate.
this rate is known as the half life of the element in question.
i now find that it isn't constant, and apparently by a significant amount.

unfortunately i do not have access to the entire article, so i don't really know what the cause is.
all i know is it's related to solar activity.
as you know (or may not know), "solar activity" can mean any number of things, but it's apparently fast acting, it isn't due to some kind of slow traveling process.

the cause of this is important because there may be other sources other than solar that can affect nuclear decay.
nuclear decay and it's apparent "constancy" is at the very heart of radiometric dating.

in my opinion the shape of your graph is basically correct, it's the scaling factor that's in error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

i'm not exactly sure what you mean.

the entire point of the thread is basically nuclear decay and radiometric dating.
i was told in school that this process (nuclear decay) was constant, these particles are emitted at a constant rate.
this rate is known as the half life of the element in question.
i now find that it isn't constant, and apparently by a significant amount.

You were either told incorrect information or you remembered wrong. To get decay rates to vary, and only beta decay has been shown to vary, you need to either strip a nucleus of all electrons, that is not going to happen in nature, or to put pressure one the order of the inside of a star, and that is not going to happen on the near surface, and anything that is only a few miles deep is near surface, of the Earth. The methods used to date rocks are not subject to those extremes.

unfortunately i do not have access to the entire article, so i don't really know what the cause is.
all i know is it's related to solar activity.
as you know (or may not know), "solar activity" can mean any number of things, but it's apparently fast acting, it isn't due to some kind of slow traveling process.

No, the one test done on solar activity was found to be flawed. Scientists never rely on just one test. They know that individual tests can be wrong. You won't find it in today's scientific literature because it was shown not to be the case. If you did into older pieces you will find it, but even then it was questionable. Odds are that you had a teacher that was a creationist. They will grasp at the thinnest of straws and hold on for dear life even though it has been falsified.

the cause of this is important because there may be other sources other than solar that can affect nuclear decay.
nuclear decay and it's apparent "constancy" is at the very heart of radiometric dating.

Nope, only extreme measures can change radiometric dating. You could have easily found an article that supports you if you were right. The fact that you can't should tell you something.

in my opinion the shape of your graph is basically correct, it's the scaling factor that's in error.

And that is just an incredibly ignorant statement. You want it to be wrong so you think it is wrong. That is not the way that science is done.

 

[lasthero]

unfortunately i do not have access to the entire article, so i don't really know what the cause is.

You don't think reading the entire article before you make a conclusion about what the article says is important?

nuclear decay and it's apparent "constancy" is at the very heart of radiometric dating.

in my opinion the shape of your graph is basically correct, it's the scaling factor that's in error.

But the thing is, the graph is telling you more than just that. The dates are actually consistent with the way the islands are developing right now. Not only that, but if the islands were made within a smaller time frame than what is believed, they wouldn't show the erosion that they do - the farther island from the hotspot is eroded almost down to the nub. The further you get away the more eroded the islands are. If the islands were all made within a short time of each they wouldn't show the pattern of erosion they do.

Furthermore, we can look at correlations.

Let's assume what you're saying is completely correct, and the solar radiation is affecting rates. Things like ice layers and varves, though, aren't affected solar radiation. They form annually. So, if we the decay rates aren't constant, we should rarely, if ever, expect to find particles in annual layers that match up with the ice layer they're in.

But that happens. That happens a lot.

 

[whois]

You don't think reading the entire article before you make a conclusion about what the article says is important?

i am not drawing conclusions, the article is.
the article specifically states nuclear decay is significantly affected by solar activity.
what is unknown (because the paper itself is missing) is the cause, or causes.
it's certainly related to solar activity but the exact cause, proton density, magnetic flux, etc, isn't presented.

But the thing is, the graph is telling you more than just that. The dates are actually consistent with the way the islands are developing right now. Not only that, but if the islands were made within a smaller time frame than what is believed, they wouldn't show the erosion that they do - the farther island from the hotspot is eroded almost down to the nub. The further you get away the more eroded the islands are. If the islands were all made within a short time of each they wouldn't show the pattern of erosion they do.

Furthermore, we can look at correlations.

Let's assume what you're saying is completely correct, and the solar radiation is affecting rates. Things like ice layers and varves, though, aren't affected solar radiation. They form annually. So, if we the decay rates aren't constant, we should rarely, if ever, expect to find particles in annual layers that match up with the ice layer they're in.

But that happens. That happens a lot.

i wouldn't know, because i'm not a geologist.

i DO know that you can't simply brush aside this satellite data like it doesn't exist, and that nuclear decay rates are at the very heart of radiometric dating.

 

[lasthero]

i am not drawing conclusions, the article is.

But you haven't even read the article. You've just read the abstract. The conclusions would actually be in the article. That you haven't read.

the article specifically states nuclear decay is significantly affected by solar activity.

How significantly?

what is unknown (because the paper itself is missing)

Well, it's not missing. You just don't have it. 'Missing' would imply that you knew where it was, but it's no longer there. You know where it is. You just can't ge to it.

it's certainly related to solar activity but the exact cause, proton density, magnetic flux, etc, isn't presented.
i wouldn't know, because i'm not a geologist.

And because you haven't read the article. Even if it was in there, you wouldn't know.

i DO know that you can't simply brush aside this satellite data like it doesn't exist, and that nuclear decay rates are at the very heart of radiometric dating.

You haven't actually presented any data that I'm aware of.

At any rate, if the rates did vary by a significant amount, there would be no reason for us to ever find material in the layer that matches it. Scientists wouldn't be able to find ash from known volcanic eruptions in the layers it supposed to be, and when they date that ash, it wouldn't turn up with the right date. But that does happen.

 

[dad]

Argon is an inert gas and will be excluded when a crystal forms.

In this nature, yes. We don't know how it was in the former nature.

The process of crystallization does involve forces you know.


"Most of the time when there are just a few molecules joined together, they break apart. However, once there becomes a certain number of solute molecules, a so-called "critical size" where the combined attractive forces between the solute molecules become stronger than the other forces in the solution which tend to disrupt the formation of these "aggregates". This when this "protocrystal" (a sort of pre-crystal) becomes a nucleation site. As this protocrystal floats around in solution, it encounters other solute molecules. These solute molecules feel the attractive force of the protocrystal and join in. That's how the crystal begins to grow. "

How Crystals Form


I don't think we can rule out that argon may have been there?

 

[Subduction Zone]

In this nature, yes. We don't know how it was in the former nature.

Unless you can show evidence for this "former nature" there is no valid reason to believe in it. Your beliefs are not even biblical.

The process of crystallization does involve forces you know.

Yes, I know.

"Most of the time when there are just a few molecules joined together, they break apart. However, once there becomes a certain number of solute molecules, a so-called "critical size" where the combined attractive forces between the solute molecules become stronger than the other forces in the solution which tend to disrupt the formation of these "aggregates". This when this "protocrystal" (a sort of pre-crystal) becomes a nucleation site. As this protocrystal floats around in solution, it encounters other solute molecules. These solute molecules feel the attractive force of the protocrystal and join in. That's how the crystal begins to grow. "

How Crystals Form


I don't think we can rule out that argon may have been there?

Actually we can since this can be tested in the laboratory.

 

[sfs]

How significantly?

The more relevant question is "how much"? "Significant" in scientific papers usually means "statistically significant", which tells you how unlikely the result is to be a statistical fluke, but tells you very little about how large the effect is. (Oh, and I'd bet $5 that the result does not reflect real changes to decay rates.)

 

[dad]

Unless you can show evidence for this "former nature" there is no valid reason to believe in it.

Unless you can show evidence for the nature you claim the decay happened in, there is no valid reason to believe in it. Thanks for that.

Fortunately for Christians, there is plenty of valid reasons to believe the record God gave.

Yes, I know.

You know forces are involved, yet you know not what forces existed. Otherwise you could show us. You make the guy that shot his arguments in the foot look like a track star.

Actually we can since this can be tested in the laboratory.

You can test if Argon was there? Great let's see that, so we can rule out that aspect. Ha.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unless you can show evidence for the nature you claim the decay happened in, there is no valid reason to believe in it. Thanks for that.

No problem. Step outside.

Fortunately for Christians, there is plenty of valid reasons to believe the record God gave.

Really? Then why doesn't any Christian ever give any?

You know forces are involved, yet you know not what forces existed. Otherwise you could show us. You make the guy that shot his arguments in the foot look like a track star.

Sure I do. You have been shown. But as the saying goes, you can't help those that refuse to see.

You can test if Argon was there? Great let's see that, so we can rule out that aspect. Ha.

I already told you how. Don't tell me you weren't paying attention again!

 

[whois]

(Oh, and I'd bet $5 that the result does not reflect real changes to decay rates.)

that wouldn't be a wise bet:
Our detector was a 1 uCi sample of 54Mn, whose decay rate exhibited a dip coincident in time with spikes in both the x-ray and proton fluxes recorded by the GOES-10 and 11 satellites. A secondary peak in the x-ray and proton fluxes on 17 December at 12:40 EST was also accompanied by a coincident dip in the 54Mn decay rate. These observations support the claim by Jenkins, et al. that nuclear decay rates vary with Earth-Sun distance.
-ibid.
it seems to me that the dip is indeed real and coincident.
the real question here is, is this connected to either magnetic flux or proton density, both, or neither.
there might be some other cause that was also coincident with these events that wasn't registered by GOES.
it appears to be associated with a "solar flare" type of phenomenon though, whatever it was.

the word "significant" appears to mean an actual drop, instead of a statistical meaning:
In this paper, we report the detection of a significant decrease in the decay of 54Mn during the solar flare of 13 December 2006, . . .
-ibid.

i doubt if the drop was permanent though, because they do mention "dip".
still, this represents an increased loss of material.

 

[sfs]

that wouldn't be a wise bet:

I suspect I've seen a lot more exciting, unexpected experimental results that seemed to contradict well-established physics than you have. They usually go away; in fact, almost all of them go away. Certainly often enough to risk five bucks on. (And if this one proves to be correct, it will be exciting enough that I wouldn't mind losing the $5.)

 

[whois]

I suspect I've seen a lot more exciting, unexpected experimental results that seemed to contradict well-established physics than you have. They usually go away; in fact, almost all of them go away. Certainly often enough to risk five bucks on. (And if this one proves to be correct, it will be exciting enough that I wouldn't mind losing the $5.)

this could also be caused by something that is filtered by earths atmosphere too.
it's unfortunate i don't have the entire paper.