YECs Explain Dating Methods

[shinbits]

yes.
fossils are not dated. It's the rock around the fossil that are dated.

I know. See, I don't disagree with the results for just dating a rock alone.
But dating the age of a fossil bassed on the rock in which it's found has too many variables.

For one, the effects of weathering (I spelled it wrong before, didn't I?) on a fossil over thousands of years will make bring up innumerable possible factors. Such factors may include:

Rain or floods washing parent or daughter elements in or out;

Other rocks mixing with the sample or mixing with the rock it was found in, before the buried organism hardened as a fossil, due to floods, rain, or other factors.


These factors would make fossils dated with radio-metric dating unreliable.

 

[KerrMetric]

I know. See, I don't disagree with the results for just dating a rock alone.
But dating the age of a fossil bassed on the rock in which it's found has too many variables.

For one, the effects of weathering (I spelled it wrong before, didn't I?) on a fossil over thousands of years will make bring up innumerable possible factors. Such factors may include:

Rain or floods washing parent or daughter elements in or out;

Other rocks mixing with the sample, before the buried organism hardened as a fossil, due to floods, rain, or other factors.


These factors would make fossils dated with radio-metric dating unreliable.

But you can check for those effects.

 

[Mocca]

What is the point. You were exactly the kind of totally uninformed person they were looking to make fun of in this thread. Not only don't you know the material you seemingly cannot understand it if given to you.

Actually...

lol.

But, shhh! A certain mod may close the thread!

 

[shinbits]

But you can check for those effects.

I agree. But there's no way to know how those effects affected the parent/daughter ratios in the rocks found. So once you check for those effects, then what? Do u use radio-metric dating anyway? Radio-metric couldn't be an honest measurement if we know that such weathering took place.

All fossils found in rock would have the same problem, since they'd all be exposed to weathering of the same type.

 

[shinbits]

In fact the energy production is far more sensitive to the mean molecular weight change of the hydrogen being converted to helium than the mass change - and this is still negligible.

Again completely and utterly wrong. Any changes are so miniscule as to be irrelevant. In fact the Suns luminosity is increasing as its mass decreases - the molecular weight affect I mentioned.

http://www.regulusastro.com/regulus/papers/stars/

"The more massive the star, the more light output it generates, and the more hydrogen burning there must be to counteract the gravitational potential for collapse."

The sun's mass is directly proportional to it's luminescence. This is why this is such an important factor, which C-14 leaves out of it's calculations. The older an object is, the less reliable C-14 becomes.

In light of this, I think this is worth bringing up one more time:

1) As mentioned before, a change in mass in even as low as what was mentioned before, due to it's massive size, would at least be significant enough that C-14 must acknowledge it.

2) The calculations that were used earlier to suggest that the sun's output was negligable were flawed; they were steady rates, instead of rates that increased for each year we went back.
Thus, if we were to calculate the sun's output 50,000 years ago on an ascending scale (which is more accurate) instead of a steady rate, we'd come up with a much higher figure for the change in the sun's mass from 50,000 years ago.
C-14 however, doesn't factor this in at all.

These factors make C-14 dating more and more unreliable the older a sample is.

 

[notto]

http://www.regulusastro.com/regulus/papers/stars/

"The more massive the star, the more light output it generates, and the more hydrogen burning there must be to counteract the gravitational potential for collapse."

The sun's mass is directly proportional to it's luminescence. This is why this is such an important factor, which C-14 leaves out of it's calculations. The older an object is, the less reliable C-14 becomes.

In light of this, I think this is worth bringing up one more time:

1) As mentioned before, a change in mass in even as low as what was mentioned before, due to it's massive size, would at least be significant enough that C-14 must acknowledge it.

2) The calculations that were used earlier to suggest that the sun's output was negligable were flawed; they were steady rates, instead of rates that increased for each year we went back.
Thus, if we were to calculate the sun's output 50,000 years ago on an ascending scale (which is more accurate) instead of a steady rate, we'd come up with a much higher figure for the change in the sun's mass from 50,000 years ago.

Why don't you go ahead and do the math and let us know what the results are. You keep making statements about these effects. Why not show us the math on which they are based. What was the % change in mass of the sun 50,000 years ago? How much would it affect the suns output? Surely you must have done this work? You are after all the one making claims that can only be based on these calculations.

C-14 however, doesn't factor this in at all.

Yes it does. Just not in the way you think it needs to. You are demonstrating that you don't understand the dating method.

These factors make C-14 dating more and more unreliable the older a sample is.

Calibration deals with all of this shinbits. The original supposed assumption that the atmosphere had consistent levels of C14 is not used so your entire point and criticism is an invalid one. It simply isn't a concern.

 

[Nooj]

Other rocks mixing with the sample or mixing with the rock it was found in, before the buried organism hardened as a fossil, due to floods, rain, or other factors.

If I learnt anything from my Questions about Evolution thread, only igneous rocks are dated radiometrically. The igneous rock above and below the fossil is dated, and not the sedimentary rock the fossil is found in.

 

[shinbits]

Why don't you go ahead and do the math and let us know what the results are. You keep making statements about these effects. Why not show us the math on which they are based. What was the % change in mass of the sun 50,000 years ago?

You'd have to know what the total mass of the sun was at it's beginning. That is impossible to know for sure. People have tried to show what it might be, but it's not possible to know how big the sun really was.

What we can know for sure, is that if it were possible to know, the calculations that have been done for it on this thread were flawed, and should show a higher percentage then what they came up with, since they were using constant rates instead of steadily rising rates.

Yes it does. Just not in the way you think it needs to.

Are u saying the callibrations do not include the fact that the sun had more mass the more years we go back in time?

What exactly do these callibrations include? I'm sure you'd be glad to share.

 

[shinbits]

If I learnt anything from my Questions about Evolution thread, only igneous rocks are dated radiometrically. The igneous rock above and below the fossil is dated, and not the sedimentary rock the fossil is found in.

Remember, all rocks are made up of some sort of sediment.

The rock around the fossil took time to form. during that time, weathering and the elements would affect the rocks as they formed, via flood, rain, etc. During these natural events, water would wash elements in and out of the rocks that would be in the process of forming. This process would also mix the different rock sediments around the fossil, as it formed.

 

[notto]

What exactly do these callibrations include? I'm sure you'd be glad to share.

Callibration is done by directly measuring the ratio in samples of a known age. It is a direct measurement of the ratio in the past that is used for the dating process. This measurement is then used to match to the sample that is being dated to find the matching point on the callibrated plot to determine its age.

Your original claim that there is an assumption about this ratio in the past atmosphere was mistaken. The assumption is never made because we can directly measure it.

That is why all your talk of the sun is a futile attempt. We don't need to know what the sun's output is or was.

 

[notto]

Remember, all rocks are made up of some sort of sediment.

Not the rocks that are dated. They are volcanic.

The rock around the fossil took time to form. during that time, weathering and the elements would affect the rocks as they formed, via flood, rain, etc. During these natural events, water would wash elements in and out of the rocks that would be in the process of forming. This process would also mix the different rock sediments around the fossil, as it formed.

Sedimentary rock is not what is dated. Uneroded volcanic rock is what is dated. Several samples are taken from deep inside undisturbed volcanic rock so weathering, etc is not a factor. These rocks are not weathered and are not exposed to the elements.

You are again showing that you don't understand how the methods work yet you feel free to criticize them and show your ignorance.

You are a great creationist.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

http://www.regulusastro.com/regulus/papers/stars/

"The more massive the star, the more light output it generates, and the more hydrogen burning there must be to counteract the gravitational potential for collapse."

The sun's mass is directly proportional to it's luminescence. This is why this is such an important factor, which C-14 leaves out of it's calculations. The older an object is, the less reliable C-14 becomes.

In light of this, I think this is worth bringing up one more time:

Since you don't seem to be getting the point let me do the math for you based on your number for mass loss.

Mass lost per second 4,500,000 tons
Seconds per year 31.536,000
Seconds per 50,000 years 1,576.800,000,000 (1.5768 x 10^12)

Mass lost in 50,000 years 7.1 x 10^18 tons

Assume the Mass of the sun today is 2x10^27 tons

Mass of sun today
2.000000000 x 10^27 tons

Mass of sun 50,000 years ago
2.0000000071 x 10^27 tons

Percent change in the sun's mass in 50,000 years

0.00000035%

If the only factor in the suns luminosity were its mass that luminosity today would be 99.99999965% of what it was 50,000 years ago.

Now please stop repeating this incorrect argument.

 

[Micaiah]

Carbon 14 dating is used to date living things thousands, not the millions of years old. The dating method relies on the the ratio of C14 to C12 in the sample being tested.

The half life of C24 is about 5730 years. A quater life is therefore 11460 years. Anything over 500000 years old should theoretically have no remaining C14.

Some things that affect the dating method are as follows:

- Plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing C14.

-The ratio of C14/C12 in the atmosphere has not been constant.

- It needs to be calibrated against historical articles whose age is known.

- The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth’s atmosphere.

- The energy of the earth’s magnetic field.

- The Genesis flood.

- Volcanic activity.

Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.6 Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for example, very discordant ‘dates’ for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.7

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3663

 

[shinbits]

Since you don't seem to be getting the point let me do the math for you based on your number for mass loss.

Frumious, these calculations are done assuming a constant rate, which wouldn't be the case.

If we started from 50,000 years ago, the amount of mass the sun would be losing would be higher, since it had more mass to lose. As it loses mass, obviously, it has less mass to lose, so the rate descends with time.

For example, a giant star (our sun is just a medium sized star) would be losing far more mass the the sun would, per second. Over time, the amount of mass it loses decends, since it's getting smaller.

Understand? The same is going on with our sun. The amount of mass the sun loses must increase as you factor in each year.


That's where your calculations are wrong. They are NOT doing that. If they were, you'd see that the sun's output was significantly higher 50,000 years ago, and is a huge consideration if C-14 is to be used.

 

[shinbits]

Sedimentary rock is not what is dated. Uneroded volcanic rock is what is dated.

That type of rock would be softer then other types, and easier for water to wash in and out of. This process would also sift throught the rock.

The problem is the same.

 

[Micaiah]

DO you have any references to support the claims you make concerning the sun. In particular that the amount of C14 is significantly affected by the changes to the sun.

From what I've seen, it is correct to assert that the sun is getting brighter as its energy is depleted.

Have a look here:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/554

 

[notto]

That type of rock would be softer then other types, and easier for water to wash in and out of.

You're not familiar with igneous rock, are you.

The problem is the same.

That is why many samples are used throughout an area. Sample selection is done carefully to select rocks that are not affected by the things you claim. If the things you claim were as critical as you make them out to be, we wouldn't see the consistency that we do see across samples and in different areas.

Your objections seem to be unfounded and based on you simply making them up as you go.

You are a great creationist.

I think the point of this thread has been made.

Creationists who object to the dating methods are unfamiliar with the things they are criticizing and yet still feel free to make unsupported claims based on this ignorance.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Frumious, these calculations are done assuming a constant rate, which wouldn't be the case.

If we started from 50,000 years ago, the amount of mass the sun would be losing would be higher, since it had more mass to lose. As it loses mass, obviously, it has less mass to lose, so the rate descends with time.

For example, a giant star (our sun is just a medium sized star) would be losing far more mass the the sun would, per second. Over time, the amount of mass it loses decends, since it's getting smaller.

Understand? The same is going on with our sun. The amount of mass the sun loses must increase as you factor in each year.


That's where your calculations are wrong. They are NOT doing that. If they were, you'd see that the sun's output was significantly higher 50,000 years ago, and is a huge consideration if C-14 is to be used.

Where do you get the idea that the sun was burning mass significantly faster just 50,000 years ago? It is nonsense. 50,000 years is a tiny fraction of the life of the sun. My calculations are not incorrect. The sun's output has been close to constant for billions of years. There small cyclic fluctuations in the suns intensity with the solar cycle but they are not the reason that C14 dates need to be calculated. Your tenacity in clinging to an easily refuted argument is quite amazing.

Even in another 5 billion years the sun will have nearly the mass it does today as you can read here.

In other words, the Sun's mass at the end of its lifetime is 99.966% of its current mass. See.. nothing to worry about!

BTW luminosity of stars increases with time rather than decreasing but the effect is not significant for a star like the sun over such a short period as 50,000 years.

Added in edit. I hadn't read KerrMetrics posts when I made this reply. Shibits you have now been given thorough refutation of this argument by people who know far more about the subject than you. You have provided nothing to back up your claims here and you can't even begin to. Please, just this once admit that you are wrong. Let go of a totally refuted argument and move on to the rest of the discussion.

 

[Micaiah]

An interesting read on dating of rocks:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/470

The guidebook’s appendix explains ‘geological time and the ages of rocks.’ It describes how geologists use field relationships to determine the relative ages of rocks. It also says that the ‘actual’ ages are measured by radiometric dating—an expensive technique performed in modern laboratories. The guide describes a number of radiometric methods and states that for ‘suitable specimens the errors involved in radiometric dating usually amount to several percent of the age result. Thus … a result of two hundred million years is expected to be quite close (within, say, 4 million) to the true age.’
.
.
.
Townsville geology is dominated by a number of prominent granitic mountains and hills. However, these are isolated from each other, and the area lacks significant sedimentary strata. We therefore cannot determine the field relationships and thus cannot be sure which hills are older and which are younger. In fact, the constraints on the ages are such that there is a very large range possible.

We would expect that radiometric dating, being allegedly so ‘accurate,’ would rescue the situation and provide exact ages for each of these hills. Apparently, this is not so.

Concerning the basement volcanic rocks in the area, the guidebook says, ‘Their exact age remains uncertain.’ About Frederick Peak, a rhyolite ring dyke in the area, it says, ‘Their age of emplacement is not certain.’ And for Castle Hill, a prominent feature in the city of Townsville, the guidebook says, ‘The age of the granite is unconfirmed.’

No doubt, radiometric dating has been carried out and precise ‘dates’ have been obtained. It seems they have not been accepted because they were not meaningful.

 

[notto]

An interesting read on dating of rocks:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/470

No doubt, radiometric dating has been carried out and precise ‘dates’ have been obtained. It seems they have not been accepted because they were not meaningful.

I have considerable doubt that dating has been carried out in these places. The authors conclusions on what testing has been done are premature and unsupported. From the looks of it, he didn't even bother to check and is using a 15 year old field guide designed for laymen as his source.

Is this really the best creationists can do?