YECs Explain Dating Methods

[Baggins]

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.

Good grief man, why don't you do a simple google before you post, it would save you coming across as an ignoramus which is what happens when anybody with even a cursory knowledge of geology reads posts like this.

 

[Nooj]

This gives the impression that radiometric dating is very precise and very reliable—the impression generally held by the public. However, the appendix concludes with this qualification: ‘Also, the relative ages [of the radiometric dating results] must always be consistent with the geological evidence. … if a contradiction occurs, then the cause of the error needs to be established or the radiometric results are unacceptable’.


This is exactly what our main article explains. Radiometric dates are only accepted if they agree with what geologists already believe the age should be.

The site jumps to conclusions. The field guide says that the ages must be consistent of the geologic evidence. Of course it must be.

And then the site tries to twist the field guide's words into 'radiometric dates are only accepted if they agree with geologist's beliefs'.

How do you go from 'geologic evidence' to 'geologist's assumptions'?

 

[Micaiah]

Read the rest of the article for a full discussion on the way in which a geologists assumptions affect the date assigned to rock.

 

[notto]

Read the rest of the article for a full discussion on the way in which a geologists assumptions affect the date assigned to rock.

Which assumption do you think is most damaging and why?

 

[Micaiah]

The whole article gives an illustration of the type of thing that goes on in a geologists mind as he dates rocks. I agree that it is not a rigorous scientific treatment on the topic. It does raise awareness of the issues.

Are you suggesting that some of this is unrealistic and why?

 

[notto]

The whole article gives an illustration of the type of thing that goes on in a geologists mind as he dates rocks. I agree that it is not a rigorous scientific treatment on the topic. It does raise awareness of the issues.

Are you suggesting that some of this is unrealistic and why?

I just have yet to see a credible criticizing of dating methods. The consistency across independent and unrelated lines of evidence shows the methods work fairly well. Creationists (as shown in this thread) talk about assumptions that are not assumptions at all and don't address the consistency and how issues are dealt with. The article never explains why, if there are so many problems, that independent lines of evidence come to the same results so often and consistently. The criticism is based on minor issues that are not really issues overall.

Any article that ends the way the one you linked to certainly can't be considered an objective review of the methodology of dating methods. It basically rests on a faulting line of reasoning and an absurd statement of limitation.

The only foolproof method for determining the age of something is based on eyewitness reports and a written record.

When creationists say things like this is shows their absurdity. Eyewitness reports and written records over empirical data from independent lines of evidence? No court would buy it, why should we?

 

[Baggins]

Read the rest of the article for a full discussion on the way in which a geologists assumptions affect the date assigned to rock.

Where is the assumption in multiple comparable radiometric dates for a rock.

The only one I can think of is that decay rates have stayed constant, so the assumption is that the basic laws of physics stay the same. Without that assumption science cannot work.

Your statement is ridiculous, geologists assume that older rocks lie below younger rocks ( unless there is intensive folding or thrusting ) why wouldn't they.

What assumptions can possibly affect the age of a rock gained from radiometric dating?

 

[KerrMetric]

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.

There is no point talking to you about this.

The Sun's luminosity was LESS in the past than now even though the mass was slightly greater.

Either way the differences were negligible.

You went to a website that told you how mass effects the luminosity of stars on the ZAMS - zero age main sequence. This does NOT give you how the luminosity changes over time.

The Sun is about 30% more luminous (yes MORE) than it was 4.5 billion years ago. The change in the last million years is utterly negligible and also in the opposite sense you are claiming anyway.


There are many factors at play here. Yes, the luminosity is mass dependent BUT it is also dependent upon the mean molecular weight of the energy generating region. This is actually a more sensitive function than the mass effect and IN THE OPPOSITE sense. As the hydrogen is converted to helium the mean molecular weight increases. Thus over time the increase in this means the luminosity goes up not down due to the mass loss.

But any of these effects are so small over the short times (50,000 years, heck even 50 million years) that they can be ignored.

 

[shinbits]

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.

I agree totally. I don't disagree with radio-metric dating on just plain volcanic rocks. The problem I'm adressing is when people claim to have used this method for fossils. It is then, that the factors of weathering are a huge consideration. Fossils cannot be accurately dated with radiometric dating. Regular rocks, yes, but not fossils.

I mentioned that this was what I was refering to earlier in this thread.

 

[Valkhorn]

I agree totally. I don't disagree with radio-metric dating on just plain volcanic rocks. The problem I'm adressing is when people claim to have used this method for fossils. It is then, that the factors of weathering are a huge consideration. Fossils cannot be accurately dated with radiometric dating. Regular rocks, yes, but not fossils.

I mentioned that this was what I was refering to earlier in this thread.

A: Weathering has nothing to do with effecting radiometric decay.

B: Rocks can be weathered just as much as fossils

C: Do you even have a point?

 

[shinbits]

The Sun's luminosity was LESS in the past than now even though the mass was slightly greater.

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 has loss trillions of tons of mass over thousands of years. That means that at one point, the sun's light output was more then what is now.

You went to a website that told you how mass effects the luminosity of stars on the ZAMS - zero age main sequence. This does NOT give you how the luminosity changes over time.

never claimed it did.

There are many factors at play here. Yes, the luminosity is mass dependent BUT it is also dependent upon the mean molecular weight of the energy generating region.

I'm not at all down playing the role of hydrogen conversion. But you seem to be down playing the role that the sun's mass has on it's luminosity. Ignoring that is part of what makes C-14 dating unreliable.

But ignoring the sun's mass and it's increasing energy output as we go back in time is not something you can just gloss over. This directly affects the amount of light coming into the earth.

 

[shinbits]

Good grief man, why don't you do a simple google before you post, it would save you coming across as an ignoramus which is what happens when anybody with even a cursory knowledge of geology reads posts like this.

By "softer" I was refering to when it was first hardening, and was a more liquid form. "Softer" was a bad word.

I was making the point, that at this point, different elements can move about the liquid form of volcanic rock more easily then it could with other rocks. Different elements would more easily shift around in this liquid form, then with regular sediment.

 

[Nooj]

The problem I'm adressing is when people claim to have used this method for fossils.

Radiometric dating is not used for fossils, unless there is enough organic material left over for carbon-14 dating. Even then, it's only accurate enough for 50,000 years.

It is then, that the factors of weathering are a huge consideration.

Why? Weathering does not effect the half-lives of isotopes. It could probably effect the quantity of isotopes in the rock, but the change would be miniscule.

Some doubters have tried to dismiss geologic dating with a sleight of hand by saying that no rocks are completely closed systems (that is, that no rocks are so isolated from their surroundings that they have not lost or gained some of the isotopes used for dating). Speaking from an extreme technical viewpoint this might be true--perhaps 1 atom out of 1,000,000,000,000 of a certain isotope has leaked out of nearly all rocks, but such a change would make an immeasurably small change in the result. The real question to ask is, "is the rock sufficiently close to a closed system that the results will be same as a really closed system?" Since the early 1960s many books have been written on this subject. These books detail experiments showing, for a given dating system, which minerals work all of the time, which minerals work under some certain conditions, and which minerals are likely to lose atoms and give incorrect results. Understanding these conditions is part of the science of geology. Geologists are careful to use the most reliable methods whenever possible, and as discussed above, to test for agreement between different methods.

Fossils cannot be accurately dated with radiometric dating. Regular rocks, yes, but not fossils.

Of course. Do you have an example of scientists dating fossils directly with radiometric dating?

 

[shinbits]

In a nutshell:

C-14:

1) Doesn't account for the luminosity of the sun, with an output rate that steadily increases over time.

2) Is usually downplayed by evolutionists, with a measurement that uses constant rate, instead of an increasing one. That is flawed.
If an increasing rate was used, then a much higher result for the possible output of the sun thousands of years ago would be reached.


Radiometric dating (in terms of fossils):

1) Has to many variables, such as rain, flooding, etc.

2) Can also pick up elements before it hardens, which can severly throw off the accurate age when the parent/daughter ratios are factored.


These are the problems with these methods of dating.

 

[shinbits]

Radiometric dating is not used for fossils, unless there is enough organic material left over for carbon-14 dating. Even then, it's only accurate enough for 50,000 years.

Agreed. I've never had a disagreement this.

Why? Weathering does not effect the half-lives of isotopes. It could probably effect the quantity of isotopes in the rock, but the change would be miniscule.

When weathering adds or subtracts either the parent or daughter elements, the ratio is tainted.

Of course. Do you have an example of scientists dating fossils directly with radiometric dating?

I've heard people on this board bring up radiometric dating in relation to fossils. Again, I don't disagree with it if it's only used for plain rocks. But I don't agree that it is good for dating fossils.

I didn't realize that some of you agree that it's not for dating fossils. I wouldn't have brought it up otherwise.

 

[Nooj]

When weathering adds or subtracts either the parent or daughter elements, the ratio is tainted.

The difference is negligible.

I've heard people on this board bring up radiometric dating in relation to fossils.

This is what you wrote before:

The problem I'm adressing is when people claim to have used this method for fossils.

'When people claim to have used this method' and 'I've heard people bringing up the issue' are two totally different things. I got the impression that you were talking about actual scientists using radiometric dating on fossils. If you can't find an example of a scientist doing this, don't backtrack. It's painfully obvious.

Again, I don't disagree with it if it's only used for plain rocks. But I don't agree that it is good for dating fossils.

That's always been the stance of geologists. It's good that we're in agreement.

 

[dlamberth]

I've heard people on this board bring up radiometric dating in relation to fossils. Again, I don't disagree with it if it's only used for plain rocks. But I don't agree that it is good for dating fossils.

I don't think any geologist or paleontologist would disagree with you.

.

 

[shinbits]

The difference is negligible.

This is now just a "nuh-uh" statement.

This is what you wrote before:

'When people claim to have used this method' and 'I've heard people bringing up the issue' are two totally different things. I got the impression that you were talking about actual scientists using radiometric dating on fossils.

How?

Right. I forget you're just fifteen.

That's always been the stance of geologists. It's good that we're in agreement.

Right on.

 

[shinbits]

I don't think any geologist or paleontologist would disagree with you.

.

Okay. In light of the fact that most people agree that is isn't usable for fossils, I have no problem whatsoever with radiometric dating.

C-14, however, is flawed, for all the reasons mentioned above.

 

[dlamberth]

Okay. In light of the fact that most people agree that is isn't usable for fossils, I have no problem whatsoever with radiometric dating.

C-14, however, is flawed, for all the reasons mentioned above.

In your mind, how do you think the process goes when a paleontologist dates an old fossil bone or plant?

.