CF210

[Bryan Wise]

About Claim CF210 (Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates), I would like
to suggest an additional point: even assuming a variable rate of
decay, radiometric dating would certainly show relative ages, as decay
would be much more advanced in dinosaur fossils than in even the
oldest hominid fossils.

[Mike Dworetsky]

Variable rates are not observed in reactions used for dating, and are pretty
much ruled out by atomic theory, yet variable rates are invoked as special
pleading by creationists, so this probably would not be wise. They would
regard it as some sort of admission of weaknesses in the radio-dating.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Arkalen]

It sort of depends on what the variation is, doesn't it ? If it's purely
temporal then that could work, but if it's spatial or varies along any
other dimension then radiometric dating wouldn't show relative ages either.

[Ron O]

If something like that was left out, mention of it is probably a good
thing. The problem is that the anti evolution types are the guys that
have to look at the consistent dates derived using isotopes with
different decay rates in the same rock and come up with an excuse for
how that could happen. Do you think that they care about the relative
age that variable decay rates would gives them?

They also reject the notion of superposition in geology. What is not
relative about that?

Ron Okimoto

[TomS]

"On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:43:21 +0100, in article
<sln*xv...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Arkalen stated..."

The claim seems to be that there might be some inexactitude in the
measurement of decay rates, and therefore any reference to decay
rates is totally unreliable.

Rather like noting that my alarm clock doesn't give the time to
a fraction of a second, and therefore I can't rely on it to wake
me up on time.


--
---Tom S.
"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)

[jillery]

As you likely know, Creationist claims about radiometric dating are
another traditional grasping of straws. IIUC most of their evidence
for variable decay rates is better explained by contamination from
external sources. This is a recognized problem, for which there are
known methods to detect and mitigate its effects, but it's not the
same problem as variable decay rates.

Creationists often focus on the alleged unreliability of radiocarbon
dating, and to their embarrassment, often confuse the two issues. The
production of environmental C14, on which radiocarbon dating relies,
is continuous and varies somewhat over time. These variations are
known and accounted for by cross-referencing results with other dating
methods, ex. dendrochronology.

The Creationist claims about radiocarbon dating are separately indexed
in the CD000 series.

Unrelated to this issue itself, when I looked up CF210 to remind
myself what it actually said, I was also reminded that Mark Isaak is
the editor of the List of Creationist Claims. Presumably this is the
same Mark Isaak who also posts to this newsgroup, and I am remiss in
not explicitly noting his efforts to create and maintain a valuable
public resource.

[jillery]

Creationists are very good at imagining such admissions and
weaknesses, but not so good at acknowledging their corrections.

[Bob Casanova]

On 25 Apr 2012 04:58:15 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com>:

>"On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:43:21 +0100, in article
><sln*xv...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Arkalen stated..."
>>
>>On 25/04/12 08:36, Bryan Wise wrote:
>>> About Claim CF210 (Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates), I would like
>>> to suggest an additional point: even assuming a variable rate of
>>> decay, radiometric dating would certainly show relative ages, as decay
>>> would be much more advanced in dinosaur fossils than in even the
>>> oldest hominid fossils.
>>>
>>It sort of depends on what the variation is, doesn't it ? If it's purely
>>temporal then that could work, but if it's spatial or varies along any
>>other dimension then radiometric dating wouldn't show relative ages either.
>>
>
>The claim seems to be that there might be some inexactitude in the
>measurement of decay rates, and therefore any reference to decay
>rates is totally unreliable.
>
>Rather like noting that my alarm clock doesn't give the time to
>a fraction of a second, and therefore I can't rely on it to wake
>me up on time.

I like that analogy, although I'd argue against accepting
the original claim, even provisionally, until/unless the
claimants provide *detailed* data.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Mark Isaak]

Problem is, when creationists claim that decay rates are inconstant,
they do not claim that they vary in any reliable way. In one instance,
for example, they claim that the dating of the Shroud of Turin, and only
the Shroud of Turin, was altered by some sort of energy when Christ was
resurrected. Or they say that rates might be affected by cosmic rays,
and so presumably depend on how deep something was buried when they rays
came by. So maintaining relative ages cannot be concluded.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[TomS]

"On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:52:39 -0700, in article
<jna2o8$m69$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Mark Isaak stated..."

>
>On 4/25/12 12:36 AM, Bryan Wise wrote:
>> About Claim CF210 (Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates), I would like
>> to suggest an additional point: even assuming a variable rate of
>> decay, radiometric dating would certainly show relative ages, as decay
>> would be much more advanced in dinosaur fossils than in even the
>> oldest hominid fossils.
>
>Problem is, when creationists claim that decay rates are inconstant,
>they do not claim that they vary in any reliable way. In one instance,
>for example, they claim that the dating of the Shroud of Turin, and only
>the Shroud of Turin, was altered by some sort of energy when Christ was
>resurrected. Or they say that rates might be affected by cosmic rays,
>and so presumably depend on how deep something was buried when they rays
>came by. So maintaining relative ages cannot be concluded.
>

And then there is the claim of the Anthropic Principle: if
certain physical values were even slightly different, then human
life would be impossible. (And thus that these values had to have
been intelligently determined.) If radioactive decay rates were so
variable, then life as we know it would be impossible.