Tackling the "assumptions" of radiometric dating...part 1.

[46AND2]

Interestingly, there is a nitpick I can think of that someone could bring up that directly addresses the OP, but I'm curious to see if people understand the topic well enough to pick it out. It really isn't a problem, and I will address it when someone does mention it, or after a while when it is apparent that nobody will...

 

[46AND2]

I think it is very telling that two of my recent topics have received very little opposition so far. I purposely chose them because they have very little creation apologist rebuttals on the net, so creationists are forced to actually understand the argument in order to reply, rather than cut/pasting rhetoric from YEC sources.

It tells me that the majority of them don't understand the arguments they are opposing, but rather trusting that their YEC brethren wouldn't lead them astray.

But the question they should be asking themselves is: how do I know if the apologists know what they are talking about? If I don't understand the topic myself, how can I make that determination?

 

[lasthero]

I think it is very telling that two of my recent topics have received very little opposition so far. I purposely chose them because they have very little creation apologist rebuttals on the net, so creationists are forced to actually understand the argument in order to reply, rather than cut/pasting rhetoric from YEC sources.

Called it.

Creationists like to go on about how they love 'real science', but very few of them are actually interested in doing any science or putting any thought into their arguments. They just regurgitate stuff they hear from their favorite website, oftentimes without even understanding half of it.

Every time ED or anya or anyone bring up the whole 'dating is based on assumptions' argument, I'm linking them back here. They probably still won't post here, but at least they'll be without excuse.

 

[46AND2]

Every time ED or anya or anyone bring up the whole 'dating is based on assumptions' argument, I'm linking them back here. They probably still won't post here, but at least they'll be without excuse.

That was the other reason I started this particular topic. I offered both of them the opportunity to learn why scientists don't assume initial daughter concentrations...twice each. They both ignored the offer the first time, and then each repeated the claim. I offered a second time, each, and they ignored me again. So I figured I would go ahead and start the topic, anyway...cause I was bored.

 

[Seipai]

46AND2, I love the picture in your signature.

And I agree, where are all the creationists?

Where is Justatruthseeker, with that sort of user name he should be the first to ask questions.

 

[lasthero]

46AND2, I love the picture in your signature.

And I agree, where are all the creationists?

Where is Justatruthseeker, with that sort of user name he should be the first to ask questions.

I could be wrong, but I think JT is an OEC, so he doesn't have any beef with dating techniques, per say. At any rate, I've never seen him say anything about it, and he's hardly one to hold back his opinions.

 

[juvenissun]

Case specific problems, you claim...

An inherited flaw of the method, you claim...

Then you say "For example..."

And fail to give an example. You merely repeated the claim.

WHAT is the inherited flaw?

HOW is initial daughter a major source of problems?


And your readers have to live with the uncertainty of what it is you are claiming, as you refuse to be anything but vague. You do this because you know that if you are specific you are likely to be proven wrong. If you remain vague, you can still potentially talk your way out of it, by claiming that is not what you meant, and we are too ignorant/stupid to understand.

Man up. Give us specifics, so we can actually have an intellectual discussion.

The initial daughter content gives larger or large error bar to the data, in particular, on younger dates.

Is this specific enough?

Of course, you may ignore the size of the error bar and only take the number. You will not lose your job by doing that (not your fault). But the work would be classified as a junk research.

 

[Seipai]

The initial daughter content gives larger or large error bar to the data, in particular, on younger dates.

Is this specific enough?

Of course, you may ignore the size of the error bar and only take the number. You will not lose your job by doing that (not your fault). But the work would be classified as a junk research.

That goes with any sample. If a sample is too young the error bars will make it undateable. But all that tells us is that the sample is too young for the method chosen. For example basalt with xenoliths that is very young can give an incorrect date due to the xenoliths using the K/Ar method. Of course these days we can date the xenoliths or even avoid them in samples. There are all sorts of ways of using a tool incorrectly. In some cases the source of error is obvious. Yet those are the ways that I have seen creationists, perhaps purposefully, misuse radiometric dating to "prove" that it is unreliable.

All they ever end up "proving" is that a screwdriver makes a very poor hammer. In other words there is no point in dating fresh basalt with xenoliths. You know that you will get a false advanced age. Someone that does that regardless is definitely less than honest.

 

[46AND2]

The initial daughter content gives larger or large error bar to the data, in particular, on younger dates.

Is this specific enough?

Of course, you may ignore the size of the error bar and only take the number. You will not lose your job by doing that (not your fault). But the work would be classified as a junk research.

When I was in the military, I used to calibrate electronic and physical test equipment. I'll use a torque wrench as an example. We would test the torque wrench at different intervals along its range, to make sure it was giving an accurate amount of torque when used. Now, we wouldn't test it at its very limits, because the error bars at that point are too high. We would measure it at 10% and 90%, and at a few intervals in between.

Now, would this cause a problem for the customer who has to use the torque wrench? Well, possibly. But only if they don't know how to use the tool properly. Say they have a torque wrench that has a range of 0-150 inch-pounds, and they have something that they need to tighten to 150 inch-pounds. If they use that torque wrench, then they might not apply accurate torque, because it is at the end of that wrench's capabilities.

So what do you do? You use a DIFFERENT TORQUE WRENCH, which has limits from, say 50-250 inch-pounds. Then you are well inside the capabilities of the tool, and you can be assured that the error bars are at their minimum.

It is the same thing with radiometric dating. When I have more time later today, I'll explain the source of the error at the limits of the methods.

 

[Loudmouth]

The initial daughter content gives larger or large error bar to the data, in particular, on younger dates.

Of course they do. When you use methodologies at the edges of their useful ranges the smallest contaminations can have relatively large effects. However, these problems go away for older dates that fall within the useable range for a given methodology.

This is an effect that creationists often take advantage of. They use methodologies for age ranges that they are not meant to be used for, and fail to tell their readers why this is not proper science.

Of course, you may ignore the size of the error bar and only take the number. You will not lose your job by doing that (not your fault). But the work would be classified as a junk research.

Why would we ignore the error bars?

 

[EternalDragon]

That was the other reason I started this particular topic. I offered both of them the opportunity to learn why scientists don't assume initial daughter concentrations...twice each. They both ignored the offer the first time, and then each repeated the claim. I offered a second time, each, and they ignored me again. So I figured I would go ahead and start the topic, anyway...cause I was bored.

So lets say for argument sake that God did create a mature universe in
six days. The sun would be just the right age, the earth would be just
the right age and the stars would have had to be created by some sort
of stretching of the universe, like a reverse black hole for instance. (It
does state in the bible that God stretches the heavens.)

Lets also say the alternate truth is that the earth just got here by chance
and that things naturally aged to where they are now.

That would mean that any testing we do will come away with long age.
That no matter how it is tested, both initial premises will end up with the
exact same radiometric test results.

So I don't see where this post will actually go anywhere. Both premises
rely on some amount of faith.

 

[lasthero]

That would mean that any testing we do will come away with long age.
That no matter how it is tested, both initial premises will end up with the
exact same radiometric test results.

What would be the point to artificially advancing radioactive isotopes to the point where they seem old? And keep in mind, it's not just the isotopes we find on Earth that show old age. When we date rocks in space, they also bring back old ages.

And are you saying he also put artificial age into things like tree rings, varves, ice layers - things that match up with radiometric dating? He aged them, too? Even things like tumbling asteroids?

What would be the point?

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but since when do you subscribe to Apparent Age? I've never seen you bark up this particular tree before. If memory serves, you've always maintained that the rates were off.

 

[EternalDragon]

What would be the point to artificially advancing radioactive isotopes to the point where they seem old? And keep in mind, it's not just the isotopes we find on Earth that show old age. When we date rocks in space, they also bring back old ages.

And are you saying he also put artificial age into things like tree rings, varves, ice layers - things that match up with radiometric dating? He aged them, too? Even things like tumbling asteroids?

What would be the point?

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but since when do you subscribe to Apparent Age? I've never seen you bark up this particular tree before. If memory serves, you've always maintained that the rates were off.

Tree rings and ice cores match up only back to the end of the flood as far as they can count them. The make many assumptions to make them appear to be older. After all, they have to match the other long age assumptions.

I've always maintained that they MAKE ASSUMPTIONS about the starting
rates. The dates of the rates are off because they think it took millions of years for them to decay to what we can test today.

Everything was made in a few days so of course everything they test in space or on earth should match up.

 

[lasthero]

Tree rings and ice cores match up only back to the end of the flood as far as they can count them.

Untrue.

The make many assumptions to make them appear to be older.

And these assumptions just so happen to match up with radiometric dating techniques? Why?

[I've always maintained that they MAKE ASSUMPTIONS about the starting
rate

Assumptions like what? Did you even bother to read the OP? Please, point to the assumptions in 46AND2's post.

Everything was made in a few days so of course everything they test in space

Why space? What's the point of having meteors that date back so far? God, presumably, could have created the universe in any way he saw fit, so why do it in such a way that, when tested, it gives the appearance that it's older than it actually is? Why not make it so the tests show the actual age?

 

[46AND2]

Tree rings and ice cores match up only back to the end of the flood as far as they can count them. The make many assumptions to make them appear to be older. After all, they have to match the other long age assumptions.

I've always maintained that they MAKE ASSUMPTIONS about the starting
rates. The dates of the rates are off because they think it took millions of years for them to decay to what we can test today.

Everything was made in a few days so of course everything they test in space or on earth should match up.

And I am attempting to demonstrate to you that they DO NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS, as creationist literature describes it. They make measurements. It's a big difference, ED.

Can you see, now, how your accusation that scientists ASSUME an initial quantity is a false accusation?

I'll be getting to your OTHER assumptions that you mention in this post, but for now, I have started with the initial concentration.

Can you agree that scientists don't ASSUME an initial quantity, but rather, measure it?

 

[46AND2]

Tree rings and ice cores match up only back to the end of the flood as far as they can count them. The make many assumptions to make them appear to be older. After all, they have to match the other long age assumptions.

.

I've already corrected you on this, and you disappeared from the discussion. To make this claim again, like the previous conversation never happened, is rather disingenuous, imo.

 

[lasthero]

I mean, I hate to rant on a bit, but look at this, for example.

The Lake Malawi Sediment Chronometer and the Toba Super Eruption – Naturalis Historia

Scientists date the eruption to be 74,000 years ago. When scientists go down and look at the sediments, they find ash...right where it should be if the explosion happened 74,000 years. It's not higher, it's not lower, it's where you would expect the ash to be if the sedimentation had been fairly uniform when the eruption happened.

So...what? God didn't just plant fake layers, he planted fake ash from an eruption that never actually happened? Why?

 

[juvenissun]

That goes with any sample. If a sample is too young the error bars will make it undateable. But all that tells us is that the sample is too young for the method chosen. For example basalt with xenoliths that is very young can give an incorrect date due to the xenoliths using the K/Ar method. Of course these days we can date the xenoliths or even avoid them in samples. There are all sorts of ways of using a tool incorrectly. In some cases the source of error is obvious. Yet those are the ways that I have seen creationists, perhaps purposefully, misuse radiometric dating to "prove" that it is unreliable.

All they ever end up "proving" is that a screwdriver makes a very poor hammer. In other words there is no point in dating fresh basalt with xenoliths. You know that you will get a false advanced age. Someone that does that regardless is definitely less than honest.

1. Young sample does not always have that problem.
2. Nobody say the age could not be estimated by whatever means.

... and I forgot why did I argue about this triviality.

 

[juvenissun]

Of course they do. When you use methodologies at the edges of their useful ranges the smallest contaminations can have relatively large effects. However, these problems go away for older dates that fall within the useable range for a given methodology.

This is an effect that creationists often take advantage of. They use methodologies for age ranges that they are not meant to be used for, and fail to tell their readers why this is not proper science.



Why would we ignore the error bars?

Because there is a dot at the center of the bar.

 

[46AND2]

I mean, I hate to rant on a bit, but look at this, for example.

The Lake Malawi Sediment Chronometer and the Toba Super Eruption – Naturalis Historia

Scientists date the eruption to be 74,000 years ago. When scientists go down and look at the sediments, they find ash...right where it should be if the explosion happened 74,000 years. It's not higher, it's not lower, it's where you would expect the ash to be if the sedimentation had been fairly uniform when the eruption happened.

So...what? God didn't just plant fake layers, he planted fake ash from an eruption that never actually happened? Why?

It's worse than this: if ED's contention is correct, that the ages of the rocks are simply maturity, then he has to admit that the FOSSILS were planted there as "maturity" as well. Because there are rocks that date to millions of years old which COVER the fossils.

And there is a crater in mexico that demonstrates HISTORY, not maturity, which dates to 65 million years ago. It's an EVENT which happened 65 million years ago. It would be like Adam having a healed broken bone which he never experienced. Or a scar from an injury which never actually happened.