Reliability of Radiometric Dating
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu
Prof. Hershey argued that the mass of old radiometric dates refutes
young earth creationism.
Let me give some reasons for questioning whether radiometric dates are
accurate. IF anyone can correct me I'd appreciate it.
It is known that radiometric decay byproducts such as argon and helium
are mobile in rock. In addition, many of the parent and daughter
elements are water soluble. So if a rock has tiny cracks permitting
gas to enter or escape or permitting the flow of water, the
radiometric ages could be changed substantially even without the rock
ever melting or mixing.
For example, suppose that 1/300,000 of the argon in a rock escapes in
one day. Then in 1000 years the rock will have less than 1/(2.7) of
its original argon. In 5000 years the rock will have less than
1/(2.7^5) of its original argon. Now, there is probably not much
argon in a rock to start with. So detecting that a rock has lost only
1/300,000 of its argon in an entire day of sitting in a laboratory
measuring instrument would seem to be most difficult. One would also
not know whether the lost argon was present in the rock initially or
had entered since the rock was dug up.
In a similar way, argon could enter the rock from the air or from
surrounding rocks. Either way, its radiometric age would be
substantially altered. And this can also happen by water flowing
through the rock through tiny cracks, dissolving parent and daughter
elements. It would be difficult to measure the tiny changes in
concentration that would suffice to make large changes in the
radiometric ages over long time periods.
This leads me to believe that it is very unlikely that radiometric
dating would yield any kind of a meaningful age most of the time.
Isochrons do not solve the problem either, because there can be
processes producing false isochrons by gases entering and leaving the
rock as I mentioned earlier. And if the individual ages are subject
to change as indicated above. the isochrons must be affected somehow.
As for meteorites, the entry into the atmosphere should produce
tremendous heating and vaporization. This should cause many enclosed
elements to vaporize and either leave the meteorite or be driven
deeper inside. This could either increase or decrease its radiometric
age significantly. In order to account for this, it would probably be
necessary to take many different measurements and pick the most likely
one. Those that are picked might be the ones that tend to agree with
each other. So the agreement in ages between different techniques on
meteorites could be to some extent an accident. I don't know if this
scenario could also yield good isochrons, however.
I'm not necessarily claiming that the meteorites or all of the
radiometric ages are really young, but the above considerations
might explain some of the old ages. If my reasoning is not correct,
I'm sure that someone will correct me, and in fact I'd be most
grateful for that.
wf...@enter.netxx
On 6 Jan 1998 19:44:25 -0500, plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>
>In a similar way, argon could enter the rock from the air or from
>surrounding rocks
now THIS is unlikely. argon is present in the atmosphere at about 1%.
thus any concentration above this would be due to radioactive decay in
the rocks. the decay of parent elements to Ar, with the Ar escaping
would support a YOUNG earth and therefore creationism. we dont see
this happening.
ow.
>
>As for meteorites, the entry into the atmosphere should produce
>tremendous heating and vaporization.
at the surface, yes. larger meteorites, especially rocky one, are not
necessarily heated all the way thru. and we can also tell from the
grain structure of rocks, amino acids present, etc. what temperature
the rock actually saw during its passage thru the atmosphere.
This could either increase or decrease its radiometric
>age significantly.
it would DECREASE it. funny this isnt what we see is it?
==============================================================
official evolutionist 'goon squad' member...
if you want to know who WF3H is, go to the qrz database and
type in 'wf3h' at the prompt.
howard hershey
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>
> Prof. Hershey argued that the mass of old radiometric dates refutes
> young earth creationism.
>
> Let me give some reasons for questioning whether radiometric dates are
> accurate. IF anyone can correct me I'd appreciate it.
The reason that the mass of radiometric dates refutes YEC is because YEC
would predict *particular* results from radiometric dates that are only
seen in an insignificant minority of anomolous readings. The vast
majority of readings are congruent with the great age of the earth and
different ages for different layers within the geological column. The
accuracy of any one reading can be questioned. There are occassional
anomolies in any measurement method. Sometimes the anomoly can be
explained as due to a violation of one of the assumptions of the method,
sometimes it can't. Anomolies, however, *by definition*, must be
relatively rare. Indeed, the methodology would not be useful if
anomolies were common. And, unless you *specifically* search for
samples that are *known* to violate one of the assumptions in the method
(e.g., by specifically choosing minerals known to be subject to leaching
or intrusion), anomolies in radiodating are rare. When multiple
readings agree and different isotopic methods agree and when isochrons
(which obviate the problems you describe below, BTW) agree with the
expectations of one interpretation (old earth) *and* specifically
disagree with another interpretation (young earth), one either accepts
the judgement of nature or one comes up with a reason (typically by
finding a hidden assumption in the method) that shows how the apparently
refuted explanation can still be congruent with the *mass* of evidence.
Saying that there are occassional anomolous results in applying the
method because of *known* assumptions in the method doesn't cut it. You
have to somehow convert the *mass* of evidence into somehow being
congruent with your favored explanation.
> It is known that radiometric decay byproducts such as argon and helium
> are mobile in rock. In addition, many of the parent and daughter
> elements are water soluble. So if a rock has tiny cracks permitting
> gas to enter or escape or permitting the flow of water, the
> radiometric ages could be changed substantially even without the rock
> ever melting or mixing.
That is "mobile in *some* rocks". This is a *known* assumption in the
method, and means that you don't use rocks that are known to be
especially porous for simple radiodating (or isochrons).
>
> For example, suppose that 1/300,000 of the argon in a rock escapes in
> one day. Then in 1000 years the rock will have less than 1/(2.7) of
> its original argon. In 5000 years the rock will have less than
> 1/(2.7^5) of its original argon. Now, there is probably not much
> argon in a rock to start with. So detecting that a rock has lost only
> 1/300,000 of its argon in an entire day of sitting in a laboratory
> measuring instrument would seem to be most difficult. One would also
> not know whether the lost argon was present in the rock initially or
> had entered since the rock was dug up.
Please note what the effect of such a loss would be on the apparent age
of the rock. Would it give a false 'younger' age or a false 'older'
age? How would this particular error (loss of Ar) support a young earth
thesis?
>
> In a similar way, argon could enter the rock from the air or from
> surrounding rocks. Either way, its radiometric age would be
> substantially altered. And this can also happen by water flowing
> through the rock through tiny cracks, dissolving parent and daughter
> elements. It would be difficult to measure the tiny changes in
> concentration that would suffice to make large changes in the
> radiometric ages over long time periods.
Yes. These *known* problems in the methodology can happen in particular
rocks. That they don't happen in all (or even most) rocks should also
be obvious. If they did, one would get results that would be a function
of surface area, distance to the interior, time of exposure to water, Ar
levels in water, etc. instead of time of formation of the rock. But the
problem of determining the amount of initial daughter isotope is an
important *known* assumption of simple radiodating. Isochron dates,
however, do not dependent upon knowning the amount of daughter isotopes.
>
> This leads me to believe that it is very unlikely that radiometric
> dating would yield any kind of a meaningful age most of the time.
And yet the mass of measurements (several different simple radiometric
measurements and isochron measurements) do produce *meaningful*
results. Specifically, they produce ages congruent with about 4.3
billion for the age of the earth and appropriate lesser ages for
different geological layers. Specifically they also produce results
inconsistent with the expectations of YEC (even most of the anomolous
results are inconsistent with YEC expectations). So your 'belief' is
refuted by the evidence.
> Isochrons do not solve the problem either, because there can be
> processes producing false isochrons by gases entering and leaving the
> rock as I mentioned earlier. And if the individual ages are subject
> to change as indicated above. the isochrons must be affected somehow.
Have you read Chris Stassen's Faq yet? The typical effect of leaching
would not be a false isochron, it would be an unreadable isochron.
>
> As for meteorites, the entry into the atmosphere should produce
> tremendous heating and vaporization. This should cause many enclosed
> elements to vaporize and either leave the meteorite or be driven
> deeper inside.
A known assumption of the method. But only the outer surface is heated
significantly. And any internal effect would be dependent on the
distance from the exterior. Thus the effect you mention (if it is
really a problem) could be simply avoided.
> This could either increase or decrease its radiometric
> age significantly.
If that were the case, one would not get consistent results when one
compares one meteorite with another. You do.
> In order to account for this, it would probably be
> necessary to take many different measurements and pick the most likely
> one.
Any evidence for this conspiracy of silence?
> Those that are picked might be the ones that tend to agree with
> each other.
So the best explanation is that scientists who are supposedly
disinterestedly trying to find out the age of meteorites are
intentionally picking and choosing the samples just happen to meet the
criteria of 4.3 billion years. [I knew my fellow conspirators would get
caught, just like they did when they faked the moon landing. What gave
you your first clue?]
> So the agreement in ages between different techniques on
> meteorites could be to some extent an accident. I don't know if this
> scenario could also yield good isochrons, however.
>
> I'm not necessarily claiming that the meteorites or all of the
> radiometric ages are really young, but the above considerations
> might explain some of the old ages. If my reasoning is not correct,
> I'm sure that someone will correct me, and in fact I'd be most
> grateful for that.
You reasoning is not correct. The mass of radiodating data has been
reported fairly accurately in the scientific literature, including the
anomolous points. Geologists do not go around dating 100s of rocks and
only keep the dates that, by chance or fortuitous circumstance, meet
some *a priori* expectation. Anomolous results (incongruent with
current standard interpretation) represent probably much less than 10%
of all samples or data points taken (and that includes cases where the
machine broke down or where there is a contaminant or problem obvious
only after measurement and cases where geologists were specifically
looking at the types of rocks that are known to give anomolies because
they violate known assumptions of the method). These anomolies, in
total, certainly do *not* represent the majority of data points. And it
is the majority of data points that you must explain as being congruent
with your explanation or incongruent with another explanation, not the
anomolies. Thank you for your undying gratitude. :-)
BTW, I would go with the conspiracy theory. It is the only one that
works for your cause. Say that geologists are purposely discarding all
the tons of rocks presenting data that show a recent age for rocks from
all geological strata. Anytime they see a flat isochron or a rock with
no entrapped Ar, they immediately throw it away. Funny how the ICR has
not been able to discover this conspiracy by measuring a sample of the
same types of rocks as geologists do. They must have to rely on labs
that are part of the conspiracy.
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu
>From hers...@indiana.edu Wed Jan 7 09:21:50 1998
>Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 09:24:43 +0000
>From: howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu>
>Subject: Re: Reliability of Radiometric Dating
I don't see how one can possibly know that there are no tiny cracks
in rocks that would permit water and gas to circulate. The rates
of exchange that would mess up the dates are very tiny.
>>
>> For example, suppose that 1/300,000 of the argon in a rock escapes in
>> one day. Then in 1000 years the rock will have less than 1/(2.7) of
>> its original argon. In 5000 years the rock will have less than
>> 1/(2.7^5) of its original argon. Now, there is probably not much
>> argon in a rock to start with. So detecting that a rock has lost only
>> 1/300,000 of its argon in an entire day of sitting in a laboratory
>> measuring instrument would seem to be most difficult. One would also
>> not know whether the lost argon was present in the rock initially or
>> had entered since the rock was dug up.
>Please note what the effect of such a loss would be on the apparent age
>of the rock. Would it give a false 'younger' age or a false 'older'
>age? How would this particular error (loss of Ar) support a young earth
>thesis?
It would make the dates younger. But entering argon would make the
dates older.
>>
>> In a similar way, argon could enter the rock from the air or from
>> surrounding rocks. Either way, its radiometric age would be
>> substantially altered. And this can also happen by water flowing
>> through the rock through tiny cracks, dissolving parent and daughter
>> elements. It would be difficult to measure the tiny changes in
>> concentration that would suffice to make large changes in the
>> radiometric ages over long time periods.
>Yes. These *known* problems in the methodology can happen in particular
>rocks. That they don't happen in all (or even most) rocks should also
>be obvious. If they did, one would get results that would be a function
>of surface area, distance to the interior, time of exposure to water, Ar
>levels in water, etc. instead of time of formation of the rock. But the
This is indirect reasoning and does not inspire much confidence on
my part.
>problem of determining the amount of initial daughter isotope is an
>important *known* assumption of simple radiodating. Isochron dates,
>however, do not dependent upon knowning the amount of daughter isotopes.
>>
>> This leads me to believe that it is very unlikely that radiometric
>> dating would yield any kind of a meaningful age most of the time.
>And yet the mass of measurements (several different simple radiometric
>measurements and isochron measurements) do produce *meaningful*
>results. Specifically, they produce ages congruent with about 4.3
>billion for the age of the earth and appropriate lesser ages for
>different geological layers. Specifically they also produce results
Well, of course, the old age of the earth was largely derived from
radiometric ages in the first place, so this seems to be circular
reasoning. But that wouldn't bother me in any case. And the
lesser ages for geological layers does not convince me. It seems
to me to be a certainty that water and gas will enter rocks through
tiny cracks and invalidate almost all radiometric ages.
>inconsistent with the expectations of YEC (even most of the anomolous
>results are inconsistent with YEC expectations). So your 'belief' is
>refuted by the evidence.
But the evidence does not seem to have much convincing power. Or at
least I haven't been convinced yet.
>> Isochrons do not solve the problem either, because there can be
>> processes producing false isochrons by gases entering and leaving the
>> rock as I mentioned earlier. And if the individual ages are subject
>> to change as indicated above. the isochrons must be affected somehow.
>Have you read Chris Stassen's Faq yet? The typical effect of leaching
>would not be a false isochron, it would be an unreadable isochron.
Yes I did look at his FAQ. My article on isochrons, despite all its
faults, explains how this could happen. And in any event, if the
individual dates are affected, which to me seems to be a virtual
certaintly, the isochrons must be, too.
>>
>> As for meteorites, the entry into the atmosphere should produce
>> tremendous heating and vaporization. This should cause many enclosed
>> elements to vaporize and either leave the meteorite or be driven
>> deeper inside.
>A known assumption of the method. But only the outer surface is heated
>significantly. And any internal effect would be dependent on the
>distance from the exterior. Thus the effect you mention (if it is
>really a problem) could be simply avoided.
Well, maybe someone with more access to the data could let us know
how this is actually handled.
>> This could either increase or decrease its radiometric
>> age significantly.
>If that were the case, one would not get consistent results when one
>compares one meteorite with another. You do.
Is it true that all meteorites have the same age? I don't see why
that would be true under conventional assumptions.
>> In order to account for this, it would probably be
>> necessary to take many different measurements and pick the most likely
>> one.
>Any evidence for this conspiracy of silence?
Even you said that the age at the surface might be affected. And
the interior would be heated as well, with who knows what effect
on it. I do know that moon rocks gave a wide scatter of ages and
one was picked near the middle.
>> Those that are picked might be the ones that tend to agree with
>> each other.
>So the best explanation is that scientists who are supposedly
>disinterestedly trying to find out the age of meteorites are
>intentionally picking and choosing the samples just happen to meet the
>criteria of 4.3 billion years. [I knew my fellow conspirators would get
>caught, just like they did when they faked the moon landing. What gave
>you your first clue?]
From their point of view, they are looking for an age, which must be
consistent, so the consistent measurements must be the right ones.
It does not imply conspiracy at all.
>> So the agreement in ages between different techniques on
>> meteorites could be to some extent an accident. I don't know if this
>> scenario could also yield good isochrons, however.
>>
>> I'm not necessarily claiming that the meteorites or all of the
>> radiometric ages are really young, but the above considerations
>> might explain some of the old ages. If my reasoning is not correct,
>> I'm sure that someone will correct me, and in fact I'd be most
>> grateful for that.
>You reasoning is not correct. The mass of radiodating data has been
>reported fairly accurately in the scientific literature, including the
>anomolous points. Geologists do not go around dating 100s of rocks and
>only keep the dates that, by chance or fortuitous circumstance, meet
>some *a priori* expectation. Anomolous results (incongruent with
I'm not claiming that anomalous results are being hidden, just that
the agreement of a mass of results, none of which has much claim to
reliability, does not necessarily mean much.
>current standard interpretation) represent probably much less than 10%
>of all samples or data points taken (and that includes cases where the
>machine broke down or where there is a contaminant or problem obvious
>only after measurement and cases where geologists were specifically
>looking at the types of rocks that are known to give anomolies because
>they violate known assumptions of the method). These anomolies, in
>total, certainly do *not* represent the majority of data points. And it
>is the majority of data points that you must explain as being congruent
>with your explanation or incongruent with another explanation, not the
>anomolies. Thank you for your undying gratitude. :-)
You are welcome.
>BTW, I would go with the conspiracy theory. It is the only one that
>works for your cause. Say that geologists are purposely discarding all
>the tons of rocks presenting data that show a recent age for rocks from
>all geological strata. Anytime they see a flat isochron or a rock with
>no entrapped Ar, they immediately throw it away. Funny how the ICR has
>not been able to discover this conspiracy by measuring a sample of the
>same types of rocks as geologists do. They must have to rely on labs
>that are part of the conspiracy.
I'd prefer not to go with conspiracy when there are much simpler
explanations.
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu
I wanted to respond to another point Prof. Hershey made. He said
that if the earth (or at least life) is young, then fossils and
coal should yield young carbon 14 ages. Creationists have done
carbon 14 dating on fossils and non-creationists have done it on
coal and oil and it typically gives carbon 14 dates of about
20,000 to 30,000 years. The only reason this is not more widely
known seems to be that everyone assumes that fossils are too old
for such a dating method so it is simply not done.
Establishment scientists probably attribute this to contamination,
but every effort has been made in some cases to rule this out.
Such an age poses a problem for the conventional millions of yearss
time scale. For a 6000 year time scale it is less of a problem
because of the dependence of Carbon 14 on atmospheric and
biological conditions.
Chris Stassen
David Plaisted wrote:
> Let me give some reasons for questioning whether radiometric dates
> are accurate. IF anyone can correct me I'd appreciate it.
A word of advice: it is in my opinion a best to study the topic
first and *then* try to criticize it. Your apparent strategy is
to throw out a barrage half-baked criticisms and hope that one
of them will stick. You may get educated fairly quickly this way,
but your credibility will suffer in the process.
> It is known that radiometric decay byproducts such as argon and
> helium are mobile in rock. In addition, many of the parent and
> daughter elements are water soluble. So if a rock has tiny cracks
> permitting gas to enter or escape or permitting the flow of
> water, the radiometric ages could be changed substantially even
> without the rock ever melting or mixing.
Whether it is mobile or not, helium is not relevant. None of the
methods under discussion involves assessment of helium, or the
assumption of its migration or lack thereof. Since this is the
second time you have brought helium up (the first in your web
page), I am curious to know where you got this idea.
Most of the mineral crystals that are dated by these methods are,
under conditions usually found at or near the surface of the
Earth, essentially impermeable to water and the relevant isotopes.
Crystals will have imperfections by which atoms can enter or
leave, but the overwhelming majority of the atoms within the
crystal are trapped within the lattice and cannot migrate (and,
for the same reason, the overwhelming majority of the crystal's
volume is occupied by this lattice and is inaccessible to
materials entering from the outside world). It does not matter
whether the atoms are water-soluble or even inert gases. (Yes,
there are rock and mineral types which are much more permeable.
However, they are recognized as such and the ones used for
isotope dating are usually the ones with the best retention
characteristics.)
Further, some of the methods (such as Ar-Ar) can yield accurate
ages despite even fairly severe argon gain or loss. The reason
is that the argon added/lost will be on or near those accessible
parts of the crystal. That will be outgassed during the early
heating stages. The later heating stages can still yield a
consistent plateau indicating the actual age, because they will
yield the K/Ar ratios of the otherwise inaccessible parts of
the crystal. For example, see Turner (1970), where lunar rocks
which lost more than half of their argon due to heating can *still*
yield precise Ar-Ar ages.
In addition, some of the mineral types and isotopes involved are
*extremely* resistant to alteration. For example, zircon crystals
can be weathered out of an igneous formation, incorporated into
sediment, exposed to sufficient heat and pressure to turn the
sediment into rock... and can *still* retain the U/Pb age of their
original igneous formation. (See for example Faure pp. 302-303.)
Finally, even when minerals are exposed to conditions extreme
enough to allow migration of elements, isochron and similar self-
checking methods will almost always detect this as a matter of
course. Some of the isotope methods are able to ascertain *both*
the original formation time *and* the time of the later metamorphic
event. (For example study U/Pb concordia in Faure pp. 291-299.)
> For example, suppose that 1/300,000 of the argon in a rock escapes
> in one day. Then in 1000 years the rock will have less than 1/(2.7)
> of its original argon. In 5000 years the rock will have less than
> 1/(2.7^5) of its original argon. Now, there is probably not much
> argon in a rock to start with. So detecting that a rock has lost only
> 1/300,000 of its argon in an entire day of sitting in a laboratory
> measuring instrument would seem to be most difficult.
What might seem "most difficult" to you is actually an everyday
occurrence. The primary measurement involved in the assessment
of an Ar-Ar age (Faure chapter 7, pp. 93-111) is an extremely
accurate counting of the argon released by the sample at various
temperatures.
The "blocking temperature" or "closure temperature" of a mineral
type (which is also a function of grain size and potassium-40
content) is *defined* as the temperature at (or below) which argon
loss is insignificant compared to argon accumulation by radioactive
decay. This can be assessed in the lab. (See for example Faure
pp. 82-83 and 108-110.) Your simple calculation is incorrect
because it entirely ignores argon accumulation.
For example, very small (0.2mm to 0.8mm) hornblende grains (Faure
p. 109) had a measured closure temperature of about 700 degrees
Celsius. At any temperature lower than that, argon is retained
sufficiently well to yield a precise, valid age. At 700C, other
minerals will be affected to varying other degrees, and a suite
of measurements across several minerals will tell us the thermal
history of the rock in question. (Heating to that sort of
temperature will also usually leave other non-isotopic traces,
for example altering the physical appearance of the rock.)
In addition, the result of argon loss would be that non-isochron-
equivalent methods (which might not catch the problem) would give
dates that are too *young*. This is no help to the young-Earth
crowd, which is stuck claiming that all of these ages are many
orders of magnitude too *old*.
> In a similar way, argon could enter the rock from the air or
> from surrounding rocks.
The isotopic composition of atmospheric argon is known, is
different from that of radiogenic argon, and if corrected for
as a matter of course in age determinations. (In addition,
this topic was already addressed above.)
> This leads me to believe that it is very unlikely that radiometric
> dating would yield any kind of a meaningful age most of the time.
And, yet, a very large fraction of good-fitting isochrons (in
the range of 95%) are in exact agreement with the mainstream
age and history of the Earth. If (as you claim) these methods
are prone to giving wildly inaccurate results, how is this
explained?
> Isochrons do not solve the problem either, because there can be
> processes producing false isochrons by gases entering and leaving
> the rock as I mentioned earlier.
Probably the most common isochron method is Rb/Sr. Which *gas*
entering or exiting a rock would change an Rb/Sr age? (Rb-87
decays straight to Sr-87 by beta decay; neither is a gas under
conditions found at or near the surface of the Earth.)
> In order to account for this, it would probably be necessary to
> take many different measurements and pick the most likely one.
> Those that are picked might be the ones that tend to agree with
> each other. So the agreement in ages between different techniques
> on meteorites could be to some extent an accident. I don't know
> if this scenario could also yield good isochrons, however.
This is already discussed in the Isochron Dating FAQ, at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html#q6
Some additional points relevant to this specific case:
Not only would this scenario not yield good isochrons for
contaminated samples, it's simply not possible. The number of
meteorites which have even been *subjected* to isotope dating is
fairly small (about 100), and there simply haven't been enough
attempts to explain away the correlation as a "file drawer"
effect.
We could perform similar calculations on moon rocks as well.
The total quantity of lunar materials returned to the Earth is
less than 400kg. These materials are *extremely* closely
guarded and very tightly controlled. They are reserved for all
sorts of other physical and chemical tests; only a tiny fraction
of that material has been subjected to isotope dating. And, yet,
I can give you references (See Dalrymple 1991 chapter 5) to
literally *hundreds* of isochron and isochron-equivalent ages of
lunar rocks which are in precise agreement with the mainstream
age and history of the solar system (and flat-out contradict the
young-Earthers' position). Lame "conspiracy theories" simply
won't work.
> I'm not necessarily claiming that the meteorites or all of
> the radiometric ages are really young, but the above
> considerations might explain some of the old ages.
The problem for the young-Earth crowd is *not* simply having to
explain away one old age (or a small number of old ages). It is
having to explain a *consistent pattern* of ages which are
up to six orders of magnitude out of the range permitted by
their history of the Earth and solar system.
The Isochron Dating FAQ explains why random contamination does
*not* change isochron ages, and why the few known specific kinds
of non-random contamination are both (1) too rare to be of help
to you, and (2) usually can be detected anyway. Pleading to
random contamination is *not* going to be sufficient.
You are going to have to do better than hand-waving about
migration of isotopes. A good start would be demonstrating a
process which can be *expected* to *consistently* yield
non-zero-slope isochrons (which pass mixing and other checks) from
zero-slope ones.
REFERENCES:
Faure, G., 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology (Second Edition).
New York: John Wiley and Sons, ISBN 0-471-86412-9.
Turner, G., 1970. Argon-40/argon-39 dating of lunar rock samples
in Proceedings of the Apollo 11 Lunar Science Conference 2,
pp. 1665-1684.
--
Chris Stassen http://www.stassen.com/chris/
NOTE: The "Reply-To" address of this message is an auto-bounce.
Use "http://www.stassen.com/chris/feedback/submit.html" for private
or offline responses, if you don't know my real E-mail address.
Derek Potter
On 6 Jan 1998 19:44:25 -0500, plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
'>Prof. Hershey argued that the mass of old radiometric dates refutes
'>young earth creationism.
'>
'>Let me give some reasons for questioning whether radiometric dates are
'>accurate. IF anyone can correct me I'd appreciate it.
Just two points:
First: Your figure of 1/300000 loss a day is actually very generous.
make it 1/1000000000 of 1ppm. That's 1e-15 of the rock per day,
or around 100000000 atoms per gram - very easily detected these days.
Secondly; Re errors, look at the statistics of what you would get
in these two scenarios
(Y axis = number of results; X axis = radiometric age)
Scenario 1: Radiometry is crap:
** * *
* * *
*
* ** * *
* * *
---------------------------
Scenario 2: Radiometry is subject to occasional errors:
* :-)
*
* *
**-***-****-*****-***----
hamilton
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>
> Prof. Hershey argued that the mass of old radiometric dates refutes
> young earth creationism.
>
> Let me give some reasons for questioning whether radiometric dates are
> accurate. IF anyone can correct me I'd appreciate it.
Let me note first of all that you did not list a literal
reading of Genesis as one of your reasons for questioning
whether radiometric datings are accurate. This is
the primary motivation of most creationists, and there
is no need to hide ones light under a bushel basket.
> It is known that radiometric decay byproducts such as argon and helium
> are mobile in rock.
Helium is never measured, to my knowledge. Argon is only
relevant to K-Ar dating.
> In addition, many of the parent and daughter
> elements are water soluble. So if a rock has tiny cracks permitting
> gas to enter or escape or permitting the flow of water, the
> radiometric ages could be changed substantially even without the rock
> ever melting or mixing.
Thta's a big if there. Fortunately, different types of minerals
can be tested for various diffusive and leaching properties.
That is what empiricism is all about. It turns out that some
types are porous, some are not.
> For example, suppose that 1/300,000 of the argon in a rock escapes in
> one day. Then in 1000 years the rock will have less than 1/(2.7) of
> its original argon. In 5000 years the rock will have less than
> 1/(2.7^5) of its original argon. Now, there is probably not much
> argon in a rock to start with. So detecting that a rock has lost only
> 1/300,000 of its argon in an entire day of sitting in a laboratory
> measuring instrument would seem to be most difficult. One would also
> not know whether the lost argon was present in the rock initially or
> had entered since the rock was dug up.
First of all, that is a rather high rate of argon loss. Second,
this will make the rock appear younger than it actually is.
So if the rock appears 10,000,000 years it might really be
100,000,000. This dog won't hunt.
> In a similar way, argon could enter the rock from the air or from
> surrounding rocks.
Now this would make rocks appear older than they actually are.
But again, this can be tested. Moreover, the situation is
not symmetric. In general, gasses would much rather not
be in rocks (cracks don't count as being inside the crystal
structure), and the only reason they are seen there in the
first place is that they can't get out after they
are made. Another thing to look at is minerals that
should not have radiogenic argon - how often
do you think argon is found in them?
Underground, the ambient argon concentration would be ridiculously
low.
Then there are the decay series that pass through radon very briefly,
and those that involve no gases at all.
> Either way, its radiometric age would be
> substantially altered.
Yes, but why would two completely different methods agree,
if the conditions for valid dates are not true? Coincidental
rates of contamination (by processes that give rise to
*arbitrary* amounts of contamination) for every sample?
Even for minerals that are very resistant to diffusion
and leaching?
Instead of grabbing this bull by the horns, the creationists
are dodging them.
> And this can also happen by water flowing
> through the rock through tiny cracks, dissolving parent and daughter
> elements. It would be difficult to measure the tiny changes in
> concentration that would suffice to make large changes in the
> radiometric ages over long time periods.
Still dodging.
Also, the isochron method depends on using
*different* minerals, with *different* suceptibilities to
the processes you mention. If these processes are present,
they are *detected* by the isochron method!
Furthermore, leaching should also leaves other evidence behind as well.
Changes in mineral structure or effects of leachate on surroundings.
> This leads me to believe that it is very unlikely that radiometric
> dating would yield any kind of a meaningful age most of the time.
What you are asserting, without any basis, is that contamination
is ubiquitous. Geologists have actually thought about all
of these processes and have done experiments to detect the
absence or presence of these factors. Why would two answers,
both of which are "not meaningful", give the same result?
It sure means something to me, and should to the creationists.
Have they grappled with this issue?
> Isochrons do not solve the problem either, because there can be
> processes producing false isochrons by gases entering and leaving the
> rock as I mentioned earlier.
Your understanding is flawed. That will not give a pseudo-isochron,
but a non-isochron.
> And if the individual ages are subject
> to change as indicated above. the isochrons must be affected somehow.
This is a nonspecific criticism. "The isochrons must be affected
somehow." That is the question - how? The processes producing a
false isochron (see the t.o. FAQ for what these really are) can be
*tested* for. Those same processes will not
affect the radiodating of a completely different isotope to
coincidentally give the same "incorrect age". The amount of diffusion
and leaching is also dependent on environmental factors (exposure
or not), yet geologists still manage to obtain consistent dates
using a variety of isotopes.
> As for meteorites, the entry into the atmosphere should produce
> tremendous heating and vaporization. This should cause many enclosed
> elements to vaporize and either leave the meteorite or be driven
> deeper inside.
The time of heating will also affect the amount of diffusion.
It is very short, and the temperatures not as high as you think.
Otherwise the interior of the meteorite would melt, which would
give a rock age of 0. Most metorites are mostly metal, and
take heat much better than creationists.
Another question - why would stony and metallic meteorites both
give ages at 4.6 billion years?
> This could either increase or decrease its radiometric
> age significantly.
How would these contamination processes apply uniformly over
the whole planet, under different environments for different
minerals, and still give the same ages for strata? You do
realize that not all cambrian strata are at Cambridge, UK
and made of the same material?
> for In order to account for this, it would probably be
> necessary to take many different measurements and pick the most likely
> one. Those that are picked might be the ones that tend to agree with
> each other. So the agreement in ages between different techniques on
> meteorites could be to some extent an accident. I don't know if this
> scenario could also yield good isochrons, however.
This scenario for obtaining consistent dates could hardly be
characterized as an "accident" but as fraud. Why do the dating,
if you already have predetermined what the date you are going
to report is going to be? Do you care to back up your claims
about doing many tests and then selecting the one you like?
This kind of behaviour might be acceptible in whatever field
you are thinking about going into (law? politics?), but not in science.
Scientists want to know what nature is really like, that is
why they do experiments for minimal economic consideration.
It would be pointless to do experiments and then ignore what
nature is telling us (most of the dates in your scenario).
You also fail to realize that there is little to be gained
by "agreeing" with everyone else. If you try to publish
a paper saying a cambrian rock dates to 500,000,000 years old,
the reviewer would say "Big deal, we already knew that. Why
clutter the journals with repetition?"
> I'm not necessarily claiming that the meteorites or all of the
> radiometric ages are really young, but the above considerations
> might explain some of the old ages. If my reasoning is not correct,
> I'm sure that someone will correct me, and in fact I'd be most
> grateful for that.
I would love to hear creationists address the point of why a
bunch of putatively incorrect dates would agree. You scenario
is slanderous, and I suggest you think of another - preferably
based on empirical science instead of human weaknesses.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy P. Hamilton | "Damn the electric fence!,
Building Manager, Alco Hall | Damn the electric fence!"
University of Ediacara | Anonymous Cow.
howard hershey
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>
> I wanted to respond to another point Prof. Hershey made. He said
> that if the earth (or at least life) is young, then fossils and
> coal should yield young carbon 14 ages. Creationists have done
> carbon 14 dating on fossils
Specifically, they have done it on fossils coated with shellac (of
rather more recent vintage than the fossil itself).
> and non-creationists have done it on
> coal and oil and it typically gives carbon 14 dates of about
> 20,000 to 30,000 years.
Please cite a reference for this last point. Coal is commonly used to
get a background level of no C14 (except for atmospheric contamination),
and, since the C14 can be used to measure ages beyond the 4-6 half-lives
mentioned above (but not too much beyond, the method gets less sensitive
and much more unreliable after 10 half-lives), it is unlikely that the
above is the case except under some unusual circumstances such as
entraining significant current atmospheric or aqueous CO2 (or perhaps in
using older less sensitive methods this may have indeed represented the
background level of maximal measureable age). If you had said 50,000
years, I would have agreed that for ages beyond that level, the
technique of C14 dating is almost worthless. 10 half-lives means that
the original level of C14 has dropped to about one-thousandth of the
original already low level.
> The only reason this is not more widely
> known seems to be that everyone assumes that fossils are too old
> for such a dating method so it is simply not done.
As mentioned, the only case of fossils being measured for C14 that I am
aware of (it was a group from Ohio, as I remember; was it Centerville
College?) involved a dino bone that had been coated with a dark
shellac. As I remember, the bones were obtained (from a legitimate
science museum) by being intentionally vague if not actually
'misleading' about the purpose for the request.
>
> Establishment scientists probably attribute this to contamination,
> but every effort has been made in some cases to rule this out.
The lab that actually did the C14 measurement mentioned to this group
that the sample was contaminated. The lab was told to go ahead anyway
and the 'results' were 'published' (in the popular press, not in any
scientific journal) without any mention of possible contamination.
Derek Potter
On 7 Jan 1998 13:46:38 -0500, hamilton <hami...@picasso.chem.uab.edu>
wrote:
'>You dorealize that not all cambrian strata are at Cambridge, UK
'>and made of the same material?
Darn it! I thought they were bits chipped off the walls at King's.
howard hershey
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>
> >From hers...@indiana.edu Wed Jan 7 09:21:50 1998
> >Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 09:24:43 +0000
> >From: howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu>
> >Subject: Re: Reliability of Radiometric Dating
>
> >plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
> >>
> >> Prof. Hershey argued that the mass of old radiometric dates refutes
> >> young earth creationism.
[snip]
> >The reason that the mass of radiometric dates refutes YEC is because YEC
> >would predict *particular* results from radiometric dates that are only
> >seen in an insignificant minority of anomolous readings. The vast
> >majority of readings are congruent with the great age of the earth and
> >different ages for different layers within the geological column. The
> >accuracy of any one reading can be questioned. There are occassional
> >anomolies in any measurement method. Sometimes the anomoly can be
> >explained as due to a violation of one of the assumptions of the method,
> >sometimes it can't. Anomolies, however, *by definition*, must be
> >relatively rare. Indeed, the methodology would not be useful if
> >anomolies were common.
Let's give some hypothetical numbers to the above, since David seems to
be confused about what is meant by an anomoly in this case. Of 100
radiodating measurements done using rocks which are unlikely to be
affected by *known* sources of error in the method (i.e. rocks that are
not characterized by obvious cracks or rocks that have obvious air
entrainment, etc.) you might (under particularly bad conditions) find
10% of the measurements being anomolous. That is, 90 of the
measurements are congruent with each other and 10 give a value which is
more than 2 standard deviations away from that consensus value. In this
case, we would consider the mean value of the 90 measurements to be a
good estimate of the true value. The 10 measurements would represent
anomalies. These 10 anomalies can represent a scatter of values or
represent a second congruent value. In either case, they might be
attributable to a second event that leads to either random changes or
systematic changes in the measurement.
This is the situation we are talking about when it comes to radiodating,
not a situation where 90 of the measurements are scattered all over the
map and only 10 are congruent with each other. In this case, we would
question the usefulness of the measurement technique and understand that
the measurement technique is being strongly affected by other features
(like leaching and perfusion in this case) that are influencing the
measurement value we get and we would then try to understand and measure
the effect of this second influence.
Radiodating is clearly more like the first case, where most of the
measurements are congruent with each other. Moreover, independent
measures (using different isotopes with different permeabilities and
different properties) are also, by and large, congruent with the results
from the first isotope. Moreover, isochron measurements, which
circumvent some possible sources of error also produce similar results.
But of greatest importance, the consensus results are *not only*
congruent with each other, they are also congruent with the *specific*
expectations of an earth of great age and decreasing age of geological
layers in order of superposition. Most of the anomalous values are also
consistent with a great age for the earth (that is they indicate great
age, but deviate significantly from the consensus value). Only a tiny
minority of the small number of *anomolous* measurements are consistent
with the *specific* expectation of a young earth. Most of these have
been attributed to recent melting events.
These are the problems you have to explain: The fact that the vast
majority of values are *specifically* consistent with one explanation
and the fact that even among the anomolies, most do not support the
alternative explanation you propose.
You know it empirically. *If* there were cracks, the amount of isotopes
would be a function of this property rather than a function of the
geological layer the rock is from and the nature of the isotopic decay
being analyzed. I see no reason to think that there is some sort of
correlation between the 'porosity' of rock and the geological layer the
rock is found in that would produce the apparent ages seen for all the
different isotopes. That is the type of hidden assumption or
correlation that *you* need to come up with. I agree and understand
that the above problem could *mess up* the dates. But *messed up* dates
are quite a different kettle of fish than dates that *systematically*
and *consistently* give a *specific* false date that *happens* to be
congruent with a specific model of the age of the earth and
*specifically* does not give many values consistent with a different
model of the age of the earth.
>
[snip]
>
> >Please note what the effect of such a loss would be on the apparent age
> >of the rock. Would it give a false 'younger' age or a false 'older'
> >age? How would this particular error (loss of Ar) support a young earth
> >thesis?
>
> It would make the dates younger. But entering argon would make the
> dates older.
Then you have to propose a model whereby argon entering rocks from some
source gives a consistent but false correlation of age with geologic
layer. *And* then you have to go on to explain how this same phenomenon
does the same for uranium/lead and the other isotopes that give
consistent values.
>
> >>
> >> In a similar way, argon could enter the rock from the air or from
> >> surrounding rocks. Either way, its radiometric age would be
> >> substantially altered. And this can also happen by water flowing
> >> through the rock through tiny cracks, dissolving parent and daughter
> >> elements. It would be difficult to measure the tiny changes in
> >> concentration that would suffice to make large changes in the
> >> radiometric ages over long time periods.
>
> >Yes. These *known* problems in the methodology can happen in particular
> >rocks. That they don't happen in all (or even most) rocks should also
> >be obvious. If they did, one would get results that would be a function
> >of surface area, distance to the interior, time of exposure to water, Ar
> >levels in water, etc. instead of time of formation of the rock. But the
>
> This is indirect reasoning and does not inspire much confidence on
> my part.
It is not indirect reasoning at all. You are proposing that the Ar
levels in rocks are due to Ar entering the rocks after their formation
primarily from external sources rather than from internal production by
radioactive decay of K. The features I mentioned are obvious factors
that would affect the level of Ar in the rocks. Which of these
properties cause the consistent corellation with geological layer? Is
the same property also responsible for the corellation of Uranium/lead?
For the isochrons measurements?
[snip]
> >>
> >> This leads me to believe that it is very unlikely that radiometric
> >> dating would yield any kind of a meaningful age most of the time.
>
> >And yet the mass of measurements (several different simple radiometric
> >measurements and isochron measurements) do produce *meaningful*
> >results. Specifically, they produce ages congruent with about 4.3
> >billion for the age of the earth and appropriate lesser ages for
> >different geological layers. Specifically they also produce results
>
> Well, of course, the old age of the earth was largely derived from
> radiometric ages in the first place, so this seems to be circular
> reasoning.
Actually, the old age of the earth was known from other findings. There
just was no clear 'clock' to measure exactly how old the earth was until
radiodating. Using different isotopes is equivalent to using several
stop watches to time a race. They represent independent measurements
with timers made by different manufacturers and using different internal
mechanisms (quartz, mechanical). If they agree pretty well, you have
truely independent measurements of the event.
> But that wouldn't bother me in any case. And the
> lesser ages for geological layers does not convince me. It seems
> to me to be a certainty that water and gas will enter rocks through
> tiny cracks and invalidate almost all radiometric ages.
And occassionally, as an anomoly, it does. The *fact* that the ages are
congruent with a *specific* model of age says that most rocks age is not
a function of tiny cracks *unless* you can show a reason why (and
present evidence to support that speculation) that would also strongly
correlate with geological layer.
>
> >inconsistent with the expectations of YEC (even most of the anomolous
> >results are inconsistent with YEC expectations). So your 'belief' is
> >refuted by the evidence.
>
> But the evidence does not seem to have much convincing power. Or at
> least I haven't been convinced yet.
And you have presented no explanation for the correlation of measured
ages with geological layer that involves a *systematic* invocation of
your hypothesis about injection of Ar. And, after you have done that,
you then need to explain how this systematic process causes the strong
correlation with other mechanisms for radiodating. All you have done is
say that cracks can cause anomalies in the K/Ar measurement. What you
need to do is show why those anomalies systematically cause *specific*
dates congruent with other methods and a specific model of the age of
the earth rather than giving us the *specific* results one would expect
from the YEC position.
>
> >> Isochrons do not solve the problem either, because there can be
> >> processes producing false isochrons by gases entering and leaving the
> >> rock as I mentioned earlier. And if the individual ages are subject
> >> to change as indicated above. the isochrons must be affected somehow.
>
> >Have you read Chris Stassen's Faq yet? The typical effect of leaching
> >would not be a false isochron, it would be an unreadable isochron.
>
> Yes I did look at his FAQ. My article on isochrons, despite all its
> faults, explains how this could happen. And in any event, if the
> individual dates are affected, which to me seems to be a virtual
> certaintly, the isochrons must be, too.
But these errors do not produce the *specific* consensus result
observed. They produce an *unreadable* isochron rather than the
*specific* result expected by a particular model of the age of the earth
*rather* than a different specific result under the YEC model. This gets
to the point you do not seem to understand, the difference between an
anomolous result due to uncontrolled variables (like leaching and
infusion) and a systematic error due to some process that causes a
systematic correlation between geological age and date by radiodating
using multiple methods. You need to have an explanation that causes a
systematic rather than random effect. Specifically, you need something
systematic that explains the correlation of all the radiodating
techniques and the geological layer the rock is from. Just pointing out
that cracks can cause anomalies is not going to salvage the YEC model.
> >>
> >> As for meteorites, the entry into the atmosphere should produce
> >> tremendous heating and vaporization. This should cause many enclosed
> >> elements to vaporize and either leave the meteorite or be driven
> >> deeper inside.
>
> >A known assumption of the method. But only the outer surface is heated
> >significantly. And any internal effect would be dependent on the
> >distance from the exterior. Thus the effect you mention (if it is
> >really a problem) could be simply avoided.
>
> Well, maybe someone with more access to the data could let us know
> how this is actually handled.
Use internal samples.
>
> >> This could either increase or decrease its radiometric
> >> age significantly.
It would specifically *decrease* age for K/Ar measurements, especially
at the surface.
>
> >If that were the case, one would not get consistent results when one
> >compares one meteorite with another. You do.
>
> Is it true that all meteorites have the same age? I don't see why
> that would be true under conventional assumptions.
Meteorites formed at the same time as the rest of the solar system and
have not undergone the volcanic and other secondary heating processes
that occur on earth.
>
> >> In order to account for this, it would probably be
> >> necessary to take many different measurements and pick the most likely
> >> one.
>
> >Any evidence for this conspiracy of silence?
>
> Even you said that the age at the surface might be affected. And
> the interior would be heated as well, with who knows what effect
> on it. I do know that moon rocks gave a wide scatter of ages and
> one was picked near the middle.
As they should, since many moon rocks are secondondarily formed by
meteor impacts on the surface (and, I think, there might be some
evidence of volcanism) as well.
>
> >> Those that are picked might be the ones that tend to agree with
> >> each other.
>
> >So the best explanation is that scientists who are supposedly
> >disinterestedly trying to find out the age of meteorites are
> >intentionally picking and choosing the samples just happen to meet the
> >criteria of 4.3 billion years. [I knew my fellow conspirators would get
> >caught, just like they did when they faked the moon landing. What gave
> >you your first clue?]
>
> From their point of view, they are looking for an age, which must be
> consistent, so the consistent measurements must be the right ones.
> It does not imply conspiracy at all.
See my initial comments. You are confused about the level of
consistency in radiodating. One does not need to selectively pick out
consistent results from a majority of more or less random results. Most
results are consistent. Only a few are anomalous. Unless, of course,
like some creationists, you go out of your way to chose samples that are
known to violate *known* assumptions of the method rather than choosing
samples that meet the requirements of the method. For example, since we
*know* that rocks which are particularly porous will present problems
(for exactly the reasons you describe) that are not fully controlable,
you don't choose those rocks to date.
>
> >> So the agreement in ages between different techniques on
> >> meteorites could be to some extent an accident. I don't know if this
> >> scenario could also yield good isochrons, however.
I fail to see how using different techniques with different isotopes
being measured could possibly give results that are congruent by
accident. Perhaps you can explain what feature of meteorite
radiochemistry will result in the false, but specificly and consistntly
false, correlation of different isotopic methods and consistency of
age? Would this be the same feature that causes the false correlation
between age and geological layer in earth rocks?
> >>
> >> I'm not necessarily claiming that the meteorites or all of the
> >> radiometric ages are really young, but the above considerations
> >> might explain some of the old ages. If my reasoning is not correct,
> >> I'm sure that someone will correct me, and in fact I'd be most
> >> grateful for that.
>
> >Your reasoning is not correct. The mass of radiodating data has been
> >reported fairly accurately in the scientific literature, including the
> >anomolous points. Geologists do not go around dating 100s of rocks and
> >only keep the dates that, by chance or fortuitous circumstance, meet
> >some *a priori* expectation. Anomolous results (incongruent with
>
> I'm not claiming that anomalous results are being hidden, just that
> the agreement of a mass of results, none of which has much claim to
> reliability, does not necessarily mean much.
But the values are reliable and consistent! If they weren't one would
expect either random values or a huge standard error in the values
seen. You don't find that. You find a specific result with a small
standard deviation plus a few anomalous values (and even fewer values
consistent with the expectation of YEC). That's the problem you have to
explain, not the fact that you can occassionally find an anomalous
result.
>
> >current standard interpretation) represent probably much less than 10%
> >of all samples or data points taken (and that includes cases where the
> >machine broke down or where there is a contaminant or problem obvious
> >only after measurement and cases where geologists were specifically
> >looking at the types of rocks that are known to give anomolies because
> >they violate known assumptions of the method). These anomolies, in
> >total, certainly do *not* represent the majority of data points. And it
> >is the majority of data points that you must explain as being congruent
> >with your explanation or incongruent with another explanation, not the
> >anomolies. Thank you for your undying gratitude. :-)
>
> You are welcome.
>
> >BTW, I would go with the conspiracy theory. It is the only one that
> >works for your cause. Say that geologists are purposely discarding all
> >the tons of rocks presenting data that show a recent age for rocks from
> >all geological strata. Anytime they see a flat isochron or a rock with
> >no entrapped Ar, they immediately throw it away. Funny how the ICR has
> >not been able to discover this conspiracy by measuring a sample of the
> >same types of rocks as geologists do. They must have to rely on labs
> >that are part of the conspiracy.
>
> I'd prefer not to go with conspiracy when there are much simpler
> explanations.
I still think that conspiracy theories are all you've got that is even
potentially convincing.
Derek Potter
On 7 Jan 1998 11:45:52 -0500, plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
'
'>I don't see how one can possibly know that there are no tiny cracks
'>in rocks that would permit water and gas to circulate. The rates
'>of exchange that would mess up the dates are very tiny.
It really doesn't matter whether permeation channels are of molecular
dimensions or huge caves that you can sail a boat through. You can measure
the rate at which mobile substances move. (Ok you can't get Carlsbad
Cavern into a lab ;-( ... ) Also and quite independently it would make the
radiometric ages from the same rock disagree with each other.
'>
'>Yes I did look at his FAQ. My article on isochrons, despite all its
'>faults, explains how this could happen. And in any event, if the
'>individual dates are affected, which to me seems to be a virtual
'>certaintly, the isochrons must be, too.
An isochron is produced from lots of measurements. Two is the mathemetical
minimum (see my post Radiometric Dating Assumptions). With 5 measurements
you could produce 20 separate isochron ages. The isochron *diagram* is
a quick and easy way of seeing if the data give a single age and for
reading off what it is. If the ages disagree - and we are talking about a
single rock sample here - if they disagree then the isochron *diagram* will
not be a straight line. The isochrons are "affected" all right, but not in
a systematic way. So they are not usable. Where the isochrons are
Ok, the hypothesis of migration is proved to be false for that piece of
rock.
Also, in the case of U/Pb isochrons, there are two entirely different
decays to consider with differnet half lives. U235 and U238. And it is
known that lead can be leached! This produces two wobbly isochron diagrams.
Nevertheless, a concordia diagram can be constructed, based on the same
mathematics, which allows the two decays to be combined on the basis that
the proportion of lead that is lost from the U235 path is the same as that
from the U238. Just as isochrons eliminate the "unknown" original
concentration of decay product, so concordia methods *eliminate* the
"unknown" leaching.
'>I'd prefer not to go with conspiracy when there are much simpler
'>explanations.
He-he, don't tempt me! :)
James J. Lippard
In article <34B39...@indiana.edu>,
howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>> The only reason this is not more widely
>> known seems to be that everyone assumes that fossils are too old
>> for such a dating method so it is simply not done.
>
>As mentioned, the only case of fossils being measured for C14 that I am
>aware of (it was a group from Ohio, as I remember; was it Centerville
>College?) involved a dino bone that had been coated with a dark
>shellac. As I remember, the bones were obtained (from a legitimate
>science museum) by being intentionally vague if not actually
>'misleading' about the purpose for the request.
Cedarville College.
The University of Arizona did some tests on some of these dinosaur bones,
I can't remember from which museum they were obtained. Bradley Lepper
wrote an article about it in _Creation/Evolution_.
--
Jim Lippard lippard@(primenet.com ediacara.org skeptic.com)
Phoenix, Arizona http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/
PGP Fingerprint: B130 7BE1 18C1 AA4C 4D51 388F 6E6D 2C7A 36D3 CB4F
Thomas Scharle
howard hershey (hers...@indiana.edu) wrote:
: plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
...
: > Well, of course, the old age of the earth was largely derived from
: > radiometric ages in the first place, so this seems to be circular
: > reasoning.
:
: Actually, the old age of the earth was known from other findings. There
: just was no clear 'clock' to measure exactly how old the earth was until
: radiodating. Using different isotopes is equivalent to using several
: stop watches to time a race. They represent independent measurements
: with timers made by different manufacturers and using different internal
: mechanisms (quartz, mechanical). If they agree pretty well, you have
: truely independent measurements of the event.
More or less around the year 1900, there was a suspected conflict
between physics and geology on the age of the earth. The eminent
physicist, Sir William Thomson, Lord Kelvin calculated the age of the
earth on thermodynamic principles and arrived at an answer of only a
few million years.
This represented a problem for the geologists, who had, by other
means (such as the rate of deposition of deposits) arrived at much
older ages.
What Kelvin did not know ... and could not have known ... was that
there was another source for the heat of the earth, radioactivity.
What this story demonstrates is that the age of the earth by
geological principles antedates the knowledge of radioactivity, and
much longer (by about 50 years) the use of isotopes to get dates.
Furthermore, even by the strictest standards of Baconian
"scientific method", the idea of "formulate a hypothesis and check
the consequences of the hypothesis" is *not* "circular reasoning",
but some sort of ideal of science.
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>>From hers...@indiana.edu Wed Jan 7 09:21:50 1998
[snip]
>
>I don't see how one can possibly know that there are no tiny cracks
>in rocks that would permit water and gas to circulate. The rates
>of exchange that would mess up the dates are very tiny.
>
How many field geology course have you taken? How many lab? Personally
I don't see how they can build computer hard drives, but they do and
they work.
[snip]
>
>>Please note what the effect of such a loss would be on the apparent age
>>of the rock. Would it give a false 'younger' age or a false 'older'
>>age? How would this particular error (loss of Ar) support a young earth
>>thesis?
>
>It would make the dates younger. But entering argon would make the
>dates older.
>
And what do you propose would force all that argon into the rock? Into
all of the rocks? At the same rate to throw all of the dates off by
the same amount?
>>>
>>> In a similar way, argon could enter the rock from the air or from
>>> surrounding rocks. Either way, its radiometric age would be
>>> substantially altered. And this can also happen by water flowing
>>> through the rock through tiny cracks, dissolving parent and daughter
>>> elements. It would be difficult to measure the tiny changes in
>>> concentration that would suffice to make large changes in the
>>> radiometric ages over long time periods.
>
>>Yes. These *known* problems in the methodology can happen in particular
>>rocks. That they don't happen in all (or even most) rocks should also
>>be obvious. If they did, one would get results that would be a function
>>of surface area, distance to the interior, time of exposure to water, Ar
>>levels in water, etc. instead of time of formation of the rock. But the
>
>This is indirect reasoning and does not inspire much confidence on
>my part.
>
"Indirect reasoning"? What in the world to you mean by that? If what
you say were true there would be a direct correlation between the
argon level and those factors. There is no such correlation. How do
you account for that?
[snip]
>
>But the evidence does not seem to have much convincing power. Or at
>least I haven't been convinced yet.
>
Does that lack of conviction have anything to do with your desire to
hold on to the view of the Bible you have been taught?
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
-----------------------------
The opinions expressed in this post reflect those of the Walt
Disney Corp. Which might come as a surprise to them.
William L Pratt
Thomas Scharle wrote:
><snip>
> More or less around the year 1900, there was a suspected conflict
> between physics and geology on the age of the earth. The eminent
> physicist, Sir William Thomson, Lord Kelvin calculated the age of the
> earth on thermodynamic principles and arrived at an answer of only a
> few million years.
Even Kelvin's values were fatal for YEC theories. He assumed an initial
globe of molten rock at 4,500 C and concluded "We now have good reason
for judging [the cooling of the Earth to levels which could support
life] occurred not less than twenty nor more than forty million years
ago." A looong 6,000 years.
<snip>
Will
--
Dr. William L. Pratt, Curator of Invertebrates
Marjorie Barrick Museum of Natural History
University of Nevada, Las Vegas Box 4012
Las Vegas, NV 89154-4012
(702)895-1403, fax (702)895-3094 e-mail pra...@nevada.edu
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu
I thank those who have responded to my questions about radiometric
dating. I still have some questions.
My recollection is that some of the moon rocks gave K-R dates
significantly in excess of 4.6 billion years. How can this be? If we
understand which rocks retain argon, and can detect added argon, et
cetera then we should never get a discrepant date. If we get even
one, especially one that is too old, this indicates a lack in our
understanding. In my mind, this casts some doubt on all radiometric
dates.
There are, for example, quite a number of rather outstanding anomalies
in radiometric dating that creationists have collected. These
anomalies are reported in the scientific literature. For example, one
isochron yielded a date of 10 billion years. A Rb-Sr isochron yielded
a date of 34 billion years. K-Ar dates of 7 to 15 billion years have
been recorded. It's also not uncommon for two methods to agree and
for the date to be discarded anyway. Samples with flat plateaus
(which should mean no added argon) can give wrong dates. Samples
giving no evidence of being disturbed can give wrong dates. Samples
that give evidence of being disturbed can give correct dates. The
number of dates that disagree with the expected ages is not
insignificant. I don't know what the exact percentage is, but it is
probably at least 10 or 20 percent.
I realize that many dates give values near the accepted ones. But
even these often differ from one another by 10 or 20 percent. And
quite a few other dates are often much, much farther off. Whatever
is making some of these dates inaccurate could be making all of
them inaccurate.
One can easily imagine why dates would be too old, because the clock
did not get reset (if one accepts an old earth or some other mechanism
by which the dates are initially old). I don't know why the dates
should agree in a given strata, but with me the bigger question is
whether our understanding of radiometric dating is sound enough to
have confidence in. If we really understand what is going on, then
we should be able to detect discrepant dates as they are being
measured, and not just due to their divergence from other dates.
Steve Geller
On 6 Jan 1998 19:44:25 -0500, plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>It is known that radiometric decay byproducts such as argon and helium
>are mobile in rock. In addition, many of the parent and daughter
>elements are water soluble. So if a rock has tiny cracks permitting
>gas to enter or escape or permitting the flow of water, the
>radiometric ages could be changed substantially even without the rock
>ever melting or mixing.
Sure, water can transport material of a different age and contaminate
a sample area. This has given a lot of trouble for some of the
hominid sites in East Africa.
But dating is always cross-checked. If all the results aren't fairly
consistent, none are taken seriously. Some samples just can't be
dated.
The Isochron Line method is especially valuable for detecting
contamination. The points just don't lie on a line.
>This leads me to believe that it is very unlikely that radiometric
>dating would yield any kind of a meaningful age most of the time.
This isn't true at all. For a good read, I suggest "The Age of the
Earth" by Dalrymple.
>Isochrons do not solve the problem either, because there can be
>processes producing false isochrons by gases entering and leaving the
>rock as I mentioned earlier.
This is nonsense. "False isochrons" give no date.
And if the individual ages are subject
>As for meteorites, the entry into the atmosphere should produce
>tremendous heating and vaporization. This should cause many enclosed
>elements to vaporize and either leave the meteorite or be driven
>deeper inside. This could either increase or decrease its radiometric
>age significantly.
This is not a problem for Uranium-Lead or any other method which
doesn't involve a gas product.
> In order to account for this, it would probably be
>necessary to take many different measurements and pick the most likely
>one. Those that are picked might be the ones that tend to agree with
>each other.
No. What is done is to repeat the dating, using several methods
and samples. Either a consistent picture emerges or it does not.
In Dalyrmple, there's a table of various datings of the Greenland
Gneisses. It's interesting to note the variances, and how consistent
they are.
howard hershey
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>
> I thank those who have responded to my questions about radiometric
> dating. I still have some questions.
>
> My recollection is that some of the moon rocks gave K-R dates
> significantly in excess of 4.6 billion years. How can this be? If we
> understand which rocks retain argon, and can detect added argon, et
> cetera then we should never get a discrepant date. If we get even
> one, especially one that is too old, this indicates a lack in our
> understanding. In my mind, this casts some doubt on all radiometric
> dates.
Not at all. If I measure 100 values and 99 of them come out to roughly
the same value and one comes out to some entirely different value, I
would still regard the average of the 99 to represent a valid measure
*even if* I had not the slightest idea why that one odd value came out
the way it did. Perhaps you think science works differently than this
and I should completely throw up my hands and say that obviously there
is no pattern to be seen because I got this one odd measurement I cannot
explain?
> There are, for example, quite a number of rather outstanding anomalies
> in radiometric dating that creationists have collected. These
> anomalies are reported in the scientific literature. For example, one
> isochron yielded a date of 10 billion years. A Rb-Sr isochron yielded
> a date of 34 billion years. K-Ar dates of 7 to 15 billion years have
> been recorded.
Yes. And? Are you talking about measurements of the same sample? Only
then would it represent a discrepancy. Radiodating using these methods
dates the age of the formation of the rock. [Carbon dating measures the
time since the source was in equilibrium with the isotope ratio of its
environment, typically the atmosphere.] There is no reason to expect
all igneous rocks on the earth to have been formed at the same time in
the past.
> It's also not uncommon for two methods to agree and
> for the date to be discarded anyway.
Actually, it must be uncommon for two methods to agree and be
discarded. If they are it is probably because they represent an
unaltered inclusion in other rock.
> Samples with flat plateaus
> (which should mean no added argon) can give wrong dates. Samples
> giving no evidence of being disturbed can give wrong dates. Samples
> that give evidence of being disturbed can give correct dates. The
> number of dates that disagree with the expected ages is not
> insignificant. I don't know what the exact percentage is, but it is
> probably at least 10 or 20 percent.
I doubt that. But even if it were 10-20%, that means that 80-90% (which
certainly constitutes a significant majority) of measurements are
congruent with a specific explanation of the age of the earth. Among
the 10-20% anomalous readings, most can be explained as known violations
of the requirements of the method, some cannot currently be explained.
Only a distinct minority of this minority represent measurements that
would be predicted on the basis of YEC. What you need to do is explain
why we get that 80-90% of values that are both consistent with an
ancient earth and inconsistent with a young one.
>
> I realize that many dates give values near the accepted ones. But
> even these often differ from one another by 10 or 20 percent.
That is a measure of the standard deviation. Most don't differ by this
much, but even if it did it still would be several orders of magnitude
from 6000 years.
> And
> quite a few other dates are often much, much farther off. Whatever
> is making some of these dates inaccurate could be making all of
> them inaccurate.
No way. Again, we know why some of the anomalous measurements are off.
But to say that scattered anomolies are the reason why the ones that
aren't anomalous don't agree with your prediction is like saying that
the 99 measurements I got that agreed with each other are wrong for the
same reason as that one odd ball.
>
> One can easily imagine why dates would be too old, because the clock
> did not get reset (if one accepts an old earth or some other mechanism
> by which the dates are initially old).
Actually, getting false younger dates is easier.
> I don't know why the dates
> should agree in a given strata,
I don't have any trouble with it. Why do you?
Shooty
> I wanted to respond to another point Prof. Hershey made. He said
> that if the earth (or at least life) is young, then fossils and
> coal should yield young carbon 14 ages. Creationists have done
> carbon 14 dating on fossils and non-creationists have done it on
> coal and oil and it typically gives carbon 14 dates of about
> 20,000 to 30,000 years. The only reason this is not more widely
> known seems to be that everyone assumes that fossils are too old
> for such a dating method so it is simply not done.
>
> Establishment scientists probably attribute this to contamination,
> but every effort has been made in some cases to rule this out.
>
> Such an age poses a problem for the conventional millions of yearss
> time scale. For a 6000 year time scale it is less of a problem
> because of the dependence of Carbon 14 on atmospheric and
> biological conditions.
And as you know C14 dates don't work on items of that age so it's
pointless to try them.
Shooty
howard hershey
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> One can easily imagine why dates would be too old, because the clock
> did not get reset (if one accepts an old earth or some other mechanism
> by which the dates are initially old).
The most likely source of discrepancy is reseting the clock by secondary
melting or partial melting and outgassing and loss of daughter
isotopes. These give too early dates, not too old.
> I don't know why the dates
> should agree in a given strata,
That is the whole point of radiodating, that it provides a quantitative
measure of a feature (geological superposition) that had only been a
qualitative feature with rough estimates of length of formation. The
rocks do not measure *just* the age of the earth. In fact, it is quite
difficult to find rocks as old as the earth on the earth. What is
measured is the date the rock formed by solidifying from a melted
state. For igneous rock formed in the Jurrasic you will get a different
date than from the same type of rock formed in the Carboniferous. The
latter rock will be lower by superposition *and* older by radiodating.
Moreover, rocks formed in other places that are, on independent grounds,
placed in the Carboniferous will show the same range of dates. That is,
there is a correlation of quantitative dates determined by radiodating
and qualitative dates determined by superposition.
> but with me the bigger question is
> whether our understanding of radiometric dating is sound enough to
> have confidence in.
The physical and chemical principles underlying the measurement
techniques are quite sound and well understood. The measurement
techniques themselves require certain additional assumptions that can be
violated in particular samples for any single particular technique, but
these technical assumptions differ from technique to technique (e.g., no
secondary outgassing is only relevant to the Ar techniques; the isochron
techniques obviate the requirement of a known amount of daughter isotope
initially, etc.). Understanding the requirements and assumptions
underlying the method is crucial for accurate measurement in any
science. Most such assumptions and requirements in radiodating are
known and taken into account. That is why most anomolies (the rare
rocks whose dates differ significantly from the concensus) can, in fact,
be explained.
> If we really understand what is going on, then
> we should be able to detect discrepant dates as they are being
> measured,
And in many cases, even before the measurement is taken. If you know
that a certain type of rock is highly porous and has undergone a lot of
exchange with the environment, it would certainly not be your first
choice for measurement (because you *know* that such a rock type is
likely to violate some of the technical assumptions for the technique,
not because it will give an answer that differs from some ideologically
determined answer; of course, this fact can be and has been exploited by
'creation scientists' to come up with rocks that show 'wrong dates').
In this sense, scientists do 'choose' their samples carefully. But
would it really make sense to measure rocks that you know undergo
significant leaching of an isotope by a technique that requires that
there be no such leaching? Or would that only be a sign that the
experimenter was stupidly and randomly (or, in the case of certain
'creation scientists', maliciously) choosing samples without
understanding the requirements of the technique (or, in the case of
certain 'creation scientists', understanding it well enough to know how
to lie with it)?
And rocks that *are* measured and give anomolous results often show
specific patterns (as in the meaningless isochron that arises from
leaching or discrepant dates from the same sample using two simple
radiodating methods) that indicate exactly which assumption of the
technique was violated. I.e., there are many anomolous results that we
can explain.
> and not just due to their divergence from other dates.
This would be the last line of defense rather than the first. But it is
a perfectly valid way of determining that a value is an aberrant outlier
rather than a member of the population that forms the standard mean
value. If (out of 100 rocks measured) I have 90 radiodating values that
are close to an age of, say, 100 million years ago +/- 2 million years,
7 values that indicate 10, 30, 5, 15, 23, 35,and 50 million years but
also show evidence that these specific rocks had undergone leaching of a
daughter isotope, and 3 values of 15, 80, and 75 million years that are
currently unexplained (but no values showing 0 +/- 1 million years), I
certainly would have no trouble saying that the age of that layer is 100
+/- 2 milion years using the best scientific evidence we have. Would
you?
Especially if a search of the scientific literature showed that the
rocks from the geological layer above the one I measured had been
determined (with the same degree of accuracy) to be 95 +/- 2 million
years and the one below measured 110 +/- 2 million years. Would you
have problems with assigning the age of 100 million years to this
layer? Would you assign an age of 6000 years to this layer (and the one
above and below it)? What mechanism, what hidden assumption in the
technique, would allow you to state that the best scientific evidence is
that this layer is, in fact, 6000 years old or that the measurements I
made were measuring something other than age since formation? That is
your problem, and pointing out that there are a few anomalies in the
results does not change your basic problem.
Steve Geller
On 7 Jan 1998 21:54:26 -0500, plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>My recollection is that some of the moon rocks gave K-R dates
>significantly in excess of 4.6 billion years. How can this be? If we
>understand which rocks retain argon, and can detect added argon, et
>cetera then we should never get a discrepant date. If we get even
>one, especially one that is too old, this indicates a lack in our
>understanding. In my mind, this casts some doubt on all radiometric
>dates.
So some vague recollection of yours should trash all of radiometric
dating?
How about a reference for this recollection?
This has been an excellent thread. I am saving all the posts
for future reference.
Steve Geller
Chris Stassen wrote:
>The problem for the young-Earth crowd is *not* simply having to
>explain away one old age (or a small number of old ages). It is
>having to explain a *consistent pattern* of ages which are
>up to six orders of magnitude out of the range permitted by
>their [YEC] history of the Earth and solar system.
Young earth is the result of blind belief in a very literal
interpretation of Genesis. There's no way earth and the life on it
could have been around for only 6000 years.
Genesis itself says that in the beginning the earth was without form
and void. It doesn't say clearly the earth was not there, or how
long it took to get to day 1.
But Genesis does describe life, and Adam, being created at that time.
The "begats" list then yields the 6000 year figure. If some of the
patriarchs were dynasties, the age might be extended; somebody at the
ICR said 20,000 years at the outside. (There's even some error-bars
in Genesis <grin>)
Genesis contains no mention of radioactivity or the true nature of
stars or the source of sunlight. Genesis doesn't even mention
fossils.
But even if the YEC can be convinced to face the facts of radiometric
dating, and let the earth be old, they may hold the line at Noah's
Flood. If the YEC are consistent about taking the Bible literally,
then the Flood covered "all the earth", lasted only a year and killed
off all land life except those with Ark tickets.
So the problem reduces to explaining:
(1) Why the fossils (presumed to be the remains of life without Ark
tickets) don't give a cluster of dates which point at the
year of the Flood.
(2) Why C-14 dating doesn't work on most fossils, similarly yielding
the year of the Flood.
(3) Why life does not show a pattern of variation centered on the
presumed locality of the Ark's final berth.
To those of us without firm literal bible faith, these objections
are fatal to the notion of young life. Those with bible faith
appear reduced to stammering incoherence, arm-waving,
special pleading about "anomalies" and simple denial of reality.
Far too many creationists are YEC. This defeats all the efforts of
all anti-evolutionists to get anything besides straight science taught
in science classes. Any notion of purpose, or design, is thrust away
in the fear that the next step will be introduction of Bible-based
young earth.
I think creationists simply need to recognize that Genesis is
mostly a myth, and adjust their theology to the reality
of deep time. Yes, I know it's going to let some evolution
in, but there's still room to argue for a few miraculous creations.
hamilton
William L Pratt wrote:
>
> Thomas Scharle wrote:
> ><snip>
> > More or less around the year 1900, there was a suspected conflict
> > between physics and geology on the age of the earth. The eminent
> > physicist, Sir William Thomson, Lord Kelvin calculated the age of the
> > earth on thermodynamic principles and arrived at an answer of only a
> > few million years.
>
> Even Kelvin's values were fatal for YEC theories. He assumed an initial
> globe of molten rock at 4,500 C and concluded "We now have good reason
> for judging [the cooling of the Earth to levels which could support
> life] occurred not less than twenty nor more than forty million years
> ago." A looong 6,000 years.
Also note that the physicists did not change their date to
make it consistent with what the biologists liked. Why would
Plaisted try to argue that geophysicists today are doing
different? As dating anomalies go, this is a doozy.
I was the one who informed Plaisted (by e-mail?) that all
meteorites are the same age. I would like to correct that
by noting that meteorites from Mars would not be as old. Oops!
hamilton
Chris Stassen wrote:
[delete most of a comprehensive post. I for one appreciate all
the work Chris has done in the FAQ and apparently he still
follows talk.waste.of.time^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Horigins]
> Not only would this scenario not yield good isochrons for
> contaminated samples, it's simply not possible. The number of
> meteorites which have even been *subjected* to isotope dating is
> fairly small (about 100), and there simply haven't been enough
> attempts to explain away the correlation as a "file drawer"
> effect.
> We could perform similar calculations on moon rocks as well.
> The total quantity of lunar materials returned to the Earth is
> less than 400kg. These materials are *extremely* closely
> guarded and very tightly controlled. They are reserved for all
> sorts of other physical and chemical tests; only a tiny fraction
> of that material has been subjected to isotope dating. And, yet,
> I can give you references (See Dalrymple 1991 chapter 5) to
> literally *hundreds* of isochron and isochron-equivalent ages of
> lunar rocks which are in precise agreement with the mainstream
> age and history of the solar system (and flat-out contradict the
> young-Earthers' position). Lame "conspiracy theories" simply
> won't work.
I believe arguing for infusion of isotopes from the atmosphere
or from water won't fly for moon rocks and meteorites, either.
Any creationist, please answer: Is it contamination affecting
these dates, or something else?
howard hershey
hamilton wrote:
>
> Chris Stassen wrote:
>
> [delete most of a comprehensive post. I for one appreciate all
> the work Chris has done in the FAQ and apparently he still
> follows talk.waste.of.time^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Horigins]
>
> > contaminated samples, it's simply not possible. The number of
> > meteorites which have even been *subjected* to isotope dating is
> > fairly small (about 100), and there simply haven't been enough
> > attempts to explain away the correlation as a "file drawer"
> > effect.
>
> > We could perform similar calculations on moon rocks as well.
> > The total quantity of lunar materials returned to the Earth is
> > less than 400kg. These materials are *extremely* closely
> > guarded and very tightly controlled. They are reserved for all
> > sorts of other physical and chemical tests; only a tiny fraction
> > of that material has been subjected to isotope dating. And, yet,
> > I can give you references (See Dalrymple 1991 chapter 5) to
> > literally *hundreds* of isochron and isochron-equivalent ages of
> > lunar rocks which are in precise agreement with the mainstream
> > age and history of the solar system (and flat-out contradict the
> > young-Earthers' position). Lame "conspiracy theories" simply
> > won't work.
>
> or from water won't fly for moon rocks and meteorites, either.
>
> Any creationist, please answer: Is it contamination affecting
> these dates, or something else?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Tracy P. Hamilton | "Damn the electric fence!,
> Building Manager, Alco Hall | Damn the electric fence!"
> University of Ediacara | Anonymous Cow.
I still think the only reasonable and rational alternative to the
standard interpretation is the Grand All-Inclusive Conspiracy Theory.
All the labs that do radiodating have directors that absconded with the
money the govt provided to purchase equipment and are pumping out the
numbers scientists want (with enough anomalous readings to prevent
suspicion of cooking the books) in furtherance of their Satanic
atheistic scheme to discredit the One True Word of God. ;-) ;-)
After all, "they" managed to convince people that people actually went
to the moon and "they" continue to try to convince people that aliens
have not visited the earth at Roswell, N. M. ;-) ;-)
hamilton
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>
> I thank those who have responded to my questions about radiometric
> dating. I still have some questions.
[snip anomalous moon rock date, perhaps an expert can answer these.]
> There are, for example, quite a number of rather outstanding anomalies
> in radiometric dating that creationists have collected. These
> anomalies are reported in the scientific literature. For example, one
> isochron yielded a date of 10 billion years.
Why wouldn't those evilutionists jump at the chance to say that
the earth is 10 billion years? What did the primary source for
this date have to say about why they discarded the date? Have you
investigated a single discrepant date from the geological
literature? I have not, but then I am not partuicularly
troubled by the fact that no single procedure works on all
materials. I am satisfied that the confidence in radiodating
is well placed becuase the issues are rather simple:
Radioactive decay constants are just that, and geologists are
should be competent to determine contamination issues.
Is there a reference for the 10 billion year date? (Or the one
of your choice) Perhaps I can be persuaded to let Chris Stassen
answer this for me if you have a question about a specific
date.
[snip the rest]
howard hershey
hamilton wrote:
>
> plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
> >
[snip]
> > In order to account for this, it would probably be
> > necessary to take many different measurements and pick the most likely
> > one. Those that are picked might be the ones that tend to agree with
> > each other. So the agreement in ages between different techniques on
> > meteorites could be to some extent an accident. I don't know if this
> > scenario could also yield good isochrons, however.
>
> This scenario for obtaining consistent dates could hardly be
> characterized as an "accident" but as fraud.
Just part of the Grand Atheistic Satanic Conspiracy (otherwise known as
the GAS Co).
> Why do the dating,
> if you already have predetermined what the date you are going
> to report is going to be?
The GAS Co. does not actually do radiodating. It merely reports the
results that the conspiracy demands. The money that supposedly pays for
the results are going to the One World Order Trilateral Commission
battle fund to pay for the black heliocopters. ;-)
> Do you care to back up your claims
> about doing many tests and then selecting the one you like?
> This kind of behaviour might be acceptible in whatever field
> you are thinking about going into (law? politics?), but not in science.
> Scientists want to know what nature is really like, that is
> why they do experiments for minimal economic consideration.
Actually, as co-conspirators, they enjoy perks like all the lab alcohol
they can drink.
> It would be pointless to do experiments and then ignore what
> nature is telling us (most of the dates in your scenario).
>
> You also fail to realize that there is little to be gained
> by "agreeing" with everyone else. If you try to publish
> a paper saying a cambrian rock dates to 500,000,000 years old,
> the reviewer would say "Big deal, we already knew that. Why
> clutter the journals with repetition?"
If we didn't, the journals would have no papers.
>
> > I'm not necessarily claiming that the meteorites or all of the
> > radiometric ages are really young, but the above considerations
> > might explain some of the old ages. If my reasoning is not correct,
> > I'm sure that someone will correct me, and in fact I'd be most
> > grateful for that.
>
> I would love to hear creationists address the point of why a
> bunch of putatively incorrect dates would agree. You scenario
> is slanderous, and I suggest you think of another - preferably
> based on empirical science instead of human weaknesses.
Be careful. If the slander accusation went to court, it would require
substantial bribing of the judges to keep the GAS Co. under wraps.
Derek Potter
On 7 Jan 1998 21:54:26 -0500, plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
'>I thank those who have responded to my questions about radiometric
'>dating. I still have some questions.
'>
'>My recollection is that some of the moon rocks gave K-R dates
'>significantly in excess of 4.6 billion years. How can this be? If we
'>understand which rocks retain argon, and can detect added argon, et
'>cetera then we should never get a discrepant date. If we get even
'>one, especially one that is too old, this indicates a lack in our
'>understanding. In my mind, this casts some doubt on all radiometric
'>dates.
'
Do you happen also to recollect what sort of a rock was involved?
I ask because for a while creationists were strutting around triumphantly
proclaiming that the moon ought to have been covered by a 100m layer of
dust of it was really as old as sceintists thought. Remember that one? It
still goes the rounds of course. Anyway, i happened to pick up a couple of
magasines describing lunar geology in simple terms and I was amazed to
discover that the rocks on the surface are (often) composed of minerals
that simply are not found on earth although they can be made in minute
quantities in the lab. This is because the absence of any atmospheric
retardation allows the dust to impact at full speed, wherupon it melts,
scatters in all directions and immediately solidifies. Simulatneously, the
moons lack of magnetic field permits the solar wind to bomard the surface
which results in sputtering of the rock. Sputtered and impact-melted
materials form a mass that is unlike anything on earth. It occurs to me
that such a material might be somewhat porous and a naive measurement might
well give anomalous results! If you could find the reference perhaps we
could have a stab at seeing whether the rock was one which should be
expected to give a reliable age and whether, as you say, it casts some
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu
A number of people requested references for my statements about young
carbon 14 dates for coal and oil and fossils. Here is what I found
at http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html
Consider this: if a specimen is older than 50,000 years, it has been
calculated that it would have such a small amount of C14 that for
practical purposes it would show an infinite radiocarbon age. So it
was expected that most deposits such as coal, gas, etc. would be
undatable by this method. In fact, of thousands of dates in the
journals Radiocarbon and Science to 1968, only a handful were classed
"undatable" - most were of the sort which should have been in this
category. This is especially remarkable with samples of coal and gas
supposedly produced in the Carboniferous period 300 million years ago!
Some examples of dates which contradict orthodox (evolutionary) views:
Coal from Russia from the "Pennsylvanian," supposedly 300 million
years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966).
Natural gas from Alabama and Mississippi (Cretaceous and Eocene,
respectively) should have been 50 million to 135 million years old,
yet C14 gave dates of 30,000 to 34,000 years,
respectively. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966. Many of the earlier
radiocarbon dates on objects such as coal and gas, which should be
undatable, have been attributed to contamination from, for example,
workers' fingerprints, creationist researchers are currently working
on the construction of an apparatus, using existing technology, to
look for very low levels of C14 activity in, for example, coal after
excluding contamination. Such low-level activity would not be expected
on the basis of old earth theory, and so is not looked for at
present.)
Bones of a sabre-toothed tiger from the LaBrea tar pits (near Los
Angeles), supposedly 100,000-one million years old, gave a date of
28,000 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 10, 1968)
More from my web site:
At the 1992 Twin Cities Creation Conference, there was a paper
presented called "Direct Dating of Cretaceous-Jurassic Fossils (and
Other Evidences for Human-Dinosaur Coexistence)". Among other things,
the results of carbon-dating of Acrocanthosaurus bones are given.<P>
The authors noted that dinosaur bones are frequently ("as a rule")
found with a black carbon residue of some sort on the bones. The
authors speculated that this residue could be the leftovers of the
decayed skin and flesh: they quote the Penguin Geology Encyclopedia's
definition of "carbonization": "Carbonization; the reduction of
organic tissue to a carbon residue. An unusual kind of fossilization in which the tissue is preserved as a carbon film. Plants are
commonly preserved in this manner, soft-bodied animals more rarely."
Since this material is organic, it can be used to carbon-date the
fossils.<P>
The authors describe in detail the measures taken to ensure that no
other source of carbon contamination was present inside or outside the
bones. When the bones were ground up and carbon-dated, the dates they
received from the lab from different methods were 9,890 to 36,500
years BP (before present).<P>
On the same subject, some fossils from the Paluxy River are
"anomalous" as well. Carbonized (burnt) wood was discovered in
Cretaceous limestone, and dated to 12,800 to 45,000 YBP.<P>
In Creation Ex Nihilo (June-August 1997, p.49), Buddy Davis (Answers
in Genesis) says that he and four others (including Drs. Whitmore and
Speck) brought back over 200 pounds of dinosaur bones from the Liscomb
Bone Bed (Alaska). Earlier in the interview (conducted by Don
Batten), Davis said that this bed "has probably thousands of frozen
unfossilized dinosaur bones," and ligaments have been found, too.<P>
[last paragraph is irrelevant, sorry -- DP]
Don Lindsay
In article <34b5ab5c...@ediacara.org>,
<plaiste...@cs.unc.edu> wrote:
>The authors noted that dinosaur bones are frequently ("as a rule")
>found with a black carbon residue of some sort on the bones. The
>authors speculated that this residue could be the leftovers of the
>decayed skin and flesh:
The authors are shamelessly ignorant. Dinosaur bones are only found
with a black residue after they have been shellaced by a museum.
(Check "The Great Dinosaur Hunters", Plate 15, p.59 and 83.) Dinosaur
fossils found in the ground _never_ have such a residue. A pity: it
would make them easier to spot.
Let me guess: you've never dug a fossil, youself, right? Or you
wouldn't have embarrassed yourself like this.
--
Don D.C.Lindsay http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/Home.html
howard hershey
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>
> A number of people requested references for my statements about young
> carbon 14 dates for coal and oil and fossils. Here is what I found
> at http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html
>
> Consider this: if a specimen is older than 50,000 years, it has been
> calculated that it would have such a small amount of C14 that for
> practical purposes it would show an infinite radiocarbon age. So it
> was expected that most deposits such as coal, gas, etc. would be
> undatable by this method. In fact, of thousands of dates in the
> journals Radiocarbon and Science to 1968,
The fact that they stopped looking for dates after 1968 (most of the
information comes from Ham's *1992* book) is quite telling in light of
their admission that the researchers attribute much of the problem on
contamination of earlier samples. I wonder what kind of results they
would get if they looked at data from 1968 to the present?
> only a handful were classed
> "undatable" - most were of the sort which should have been in this
> category.
I found this above sentence to be "unreadable" (or intentionally
misleading by being confusing). It may merely refer to the fact that,
because of contamination, you always get a C14 reading above that seen
in a vacuum.
> This is especially remarkable with samples of coal and gas
> supposedly produced in the Carboniferous period 300 million years ago!
> Some examples of dates which contradict orthodox (evolutionary) views:
Again with examples of particular anomalies with absolutely no analysis
of what the normal readings were. *If* all those thousands of readings
agreed with a date of 4000 years ago (assuming all coal was formed
during one particularly humongous flood) or even if they all disagreed
with the standard interpretation, wouldn't you want to present a graph
showing how *all* these data points lie on a graph of time? Why,
instead, focus on a few oddball measurements?
>
> Coal from Russia from the "Pennsylvanian," supposedly 300 million
> years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966).
>
> Natural gas from Alabama and Mississippi (Cretaceous and Eocene,
> respectively) should have been 50 million to 135 million years old,
> yet C14 gave dates of 30,000 to 34,000 years,
> respectively. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966.
The below paragraph is very telling. My guess is that creation
researchers are doing no such thing and could probably buy such machines
off the shelf, because they already exist and are in use.
> Many of the earlier
> radiocarbon dates on objects such as coal and gas, which should be
> undatable, have been attributed to contamination from, for example,
> workers' fingerprints, creationist researchers are currently working
> on the construction of an apparatus, using existing technology, to
> look for very low levels of C14 activity in, for example, coal after
> excluding contamination. Such low-level activity would not be expected
> on the basis of old earth theory, and so is not looked for at
> present.)
>
> Bones of a sabre-toothed tiger from the LaBrea tar pits (near Los
> Angeles), supposedly 100,000-one million years old, gave a date of
> 28,000 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 10, 1968)
>
> More from my web site:
>
> At the 1992 Twin Cities Creation Conference, there was a paper
> presented called "Direct Dating of Cretaceous-Jurassic Fossils (and
> Other Evidences for Human-Dinosaur Coexistence)". Among other things,
> the results of carbon-dating of Acrocanthosaurus bones are given.<P>
>
> The authors noted that dinosaur bones are frequently ("as a rule")
> found with a black carbon residue of some sort on the bones.
Found that way in museum samples after they are coated with a
shellac-based preservative.
> The
> authors speculated that this residue could be the leftovers of the
> decayed skin and flesh: they quote the Penguin Geology Encyclopedia's
> definition of "carbonization": "Carbonization; the reduction of
> organic tissue to a carbon residue. An unusual kind of fossilization
> in which the tissue is preserved as a carbon film. Plants are
> commonly preserved in this manner, soft-bodied animals more rarely."
> Since this material is organic, it can be used to carbon-date the
> fossils.<P>
>
> The authors describe in detail the measures taken to ensure that no
> other source of carbon contamination was present inside or outside the
> bones. When the bones were ground up and carbon-dated, the dates they
> received from the lab from different methods were 9,890 to 36,500
> years BP (before present).<P>
Yes. When you measure a mixture of modern shellac and ancient bone
carbon, you will get dates that are more recent.
>
> On the same subject, some fossils from the Paluxy River are
> "anomalous" as well. Carbonized (burnt) wood was discovered in
> Cretaceous limestone, and dated to 12,800 to 45,000 YBP.<P>
More anomalies. I keep telling you that it isn't the anomalies that
need explaining. It is the mass of non-anomolous readings. You keep
presenting more anomalies. At least the web site you presented *tried*
to give reasons why the mass of non-anomolous C14 dates could be
systematically giving larger dates than predicted by 'creation
science's' theory of the earth (specifically, they attribute it to low
C14 production in ancient times because of the vapor canopy sheilding
the earth from the radiation that would convert atmospheric N to C14,
the much higher magnetic field that Barnes proposed doing the same,
and/or the much faster speed of light in the past affecting basic atomic
characteristics. Of course, only the last could possibly be relevant to
the non-C14 radiodating.
Of the three, I would work with the Barnes effect if I were a 'creation
scientist', since it is highly unlikely that there ever was a vapor
canopy and the speed of light has not changed. Perhaps you can show how
the change in magnetic field in the last century has correlated with
changes in the production of atmospheric C14? There actually is a
possibility that there may be a relationship, since it is known that
atmospheric C14 production does change (mostly because of changes in the
amount of radiation sent here by the sun, but you can't rule out an
effect by changing magnetic field intensity). However, that does not
rule out the use of C14 for the times for which it has been calibrated
with tree ring data. And finding an effect does not mean that the
effect is a major one: I think the maximum *systematic* error due to
changes in production of C14 would be around 12% or so. That is
considerably less than the order of magnitude systematic error you need
to find (i.e., the difference between 50-60,000 and 5-6,000 (oldest age
measurable by C14 and oldest age according to YEC) or between 40,000 and
4,000 (measured 'age' of most coal and age of the Flood).
And, of course, the magnetic field has no systematic effect on the other
isotopic methods we have discussed.
>
[snip]
am...@unicorn.us.com
In article <34b5ab5c...@ediacara.org>,
<plaiste...@cs.unc.edu> wrote:
>A number of people requested references for my statements about young
>carbon 14 dates for coal and oil and fossils. Here is what I found
>at http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html
And all of it is irrelevant. I can't think of anybody but creationists
who rely solely on one single dating technique to bolster their claims.
It is well known that carbon dating is unreliable past a certain point.
Dating should reflect a consensus of different methods, using other
isotopes, geologic layer analysis, etc.
The references to dating errors cited in creationist literature must be
examined carefully. More often than not, you'll find the creationists
took it out of context. I remember one example where a creationist
book referred to dating a live sea urchin to 4,000 years old, citing a
refereed journal. The article turned out to be about improper dating
techniques or something like that, but the creationists would never tell
you that.
Just because a creationist cites a scientific journal doesn't mean the
creationist has a valid point. Their earned reputation for intellectual
dishonesty requires that you gotta check ALL their citations.
-a
howard hershey
howard hershey wrote:
>
> plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
> >
[snip]
I forgot to mention one possible fly in the magnetic field ointment (as
a mechanism to explain the supposed systematic error of one order of
magnitude in dates measured by C14). This model would require a
mechanism for moving the C14 from the upper to the lower atmosphere
(rather a lot of turbulence) and rather rapid rates of change in C14
levels to accomplish a systematic error off by an order of magnitude.
Since C14 production is a rather inefficient process, the amount of
radiation reaching the atmosphere would have to be accordingly higher.
You must be careful that your mechanism doesn't result in the frying of
life on the surface.
>
> And, of course, the magnetic field has no systematic effect on the other
> isotopic methods we have discussed.
Where the systmatic error is about 6 orders of magnitude.
> >
> [snip]
Chris Stassen
[Posted and E-mailed]
plai...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
> Consider this: if a specimen is older than 50,000 years, it has been
> calculated that it would have such a small amount of C14 that for
> practical purposes it would show an infinite radiocarbon age.
This claim is not true. Whoever you got it from, David, does not
understand carbon dating.
The standard way that carbon dating is performed is: carbon is
extracted from the sample; it is turned into a gas (usually
carbon dioxide, methane, or acetylene); it is placed in a tube
which permits counting of decays; the level of radioactivity
of the gas is measured (to assess the fraction of the sample
that is carbon-14).
In that final step, precautions are taken to reduce or compensate
for the level of background radiation. No matter what is done,
however, some amount of background radiation ends up in the count
of carbon-14 decays. By the standard carbon-14 method, an age
result in the range of 30,000 years or above (the exact limit
depends on the size and carbon content of the dated sample) *is*
what you will get even for a sample that contains no carbon-14
at all. The method is not generally capable of yielding "an
infinite age" directly.
(There is also a much more expensive and accurate method involving
the use of very sensitive mass spectrometers. It is capable of
measuring smaller samples and/or extending the range back a little
further. However, few labs are equipped to perform this procedure
and it isn't commonly used.)
Most of the results which you discuss *are* near or over 30,000
years, and are therefore perfectly consistent with an old Earth.
If you pick one of your few examples which dates to a much smaller
value, I will look into it later. However first I want to find
out about the alleged Moon rock with so much excess argon.
--
Chris Stassen http://www.stassen.com/chris/
NOTE: The "Reply-To" address of this message is an auto-bounce.
Use "http://www.stassen.com/chris/feedback/submit.html" for private
or offline responses, if you don't know my real E-mail address.
chris brochu
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>
> The authors noted that dinosaur bones are frequently ("as a rule")
> found with a black carbon residue of some sort on the bones.
This is incorrect. I've been involved with the collection and
preparation of vertebrate fossils - including dinosaurs - for several
years. I have never, not once, encountered a dinosaur bone in the field
with a black carbon residue. I've seen them with some sort of iron
oxide coating, but that is very different. I have, however, seen old
19th-century mounts with soot coating them, presumably from nearby
factories and furnaces.
chris
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Christopher Brochu
Department of Geological Sciences
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu
One of the main arguments in favor of radiometric dating is that so
many dates agree with each other, that is, with the date expected for
their geologic period. But it's not evident how much support this
gives to radiometric dating. If a rock dates too old, one can say
that the clock did not get reset. If it dates too young, one can
invoke a later heating event. Neither date would necessarily be seen
as anomalous. If lava intrudes upon geologic period X, then any date
for the lava of X or later will not be seen as anomalous. And even if
the date is one or two geologic periods earlier, it may well be close
enough to be accepted as non-spurious. If one does not know the
geologic period of a rock by other means, then of course one is likely
to date it to find out, and then of course the date agrees with the
geologic period and this will not be seen as anomalous. So it is
difficult to know what would be a reasonable test for whether
radiometric dating is reliable or not. The percentage of published
dates that are considered as anomalous has little bearing on the
question.
Here is some more material from my web site bearing on the question of
the age of the geologic column:
---
It is also of interest in regard to radiometric dating that Robert
Gentry claims to have found "squashed" uranium radiohaloes in coal
deposits from many geological layers claimed to be hundreds of
millions of years old. (See the Oct. 15, 1976 issue of Science.)
These haloes represent particles of uranium which penetrated into the
coal at some point and produced a halo by radioactive decay. The fact
that they are squashed indicates that part of the decay process began
before the material was compressed, so the uranium had to be present
before compression. Since coal is relatively incompressible, Gentry
concludes that these particles of uranium must have entered the
deposit before it turned to coal. However, there is a very small
amount of lead with the uranium; if the uranium had entered hundreds
of millions of years ago, then there should be much more lead. The
amount of lead present is consistent with an age of thousands rather
than millions of years. It's hard to believe, according to
conventional geological time scales, that this coal was compressed any
time within the past several thousand or even hundred million years.
---
And yet another item on the distribution of radiometric ages, taken
from my web page:
---
Another very interesting mechanism that can affect potassium-argon
dates is the unequal distribution of the daughter element in magma
chambers. A discussion of this mechanism may be found at <a
href="http://www.tagnet.org/gri/w/articles/gr20rb.htm"> the Geoscience
Research Institute site.</a> One would expect the lighter argon to
concentrate at the top of chambers in which molten rock is found.
This would effectively increase the radiometric age of the magma near
the top of the chamber and decrease its age lower down. During a
volcanic eruption, the first lava to escape would come from the top of
the chamber, and would therefore appear to have a very old radiometric
age. Lava emerging later would appear much younger. As a result,
lava found in deeper layers, having erupted earlier, would generally
appear much older and lava found in higher layers, having erupted
later, would appear much younger. This could account for the observed
distribution of potassium-argon dates, even if the great sedimantary
layers were laid down very recently. In addition, lava emerging later
will tend to be hotter, coming from deeper in the earth and through
channels that have already been warmed up. This lava will take longer
to cool down, giving more opportunity for enclosed argon to escape and
leading to younger radiometric ages.
---
It's interesting to note that in a few cases, old radiometric dates
are above young ones.
Finally, without proof I would not take Prof. Hershey's assertions
about shellac as substantiated. Suppose I said something like that
about a result by an evolutionary biologist. How would that be
received?
hamilton
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
[snip]
> Coal from Russia from the "Pennsylvanian," supposedly 300 million
> years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966).
[snip right here]
Could you please proved Authors and page numbers?
Interlibrary loan will not accept this as a reference.
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu
Here is some more information about radiometric dating from a
creationist viewpoint. It may be found at
http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder12.htm
and has the advantage that all references are listed at the end.
I don't have enough background to evaluate this material but it
seems plausible.
---
Do the radiometric dating methods give consistent results?
Answer:
a. Volcanic rocks on Reunisn Island in the Indian Ocean yielded
lead/lead and uranium/lead ages from 2.2 to 4.5BY, but potassium/argon
ages of only 100,000 to 2 million years.19 Secular scientists respond
that the time-zero contents of these rocks are not available to make
the lead/lead and lead/uranium methods applicable. This is, however,
based upon their assumption that these rocks were formed billions of
years after the earth. In fact, they cannot be sure that they ever
have the correct time-zero data needed for using the lead/uranium
dating methods on any rocks.
b. Lunar soil from Apollo 11 gave ages by four different lead methods
varying from 4.67 to 8.2BY and nearby rocks gave potassium/argon ages
of around 2.3BY.20 Certain Apollo 2 rocks gave strontium/rubidium and
lead ages ranging from 2.3 to 4.9BY.21 A certain rock from Apollo 16
gave lead ages from 7 to 18BY but was chemically treated until it
yielded an acceptable "corrected" age of 3.8BY.22
c. Granite from the Black Hills gave strontium/rubidium and various
lead system ages varying from 1.16 to 2.55BY.23
d. Certain Russian volcanic rocks gave ages from 50 million to
14.6BY., although they are considered to be only thousands of years
old.24
e. Volcanic rocks from Hawaii extruded under water only 170 years ago
gave potassium/argon ages from 160 million years to 3BY.12 Secular
scientists explain that water pressure trapped argon gas in the
rapidly cooled volcanic lava. Perhaps, but on one island the
potassium/argon method is supposed to be correct and the lead/uranium
method wrong(see example a above), but in the Hawaiian Islands the
reverse is alleged to be true. How can we ever be sure which method is
correct? Maybe they are all wrong.
f. Recent studies of radiometric age measurements in the Grand Canyon
area have raised serious problems for the great age
chronology. Dr. Steve Austin of the Institute for Creation Research
reports the results of his work in Grand Canyon, Monument to
Catastrophe.25 The most striking contradiction between age
measurements in the Grand Canyon is seen in the basalt lava flows that
poured from a volcano on the high Uinkaret Plateau over the brink of
the canyon and down into the deep canyon. These lava flows are
obviously some of the youngest rocks in the area, yet sitting on the
top of some of the oldest rocks in the bottom of the canyon. The
radiometric "ages" of these lava flow rocks are as much a 500 million
years greater than the "ages" for rock strata that lie beneath
them. None of the excuses offered for these and other radiometric age
contradictions in the Grand Canyon appear to be
satisfactory. Dr. Austin also cites a potassium/argon "age" of 6
billion years obtained for a collection of ten diamonds mined in the
African nation of Zaire.26 The Cretaceous rocks in which they were
found are supposedly only about 100 million years old, and the earth
itself is supposed to be only 4.5 billion years old. The excuse
offered by secular scientists is that the diamonds retained excess
argon from the magma in which they crystallized. But then, how can one
be sure that any potassium/argon age is valid?
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu
This comes from
http://hubcap.clemson.edu/spurgeon/books/apology/Chapter7.html
The reason that this is relevant is that it states that in nearly
every case, recent lava flows give very old radiometric ages. This
seems to suggest that the same may be true of all radiometric ages.
In addition, it would appear that if we took the set of radiometric
dates from events in recorded history, the percentage of anomalies
would be quite high (even if explanations for them can be given).
This site also has references at the end.
---
But what about the radiometric dating methods? The earth is supposed
to be nearly 5 billion years old, and some of these methods seem to
verify ancient dates for many of earth's igneous rocks. The answer is
that these methods, are far from infallible and are based on three
arbitrary assumptions (a constant rate of decay, an isolated system in
which no parent or daughter element can be added or lost, and a known
amount of the daughter element present initially) .
[isochrons solve some of these problems btw]
It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute
dating methods that they claimed to be. Age estimates on a given
geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite
different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is not
absolutely reliable long-term radiological "clock". The uncertainties
inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and
evolutionists... [47]
As proof of the unreliability of the radiometric methods consider the
fact that in nearly every case dates from recent lava flows have come
back excessively large. One example is the rocks from the Kaupelehu
Flow, Hualalai Volcano in Hawaii which was known to have erupted in
1800-1801. These rocks were dated by a variety of different
methods. Of 12 dates reported the youngest was 140 million years and
the oldest was 2.96 billion years. The dates average 1.41 billion
years. [48]
Chris Stassen
[Posted and E-mailed]
David Plaisted wrote:
> The reason that this is relevant is that it states that in nearly
> every case, recent lava flows give very old radiometric ages.
If it makes that claim, it tells a lie. See for example
Dalrymple (1969), a comprehensive survey of the argon content
of "historic" (observed in modern times) lava flows. Of
samples from 26 different sources, 25 of them gave results
less than 250,000 years (which is essentially zero to
within measurement accuracy, because it represents an error
of less than 0.0002 half-lives).
The 26th was the oft-misused-by-creationists Hualalei flow,
which is not suitable for K-Ar dating in the first place
because it contains ultramafic inclusions (which were solid
before the flow reached the surface) that carry excess argon.
REFERENCE:
Dalrymple, G.B., 1969. "40Ar/36Ar Analyses of Historic Lava
Flows" in _Earth and Planetary Science Letters_ vol. 6, pp. 47-55.
howard hershey
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>
> One of the main arguments in favor of radiometric dating is that so
> many dates agree with each other, that is, with the date expected for
> their geologic period.
That should read "agree with each other *and* qualitatively with the
expectation for their geological period". That is they agree with each
other *and* correlate with the superposition of geological strata from
oldest to youngest. These are two separate features, since it might
have been the case that the dates could largely agree with each other
(and this is simply a way of saying that the method works consistently
when all the necessary methodological assumptions that we know about are
met) and yet disagree with the expectation of superposition (as, indeed,
one would expect them to if YEC were true; that model would predict all
of the measurements to present the same age).
> But it's not evident how much support this
> gives to radiometric dating. If a rock dates too old, one can say
> that the clock did not get reset. If it dates too young, one can
> invoke a later heating event. Neither date would necessarily be seen
> as anomalous.
Both would be considered anomolous because they differ from the mass of
dates that 'agree with each other'. They are not considered anomolous
because they disagree with some theoretically expected age. They are
considered anomolous because they disagree with the date for that layer
determined by the mass of measurements that 'agree with each other'.
You are confused about what the term anomolous means. Anomolous means
any measurement outlier.
> If lava intrudes upon geologic period X, then any date
> for the lava of X or later will not be seen as anomalous.
If it dated significantly younger than the age determined (by the
consensus of the measurements) for the layer above it, Y, or
significantly older than geological period X (by the consensus of the
measurements for that layer), it would be considered anomolous for the
second expectation that there is a correlation of measured age with
superposition of geological layers. But if most measurements of layers
that intrude between layer X and layer Y gave dates that were either
younger than Y or older than X, it would not be considered an anomolous
measurement of the age of that layer. However, it is a 'fact of nature'
that the consensus age of each layer (the mass of ages that 'agree with
each other') also matches the expectation of lesser ages the higher up
in the geological column determined well before radiodating (correlation
with superposition).
> And even if
> the date is one or two geologic periods earlier, it may well be close
> enough to be accepted as non-spurious.
No. It would be considered anomolous for the expectation of correlation
with superposition. Of course, if the accuracy of the measurement
technique is low enough (higher variance in measurements) one has a bit
of slop in the value.
> If one does not know the
> geologic period of a rock by other means,
Geological period is determined by rules of superposition rather than
absolute age determined by radiodating.
> then of course one is likely
> to date it to find out, and then of course the date agrees with the
> geologic period and this will not be seen as anomalous.
The consensus of radiodating ages that 'agree with each other'
determines the age of that layer. It also happens to be a 'fact of
nature' that these dates agree with the qualitative pattern of
superposition. That is (and was) the expectation of standard geology
(that lower layers are significantly older than upper layers) and
differs significantly from the YEC expectation that all layers were
formed in less than a year about 4000 years ago.
> So it is
> difficult to know what would be a reasonable test for whether
> radiometric dating is reliable or not. The percentage of published
> dates that are considered as anomalous has little bearing on the
> question.
You don't understand the meaning of 'reliability'. The percentage of
measured dates that are anomalous has *every* bearing on the question of
reliability. It is the crucial information you need. It tells us how
often the known necessary conditions for proper measurement (given the
known requirements of the method) are met relative to unknown factors
that are not uniform in distribution. If 80-90% of measurements of
samples that also meet the *known requirements for the method that can
be determined beforehand* give very similar values, the method is quite
reliable. The only way they could be giving a 'false' date is because
of some *systematic* error or assumption that was not taken into
account. But they would still be quite *reliably* giving you that
'false' date. That is your problem (because radiodating *is* in fact
reliable). You need to find a *systematic* error in the method or a
hidden assumption that can causes both a *systematic* finding of great
age and also one that causes the ages to correlate with order of
superposition of the geological layers (the systematic problem need not
necessarily be the same for the two features).
But tossing in a few more anomolies does not do anything. You need to
explain away the majority of data that 'agree with each other'.
>
> Here is some more material from my web site bearing on the question of
> the age of the geologic column:
>
[snip more anomolies]
>
> Finally, without proof I would not take Prof. Hershey's assertions
> about shellac as substantiated. Suppose I said something like that
> about a result by an evolutionary biologist. How would that be
> received?
Since the authors did not publish in the scientific press, as opposed to
touting their findings to the scientifically ignorant general press that
just wants a good story, and, if the situation is the one I mentioned,
the evidence comes from the lab that performed the C14 dating. They
specifically mentioned the coating to the authors as being problematic.
If it was the same group (and the timing is right), as you point out,
they ignored the probable contamination explanation in preference to
some b.s. story about carbon films that would never pass the most
minimal editing in the worst paleontology journal. The story was
written up in Creation/Evolution sometime in 1990s, I think.
Worse things have been said about evolutionary biologists. Just a few
years ago, an Indian paleontologist was accused of collecting fossils at
flea markets and claiming they came from a border area with Pakistan.
He published with other paleontologists who identified the material
without knowing for sure where it came from. This case was documented
sufficiently well that now virtually every paper he ever wrote has
become suspect and every paper he ever will write will be suspect. Your
good name is vital in science.
Being stupid is not, by itself, a crime in science, although publishing
something which later has to be retracted is embarrassing...especially
if the reason was something basic you should have caught or were warned
about. Whether the creation scientists here were simply being willfully
stupid by purposely ignoring the real possibility that their sample was
contaminated when they were informed of that possibility or whether they
knew full well that their sample was contaminated and that, because the
result would support their thesis, they would report it *despite* the
contamination is between them and their God.
Don Lindsay
In article <34b65eb2...@ediacara.org>,
<plaiste...@cs.unc.edu> wrote:
>
>As proof of the unreliability of the radiometric methods consider the
>fact that in nearly every case dates from recent lava flows have come
>back excessively large.
"Nearly every"? Name two.
>One example is the rocks from the Kaupelehu
>Flow, Hualalai Volcano in Hawaii which was known to have erupted in
>1800-1801. These rocks were dated by a variety of different
>methods. Of 12 dates reported the youngest was 140 million years and
>the oldest was 2.96 billion years. The dates average 1.41 billion
>years. [48]
>
That's one. But, it's a falsehood:
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/hawaii.html
Chris Stassen
[Posted and E-mailed]
David Plaisted wrote:
> Here is some more information about radiometric dating from a
> creationist viewpoint. It may be found at
I take it you are not going to bother to study isotope geology
*except* second-hand via creationist literature? I'm disappointed
(but I can't say I'm surprised).
Among Plaisted's examples were:
[reunion island U/Pb ages]
This is actually a fairly famous creationist blunder. The
referenced paper does not produce U/Pb ages of the flows.
The intent of the U and Pb measurements was to compute the
time that the source magma had been separated from the mantle.
The data was not intended to yield the age of the flows and
no knowledgeable geologist would try to do this.
[See Dalrymple 1986 p. 37 -- full reference info in the t.o
Age of the Earth FAQ.]
[lunar soil ages]
Lunar soil is a fine powder with multiple sources (lunar
rocks, meteorites, and solar wind) and is not *expected* to
yield meaningful ages. The isochron results which you mention
in this same paragraph are accurate (for example, 2-2.5Ga is
within the acceptable range for mare basalts). The "lead ages"
are non-isochron and meaningless.
[ICR "grand canyon dating project"]
There is a FAQ on this one. It's a prime example of creationist
chicanery, but not a legitimate problem for isotope geology.
howard hershey
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>
> Here is some more information about radiometric dating from a
> creationist viewpoint. It may be found at
>
>
> and has the advantage that all references are listed at the end.
> I don't have enough background to evaluate this material but it
> seems plausible.
>
> ---
>
> Do the radiometric dating methods give consistent results?
>
above question].
You do not determine how consistent or inconsistent a method is by
merely citing examples that disagree with the usual findings. You need
a measure of consistency. Do these anomolies represent one finding out
of 10, out of 100, out of 1000?
chris brochu
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>
> Finally, without proof I would not take Prof. Hershey's assertions
> about shellac as substantiated. Suppose I said something like that
> about a result by an evolutionary biologist. How would that be
> received?
Here's an idea: go out into the field, find a dinosaur bone, and try to
obtain a C-14 date from the carbon residue around it. You'll have to
obtain your own funding, but perhaps the ICR has research grants
available to outside workers. There are labs all over the U.S. that
perform C-14 dating on contract; with a large enough grant, you could
send samples to more than one. Make sure you either ask for permission
from the landowners or obtain a federal permit for BLM land before you
start prospecting; you're liable to get your ass shot off in the first
case and be arrested in the second.
If you obtain the kind of date your references reported, without having
applied any kind of hardener like shellac or Butvar, you may have
something.
What's that? You couldn't find the carbon residue around the bone?
Well, that wouldn't surprise paleontologists, who are used to not
finding such residues; but how, then, to reconcile that with the report
made by your reference?
howard hershey
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Do the radiometric dating methods give consistent results?
>
Yes. The results (even the vast majority of the anomolous results) are
incongruent with the specific expectations of YEC's 6000 year old earth
and 4000 year old Flood theories. :-)
Derek Potter
On 9 Jan 1998 09:43:10 -0500, am...@unicorn.us.com wrote:
'''I remember one example where a creationist
'>book referred to dating a live sea urchin to 4,000 years old, citing a
'>refereed journal.
I read about a freeshwater snail. The issue being, of course, where the
animals got their carbonate from - i.e. was it a source that was in
equilibrium with the air? Does anyone know what the radiocarbon age of
seawater is? Or in the case of a freshwater snail, if it was living in
water that was loaded with bicarbonate that had been released by acid
action on ancient limestones?
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>A number of people requested references for my statements about young
>carbon 14 dates for coal and oil and fossils. Here is what I found
>at http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html
>
[snip]
>
>Natural gas from Alabama and Mississippi (Cretaceous and Eocene,
>respectively) should have been 50 million to 135 million years old,
>yet C14 gave dates of 30,000 to 34,000 years,
>respectively. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966. Many of the earlier
>radiocarbon dates on objects such as coal and gas, which should be
>undatable, have been attributed to contamination from, for example,
>workers' fingerprints, creationist researchers are currently working
>on the construction of an apparatus, using existing technology, to
>look for very low levels of C14 activity in, for example, coal after
>excluding contamination. Such low-level activity would not be expected
>on the basis of old earth theory, and so is not looked for at
>present.)
>
I have two questions for you: 1) are accusations of dishonesty like
this common in creationist material and 2) do they support the
accusations or are we supposed to just accept it?
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
-----------------------------
The opinions expressed in this post reflect those of the Walt
Disney Corp. Which might come as a surprise to them.
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>Here is some more information about radiometric dating from a
>creationist viewpoint. It may be found at
>
> http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder12.htm
>
>and has the advantage that all references are listed at the end.
>I don't have enough background to evaluate this material but it
>seems plausible.
>
Does it really?
>---
>
>Do the radiometric dating methods give consistent results?
>
>Answer:
>
>a. Volcanic rocks on Reunisn Island in the Indian Ocean yielded
>lead/lead and uranium/lead ages from 2.2 to 4.5BY, but potassium/argon
>ages of only 100,000 to 2 million years.19 Secular scientists respond
>that the time-zero contents of these rocks are not available to make
>the lead/lead and lead/uranium methods applicable.
Why the word "secular" scientists. Do you think the author really has
any idea of the religious views of the people involved? Do you think
that lying is a sin?
>This is, however,
>based upon their assumption that these rocks were formed billions of
>years after the earth. In fact, they cannot be sure that they ever
>have the correct time-zero data needed for using the lead/uranium
>dating methods on any rocks.
>
Did the source give a reference to the original "secular science"
paper? If so, have you looked to see if the "secular scientists" gave
an explanation for the disagreement? And did you look to see if it was
the dishonest one claimed above?
>b. Lunar soil from Apollo 11 gave ages by four different lead methods
>varying from 4.67 to 8.2BY and nearby rocks gave potassium/argon ages
>of around 2.3BY.20
So?
>Certain Apollo 2 rocks gave strontium/rubidium and
>lead ages ranging from 2.3 to 4.9BY.21 A certain rock from Apollo 16
>gave lead ages from 7 to 18BY but was chemically treated until it
>yielded an acceptable "corrected" age of 3.8BY.22
>
Again a claim of dishonesty. Are you secure in the idea that scores of
thousands of scientists are in on this conspiracy.
>c. Granite from the Black Hills gave strontium/rubidium and various
>lead system ages varying from 1.16 to 2.55BY.23
>
So?
>d. Certain Russian volcanic rocks gave ages from 50 million to
>14.6BY., although they are considered to be only thousands of years
>old.24
>
>e. Volcanic rocks from Hawaii extruded under water only 170 years ago
>gave potassium/argon ages from 160 million years to 3BY.12 Secular
>scientists explain that water pressure trapped argon gas in the
>rapidly cooled volcanic lava.
I wonder if the Christians in the group agreed or not?
>Perhaps, but on one island the
>potassium/argon method is supposed to be correct and the lead/uranium
>method wrong(see example a above), but in the Hawaiian Islands the
>reverse is alleged to be true. How can we ever be sure which method is
>correct? Maybe they are all wrong.
>
Or maybe there is a little more to the explanation that this writer is
presenting. Since I have seen better explanations recently in this
newsgroup group I do not find this accusation plausible.
>f. Recent studies of radiometric age measurements in the Grand Canyon
>area have raised serious problems for the great age
>chronology. Dr. Steve Austin of the Institute for Creation Research
I do not find the work of self-proclaimed religious bigots of much
value. The ICR is not a scientific organization, it cannot, but its
own charter, do honest work.
>reports the results of his work in Grand Canyon, Monument to
>Catastrophe.25 The most striking contradiction between age
>measurements in the Grand Canyon is seen in the basalt lava flows that
>poured from a volcano on the high Uinkaret Plateau over the brink of
>the canyon and down into the deep canyon. These lava flows are
>obviously some of the youngest rocks in the area, yet sitting on the
>top of some of the oldest rocks in the bottom of the canyon.
And where would you expect them to sit?
>The
>radiometric "ages" of these lava flow rocks are as much a 500 million
>years greater than the "ages" for rock strata that lie beneath
>them.
Did the fellow do his own work or did he read a paper of work done by
others. If the later, did you look to see if the (presumably) secular
scientist involved had an explanation?
>None of the excuses offered for these and other radiometric age
>contradictions in the Grand Canyon appear to be
>satisfactory.
And the standard for "satisfactory" is set by a self-proclaimed bigot
who would loose his job if he disagreed.
>Dr. Austin also cites a potassium/argon "age" of 6
>billion years obtained for a collection of ten diamonds mined in the
>African nation of Zaire.26
What happened to the Grand Canyon?
>The Cretaceous rocks in which they were
>found are supposedly only about 100 million years old, and the earth
>itself is supposed to be only 4.5 billion years old. The excuse
>offered by secular scientists is that the diamonds retained excess
>argon from the magma in which they crystallized. But then, how can one
>be sure that any potassium/argon age is valid?
Maybe by doing some hard work, not just scoffing at other's papers.
wf...@enter.netxx
On 7 Jan 1998 11:54:27 -0500, plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>I wanted to respond to another point Prof. Hershey made. He said
>that if the earth (or at least life) is young, then fossils and
>coal should yield young carbon 14 ages. Creationists have done
>carbon 14 dating on fossils and non-creationists have done it on
>coal and oil and it typically gives carbon 14 dates of about
>20,000 to 30,000 years. The only reason this is not more widely
>known seems to be that everyone assumes that fossils are too old
>for such a dating method so it is simply not done.
>
>Establishment scientists probably attribute this to contamination,
>but every effort has been made in some cases to rule this out.
well there's a problem with your idea. creationist scientists, by
definition, cannot be objective. thus their measurements cannot be
trusted.
'establishment' scientists OTOH have no vested interest in what the
evidence shows. how often has some 'establishment' scientist
overthrown the establishment? fairly often.
==============================================================
official evolutionist 'goon squad' member...
if you want to know who WF3H is, go to the qrz database and
type in 'wf3h' at the prompt.
wf...@enter.netxx
On 9 Jan 1998 12:30:26 -0500, plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>This comes from
>
> http://hubcap.clemson.edu/spurgeon/books/apology/Chapter7.html
>
im curious since you seem to want to argue science with scientists but
dont seem to want to discuss creationism with scientists
why do you think only religious fundamentalists believe in
creationism?
why dont scientists, worldwide do so if its science?
Steve Geller
>every case, recent lava flows give very old radiometric ages. This
>seems to suggest that the same may be true of all radiometric ages.
Lava flows tend to trap non-radiogenic Argon. Your Hawaiian example
is a well-known creationist canard; the lava was extruded under the
sea, and was quickly quenched full of Argon. It turns out that the
reference which is the original source for the traditional creationist
claim, was an article about why K-Ar =doesn't= work for pillow lavas.
>In addition, it would appear that if we took the set of radiometric
>dates from events in recorded history, the percentage of anomalies
>would be quite high (even if explanations for them can be given).
Think just a little: if your claim is true, you could look at the main
body of evidence, not a few dubious anomalies.
Examples of deliberate retailing of lies, of which the Hawaiian pillow
lavas is a prime example, ruins the credibility of all these
creationist publications, except for those who so badly wish to
believe the earth is young, and thus safe from evolution.
Steve Geller
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>One of the main arguments in favor of radiometric dating is that so
>many dates agree with each other, that is, with the date expected for
>their geologic period.
I suppose, since you creationists operate that way, you might think
science does too. You brush off the consistent bulk of radiometric
dating results, and look at only the anomalies -- the ones which
support young earth, of course.
Science has succeeded, where revelation has failed, because just one
"anomaly" isn't enough. Dates of fossils are established, not by
"what fits expectations" (which would be fraud) but by what makes a
consistent pattern. Creationists are the big time practitioners of
fitting to expectations, I'd say.
If you're going to go with only the anomalous data, it's your job to
give a theory which fits the anomalies better than the notion of deep
time fits the bulk of results. So-far, this theory seems to be "I
believe God's Word says the earth is young".
>difficult to know what would be a reasonable test for whether
>radiometric dating is reliable or not. The percentage of published
>dates that are considered as anomalous has little bearing on the
>question.
C-14 dating originally put Stonehenge after the Minoan civilizations,
leading to a lot of arm-waving archaeology to fit artifacts.
It didn't seem consistent. The problem was there'd been a period of
low solar activity which reduced C-14 production. C-14 dating now
uses a correction curve, derived from tree-ring studies.
Stonehenge is now known to be way older than the Minoans.
BTW, with all your anomalies, do you really see any case building
for anything close to 6000-year-old earth? Are you aware that the
first archaeologic evidence for dwelling in towns does date back
about that far? Genesis might just be the legend-history of humans
from the start of large-scale tradition. The expulsion from the
garden might be derived from a climate shift, like the dust bowl.
I find this more plausible than that Genesis offers any clue toward
creation and origins. After all, Genesis makes no mention of fossils,
or radioactivity. It sounds like an ancient legend; I think it is.
If the Genesis "evidence" is deleted, what's left is either the
consistent picture of deep time, or the confusing scatter of a few
anomalies.
>Finally, without proof I would not take Prof. Hershey's assertions
>about shellac as substantiated.
But you would expect us to believe stuff like the old pillow lava
story?
>Suppose I said something like that
>about a result by an evolutionary biologist. How would that be
>received?
You would be asked to put up or shut up. Museum bones are, in fact,
coated to preserve them. Bones in the field? Well, there are plenty
of dinosaur hunter books, and TV specials to show what goes on.
I've been to Dinosaur National Monument, in eastern Colorado. The
bones there are being dug out of a rock face. I saw no shellac.
I wonder what would happen if one of those bones got C-14 dated?
Almost certainly, the result would be 30,000 years - the max.
The main issue here is that if young-earth claims are anywhere close
to being true, C-14 =must= work to date dinosaurs. It doesn't; not
unless some silly creationists send in a coated museum specimen.
Dinosaurs got left out of Genesis, but today we must deal with them.
howard hershey
Steve Geller wrote:
>
> plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>
> >One of the main arguments in favor of radiometric dating is that so
> >many dates agree with each other, that is, with the date expected for
> >their geologic period.
>
> I suppose, since you creationists operate that way, you might think
> science does too. You brush off the consistent bulk of radiometric
> dating results, and look at only the anomalies -- the ones which
> support young earth, of course.
No. It's even worse for poor Mssr. Plaisted. The vast bulk of even the
*anomalies* in radiodating don't support the specific expectations of
the YEC model. Not only that, but all the other completely independent
dating methods (ice cores, tree rings, estimates based on current rates
of erosion, the distance to visible stars, etc., etc.) *also* are
incongruent with the specific expectations of the YEC model, *even* when
they disagree with each other and have anomalies themselves. Even the
*anomalies* of these other methods are incongruent with the specific
expectations of the YEC model.
The YEC model is supported by exactly one bit of evidence: A mindlessly
literal interpretation of the Christian Bible. That's it as far as I
know and as far as I have seen in the YEC literature.
The YEC literature doesn't even try to justify the ages their theory
explicitly implies scientifically. All they do is try to claim that all
methods for measuring age are fatally flawed by pointing out that there
are a few anomalies in measurements in the hope that that will only
leave their literal interpretation of the Christian Bible.
>
[snip]
Thomas Scharle
howard hershey (hers...@indiana.edu) wrote:
...
: The YEC literature doesn't even try to justify the ages their theory
: explicitly implies scientifically. All they do is try to claim that all
: methods for measuring age are fatally flawed by pointing out that there
: are a few anomalies in measurements in the hope that that will only
: leave their literal interpretation of the Christian Bible.
One example of this is the argument that goes something like
this:
The experiments on measuring the number of
neutrinos produced by the sun give the wrong
result. Therefore, the theory that the sun
is powered by nuclear fusion is falsified.
Therefore, there is no evidence that the sun
is billions of years old.
I'm not making this up.
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
Chris Stassen
[Posted and E-mailed]
David Plaisted quoted:
[http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder12.htm]
I was able to track down two more of these references at the local
library. If legitimate problems for isochron-equivalent dating
methods are so obvious and common, how do we explain the
creationists' abysmally poor track-record in producing them?
> c. Granite from the Black Hills gave strontium/rubidium and various
> lead system ages varying from 1.16 to 2.55BY.23
[The reference is: Zartman et al., 1964, "Ancient Granite Gneiss in
the Black Hills, South Dakota" in _Science_ vol. 146 pp. 479-481]
Gneiss is metamorphosed granite, and this formation has therefore
had (as is obvious from visual inspection) a complex history.
Going in, it would be expected that the date of formation would
not be directly derived by the standard dating methodology --
due to metamorphism and the effects resulting from the formation
of several later intrusive bodies in the same area.
And, indeed, this is what is found. For example, the Rb/Sr data
reported in the paper consist of three whole-rock samples and
three mineral separations of one of the three samples. When
plotted on an isochron diagram (Figure 1 in the referenced paper),
the data are scattered. Not only do the six data points fail to
line up, it turns out that no three of them are even co-linear.
Thus (as usual) the isochron methodology correctly diagnoses
that element migration has occurred since formation. This does
not represent a failure of the dating methodology, and does not
represent the generation of "good-looking but inaccurate" ages.
In cases like this, it is still sometimes possible to ascertain
useful information about the history of the rock, but secondary
assumptions are involved and the conclusions are necessarily far
more tentative than those which would have been possible had the
data plotted as co-linear. The authors proceed by computing the
ages of isochron lines derived from various subsets of the data
(the three whole-rock data only, the mineral separations only,
and each of the whole-rock data combined with the Y-intercept
representing the initial Sr-87/Sr-86 ratio of similar precambrian
formations in Minnesota and Ontario).
*That* series of tentative dates is the source of the spread of
ages reported in the creationist paper. The creationist author
whom David trusted has in my opinion badly misrepresented
the contents of the paper. Isochron methods worked as expected;
bogus dates did not result. The reported ages are merely
secondary estimations based on additional assumptions, and they
are not taken as precise age indications even by the authors of
the paper.
> b. [...] A certain rock from Apollo 16 gave lead ages from 7
> to 18BY but was chemically treated until it yielded an acceptable
> "corrected" age of 3.8BY.22
[The reference is: Nunes & Tatsumoto, 1973. "Excess Lead in
"Rusty Rock" 66095 and Implications for an Early Lunar
Differentiation" in _Science_ vol. 182, pp. 916-920]
Once again, David's source has played fast and loose (*extremely*
loose) with the facts. First, the paper does not produce the ages
"7 to 18BY" which the creationists claim. These computations are
almost certainly non-isochron calculations (performed by the
creationists) based on simple parent-to-daughter ratios. U/Pb
dates computed in this manner are generally not taken seriously
because they do not have detection of or defense against isotope
migration.
The alleged "chemical treatment" is actually a series of washes
(water and various acids) by which portions of the rock were
dissolved and measured. It was found that the isotopic ratios
of lead removed gave two clear and distinct values -- one set
for "easily leached" lead, and a different set for the remainder.
This data did not itself yield an age, but did suggest that
non-radiogenic lead had been added to the rock. ("These
observations indicate that we have a good separation of
radiogenic Pb generated in situ (the residual portion) and
excess Pb.") This data indicates that the creationists'
computations ("7 to 18BY") are meaningless.
It is a blatant lie for the creationists to suggest that
"chemical treatments" were applied "until" the desired age was
reached.
In actuality, the good age that is reported was computed by a
simple U-Pb isochron plot derived from a mineral separation of
the rock (Figure 1 in the referenced paper). The "chemical
treatment" was not relevant to the isochron plot. The isochron
data were fairly co-linear and yielded an age of 3.82 +/- 0.28
billion years.
(The authors did attempt to compute a more precise age based on
the isotopic composition and timing of the added lead. This
involved additional assumptions, such as the age of the Moon
its Pb isotopic composition at formation, and the number of
stages in the rock's history. They also discussed implications
for the early history of the Moon at length. See the original
paper for details.)
So, here we have a case where: an isochron method yielded an
accurate age; additional checks gave more information on the
history of the rock; simple parent-to-daughter ratios did
not yield accurate ages; and the creationists either did not
understand, or else lied about, the contents of the paper.
Mark Isaak
In article <34B667...@mail.utexas.edu>,
chris brochu <ga...@spam.sucks.edu> wrote:
>You'll have to obtain your own funding, but perhaps the ICR has research
>grants available to outside workers. There are labs all over the
>U.S. that perform C-14 dating on contract; with a large enough grant, you
>could send samples to more than one.
Out of curiosity, about how much would such a test cost?
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"That which you know, you ignore because it is inconvenient. That
which you do not know, you invent." - J. Michael Straczynski
James S. Lovejoy
howard hershey wrote:
>
>snip of good stuff for length<
> The YEC model is supported by exactly one bit of evidence: A mindlessly
> literal interpretation of the Christian Bible. That's it as far as I
> know and as far as I have seen in the YEC literature.
It's even worse than that. They claim a mindlessly literal
interpretation of the Christian Bible. But even they are not mindless
enough to be *consistently* literal. When the evidence is overwhelming,
even to them, they will take certain portions of the Bible as simply
figurative.
For example, they take the "four corners of the earth" as a figurative
statement. Not because anything in the Bible itself shows it to be
figurative, but because even they agree that the earth is spherical. If
they are willing to accept evidence from the real world in that case,
why can't they do the same in Genesis, where anybody who looks at the
evidence with an open mind will agree that the Earth is multi-million
years old, (I agree, best evidence is for something on the order of 4.5
Billion years), and humanoid lived on Earth for hundreds of thousands of
years? Either that or join the Flat Earth Society. Either way, be
consistent.
> The YEC literature doesn't even try to justify the ages their theory
> explicitly implies scientifically. All they do is try to claim that all
> methods for measuring age are fatally flawed by pointing out that there
> are a few anomalies in measurements in the hope that that will only
> leave their literal interpretation of the Christian Bible.
> >
> [snip]
--
And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to
virtue knowledge 2 Peter 1:5
-
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu
>From occu...@Stassen.COM Fri Jan 9 13:06:21 1998
>Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 13:02:37 -0500
>From: occu...@Stassen.COM (Chris Stassen)
>Subject: Re: Reliability of Radiometric Dating
>[Posted and E-mailed]
>David Plaisted wrote:
>> Here is some more information about radiometric dating from a
>> creationist viewpoint. It may be found at
>I take it you are not going to bother to study isotope geology
>*except* second-hand via creationist literature? I'm disappointed
>(but I can't say I'm surprised).
My impression is that textbooks in evolution and geology gloss over
the problems. Reading them would be a good idea but not as high a
priority as it would otherwise be.
>Among Plaisted's examples were:
>[reunion island U/Pb ages]
>This is actually a fairly famous creationist blunder. The
>referenced paper does not produce U/Pb ages of the flows.
>The intent of the U and Pb measurements was to compute the
>time that the source magma had been separated from the mantle.
>The data was not intended to yield the age of the flows and
>no knowledgeable geologist would try to do this.
>[See Dalrymple 1986 p. 37 -- full reference info in the t.o
> Age of the Earth FAQ.]
Well, it does at least give one factor that can make radiometric
dating inaccurate. One that we know about.
>[lunar soil ages]
>Lunar soil is a fine powder with multiple sources (lunar
>rocks, meteorites, and solar wind) and is not *expected* to
>yield meaningful ages. The isochron results which you mention
>in this same paragraph are accurate (for example, 2-2.5Ga is
>within the acceptable range for mare basalts). The "lead ages"
>are non-isochron and meaningless.
Another factor that we know about that can make radiometric
dating inaccurate -- it doesn't apply to moon dust. How many other
such factors are there that we don't know about?
>[ICR "grand canyon dating project"]
>There is a FAQ on this one. It's a prime example of creationist
>chicanery, but not a legitimate problem for isotope geology.
What is your evidence that it is chicanery? That's a strong
statement. How would you like me to use that against geologists?
It could be just a difference of opinion, or a misunderstanding.
Your attitude does not bode well for the statement that science
is objective about creationism.
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu
>From occu...@Stassen.COM Fri Jan 9 13:16:32 1998
>Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 13:12:45 -0500
>From: occu...@Stassen.COM (Chris Stassen)
>Subject: Re: Reliability of Radiometric Dating
>[Posted and E-mailed]
>David Plaisted wrote:
>> The reason that this is relevant is that it states that in nearly
>> every case, recent lava flows give very old radiometric ages.
>If it makes that claim, it tells a lie. See for example
>Dalrymple (1969), a comprehensive survey of the argon content
>of "historic" (observed in modern times) lava flows. Of
>samples from 26 different sources, 25 of them gave results
>less than 250,000 years (which is essentially zero to
>within measurement accuracy, because it represents an error
>of less than 0.0002 half-lives).
So why do those other 25 give old ages, even if a small error from a
long time standpoint? There must be excess argon coming from
somewhere. Where is it coming from? And how do you know that it
could not be a much larger quantity in other cases?
You seem to be rather free with your claims that creationists are
lying.
>The 26th was the oft-misused-by-creationists Hualalei flow,
>which is not suitable for K-Ar dating in the first place
>because it contains ultramafic inclusions (which were solid
>before the flow reached the surface) that carry excess argon.
Another factor we know about that can cause radiometric dating
to err -- how many factors are there that we do not know about?
>REFERENCE:
>Dalrymple, G.B., 1969. "40Ar/36Ar Analyses of Historic Lava
>Flows" in _Earth and Planetary Science Letters_ vol. 6, pp. 47-55.
>--
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu
>From occu...@Stassen.COM Sat Jan 10 15:24:47 1998
>Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 15:21:04 -0500
>From: occu...@Stassen.COM (Chris Stassen)
>Subject: Re: Reliability of Radiometric Dating
>David Plaisted quoted:
>[http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder12.htm]
I appreciate this clarification.
>> b. [...] A certain rock from Apollo 16 gave lead ages from 7
>> to 18BY but was chemically treated until it yielded an acceptable
>> "corrected" age of 3.8BY.22
>[The reference is: Nunes & Tatsumoto, 1973. "Excess Lead in
> "Rusty Rock" 66095 and Implications for an Early Lunar
> Differentiation" in _Science_ vol. 182, pp. 916-920]
>Once again, David's source has played fast and loose (*extremely*
>loose) with the facts. First, the paper does not produce the ages
>"7 to 18BY" which the creationists claim. These computations are
>almost certainly non-isochron calculations (performed by the
>creationists) based on simple parent-to-daughter ratios. U/Pb
What is your evidence that these calculations were done by
creationists? And simple parent to daughter ratios are one of the
most common methods of radiometric dating. Whoever did it would not
have been unreasonable. If the values had turned out more
reasonable they might have been accepted. (Not that I have any
objection to the final values that are inferred.)
And anyway, it is revealing as I said before that we have a situation
where a common method of radiometric dating can go wrong (simple
ratios). We now have at least several such factors that can
cause trouble, and possibly more we don't know about.
>dates computed in this manner are generally not taken seriously
>because they do not have detection of or defense against isotope
>migration.
>The alleged "chemical treatment" is actually a series of washes
>(water and various acids) by which portions of the rock were
>dissolved and measured. It was found that the isotopic ratios
>of lead removed gave two clear and distinct values -- one set
>for "easily leached" lead, and a different set for the remainder.
>This data did not itself yield an age, but did suggest that
>non-radiogenic lead had been added to the rock. ("These
>observations indicate that we have a good separation of
>radiogenic Pb generated in situ (the residual portion) and
>excess Pb.") This data indicates that the creationists'
>computations ("7 to 18BY") are meaningless.
Again you did not give the evidence that these computations were done
by creationists. That is only an assumption.
>It is a blatant lie for the creationists to suggest that
>"chemical treatments" were applied "until" the desired age was
>reached.
It could have been a misunderstanding, or a difference of opinion.
I think your attitude is rather hostile.
>In actuality, the good age that is reported was computed by a
>simple U-Pb isochron plot derived from a mineral separation of
>the rock (Figure 1 in the referenced paper). The "chemical
>treatment" was not relevant to the isochron plot. The isochron
>data were fairly co-linear and yielded an age of 3.82 +/- 0.28
>billion years.
>(The authors did attempt to compute a more precise age based on
>the isotopic composition and timing of the added lead. This
>involved additional assumptions, such as the age of the Moon
>its Pb isotopic composition at formation, and the number of
>stages in the rock's history. They also discussed implications
>for the early history of the Moon at length. See the original
>paper for details.)
>So, here we have a case where: an isochron method yielded an
>accurate age; additional checks gave more information on the
>history of the rock; simple parent-to-daughter ratios did
>not yield accurate ages; and the creationists either did not
>understand, or else lied about, the contents of the paper.
Here at least you allow the possibility of misunderstanding.
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu
One or more people said that the recent carbon 14 dates for fossils,
oil, and coal are in error because of contamination or in one case,
shellac. As for the shellac, I would think it would be obvious if a
bone were covered with shellac, but even if not, the test could easily
be done without this problem to see if the result is correct or not.
It would be necessary to find a dinosaur bone with an organic residue
on it. Even if bones are commonly shellacked, it does not follow that
this one was.
As for the contamination issue, as far as I know the charge of
contamination is unsubstantiated. And at any rate, there is plenty of
coal that could be extracted without contamination and carbon 14 dated
to settle the issue, at least for coal. Likewise for petroleum and
fossils.
howard hershey
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>
> >From occu...@Stassen.COM Fri Jan 9 13:06:21 1998
> >Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 13:02:37 -0500
> >From: occu...@Stassen.COM (Chris Stassen)
> >Subject: Re: Reliability of Radiometric Dating
>
>
> >David Plaisted wrote:
> >> creationist viewpoint. It may be found at
>
> >I take it you are not going to bother to study isotope geology
> >*except* second-hand via creationist literature? I'm disappointed
> >(but I can't say I'm surprised).
>
> My impression is that textbooks in evolution and geology gloss over
> the problems.
Where the heck do you think your so-called 'creation scientists' learn
about the anomolies and *known* problems in measurments that they use in
their continued process of trying to deny the obvious bulk of evidence
by pointing to a few anomalies? Research of their own? Nope. They
find out about these anomalies by reading about the method in standard
geology texts, which specifically point out the *known* ways (and types
of samples) by which error might be introduced into the result. They
then read the papers that describe these *known* sources of error and
present them as some sort of *unknown* and *unknowable* source of error
that contaminates all measurements, even those where this type of error
is irrelevant. Every one of the anomalies you present are examples of
this type of devoted and targeted 'research'.
> Reading them would be a good idea but not as high a
> priority as it would otherwise be.
Why? Afraid that the bulk of radiodating measurements will conflict
with your pre-established belief? Afraid of finding that your 'creation
scientists' are simply pulling a magic trick, directing your attention
away from the bulk of evidence by pointing out that oddball result in
the corner? Just like they do for every other method of independently
analysing the age of the earth or the universe. Is there a single
scientific method of determining age that comes up with the specific
expectation of *your* theory of 4000 years for geological layers and
6000 years +/- 6 days for the creation of everything else in the
universe (from man to stars)? Or is presenting the odd anomaly and
unsupported hypothetical assertion (like light from distant stars being
created in mid-flight) that call into question first this method, then
that method the best that creation science can do. Funny how all these
methods tend to be (in general, but not necessarily in specific cases)
both congruent with each other (when they overlap) and specifically
inconsistent with YEC expectations. Must be a conspiracy. I have
stated before that a conspiracy is your best hope for explaining away
the consistent congruence of independent methods for an ancient earth
*and* their specific even more overwhelming incongruence with a young
earth.
>
> >Among Plaisted's examples were:
> >[reunion island U/Pb ages]
>
> >This is actually a fairly famous creationist blunder. The
> >referenced paper does not produce U/Pb ages of the flows.
> >The intent of the U and Pb measurements was to compute the
> >time that the source magma had been separated from the mantle.
> >The data was not intended to yield the age of the flows and
> >no knowledgeable geologist would try to do this.
> >[See Dalrymple 1986 p. 37 -- full reference info in the t.o
> > Age of the Earth FAQ.]
>
> Well, it does at least give one factor that can make radiometric
> dating inaccurate. One that we know about.
Yes. One that geologists *know* about (more accurately, *knew* about at
the time the measurements were done, which is why they did not use the
data to calculate absolute dates).
>
> >[lunar soil ages]
>
> >Lunar soil is a fine powder with multiple sources (lunar
> >rocks, meteorites, and solar wind) and is not *expected* to
> >yield meaningful ages. The isochron results which you mention
> >in this same paragraph are accurate (for example, 2-2.5Ga is
> >within the acceptable range for mare basalts). The "lead ages"
> >are non-isochron and meaningless.
>
> Another factor that we know about that can make radiometric
> dating inaccurate -- it doesn't apply to moon dust. How many other
> such factors are there that we don't know about?
Another that geologists *know* about (more accurately *knew* about at
the time). If there are *systematic* (as opposed to random or sample
specific) errors in the method that aren't *known*, they could, of
course, give a systematic false answer. Do you have any suggestions for
such a *systematic* source of error? So far you have only presented
sample specific errors rather than *systematic* errors.
>
> >[ICR "grand canyon dating project"]
>
> >There is a FAQ on this one. It's a prime example of creationist
> >chicanery, but not a legitimate problem for isotope geology.
>
> What is your evidence that it is chicanery? That's a strong
> statement. How would you like me to use that against geologists?
> It could be just a difference of opinion, or a misunderstanding.
It involved a specific search for a type of sample that would be most
likely to give a false date by a person who has read and written about
the dating literature. That probably represents chicanery. That the
date obtained does not support the specific expectations of his theory
either is telling. His intent was not to measure the age of the sample
to test his own theory but to find a sample that explicitly disagreed
with standard theory in order to cast doubt on standard theory by
finding anomalies.
> Your attitude does not bode well for the statement that science
> is objective about creationism.
>
It is quite objective. It saw someone trying to obtain the results he
wanted to obtain by using inappropriate samples. They would also be
inappropriate samples if a standard geologist used them. But the
standard geologist would merely be considered ignorant of his science
because he chose an inappropriate sample rather than accused of engaging
in chicanery. So I guess it depends: the 'creation scientist' in
question is either ignorant of this field or duplicitous. Take your
choice. I choose ignorance because what he has written proves ignorance
of the field. But I cannot ignore the possibility of chicanery, because
he went to a lot of trouble to pick inappropriate samples. ;-)
howard hershey
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>
> >From occu...@Stassen.COM Fri Jan 9 13:16:32 1998
> >Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 13:12:45 -0500
> >From: occu...@Stassen.COM (Chris Stassen)
> >Subject: Re: Reliability of Radiometric Dating
>
> >[Posted and E-mailed]
>
> >David Plaisted wrote:
> >> every case, recent lava flows give very old radiometric ages.
>
> >If it makes that claim, it tells a lie. See for example
> >Dalrymple (1969), a comprehensive survey of the argon content
> >of "historic" (observed in modern times) lava flows. Of
> >samples from 26 different sources, 25 of them gave results
> >less than 250,000 years (which is essentially zero to
> >within measurement accuracy, because it represents an error
> >of less than 0.0002 half-lives).
>
> So why do those other 25 give old ages, even if a small error from a
> long time standpoint?
Ever try to measure the difference in thickness between a dime and a
nickle with a meter-long stick which has no smaller divisions? The
reason for saying that 250,000 years is essentially the same as 0 years
is because the method used cannot readily distinguish between the two
ages. That is what is meant by 'error of less than 0.0002 half-lives'.
> There must be excess argon coming from
> somewhere. Where is it coming from? And how do you know that it
> could not be a much larger quantity in other cases?
See above. There is no excess argon in these samples. You simply are
looking at a level where it is impossible to distinguish between the two
ages (the one that is historically known and the one that is measured).
This and your responses to carbon dating show that you are blissfully
unaware of such a thing as a 'background level' and 'sensitivity' in
most measurement systems.
>
> You seem to be rather free with your claims that creationists are
> lying.
Using the below as a claim for a *systematic* problem in the method
rather than a claim for a *sample specific* problem requires that they
either not have read the paper (ignorance) or that they have read it and
don't understand it (ignorance) or that they have read it, understand
it, and are wilfully distorting a sample specific problem into a
systematic problem (lying). Take your choice.
>
> >The 26th was the oft-misused-by-creationists Hualalei flow,
> >which is not suitable for K-Ar dating in the first place
> >because it contains ultramafic inclusions (which were solid
> >before the flow reached the surface) that carry excess argon.
>
> Another factor we know about that can cause radiometric dating
> to err -- how many factors are there that we do not know about?
Yes. A factor that is *known* and *known* to be *sample specific*. Do
you have any suggestion for a *systematic* factor that affects all
radiodating? That is the type of error you need, not more sample
specific anomalies - especially ones that can be independently
determined.
hamilton
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
> >From occu...@Stassen.COM Fri Jan 9 13:16:32 1998
> >Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 13:12:45 -0500
> >From: occu...@Stassen.COM (Chris Stassen)
> >Subject: Re: Reliability of Radiometric Dating
> >[Posted and E-mailed]
> >David Plaisted wrote:
> >> The reason that this is relevant is that it states that in nearly
> >> every case, recent lava flows give very old radiometric ages.
>
> >If it makes that claim, it tells a lie. See for example
> >Dalrymple (1969), a comprehensive survey of the argon content
> >of "historic" (observed in modern times) lava flows. Of
> >samples from 26 different sources, 25 of them gave results
> >less than 250,000 years (which is essentially zero to
> >within measurement accuracy, because it represents an error
> >of less than 0.0002 half-lives).
>
> So why do those other 25 give old ages, even if a small error from a
> somewhere. Where is it coming from? And how do you know that it
> could not be a much larger quantity in other cases?
Less then 250,000 years is not old. Even an ignoramus like
me can see the reason for getting 250,000 or *less*. It is
based on the signal to noise ratio of the method used.
It means the method cannot differentiate between 0.0000 and
0.0002 half-lives. It is akin to measuring the clock cycle of
your CPU using a stopwatch. K-Ar has a long half-life,
therefore is is more appropriate for measuring old things.
Other isotopes (such as C-14) half a short half-life, therefore
are useful only for relatively young items. That is why a radio-
carbon date of 100,000 (in the very best of circumstances with
the best technology) is quite meaningless. It could be anywhere
from 30,000 to infinity.
> You seem to be rather free with your claims that creationists are
> lying.
There is proof in the replies to some of your "anomalies".
Do you care to defend them or will you remove any reference to
them?
> >The 26th was the oft-misused-by-creationists Hualalei flow,
> >which is not suitable for K-Ar dating in the first place
> >because it contains ultramafic inclusions (which were solid
> >before the flow reached the surface) that carry excess argon.
> Another factor we know about that can cause radiometric dating
> to err -- how many factors are there that we do not know about?
Do you know that this source of error is detectable? The whole
business of radiodating depends on dealing with contamination.
This is not "another" factor, but the same kind of thing over
and over again.
Now about your statement above - "recent lava flows give very
old radiometric ages" - do you retract or not? Chris states that
it is a lie, and I have answered your question. It is time for
you to deal forthrightly with statements you make.
> >REFERENCE:
> >Dalrymple, G.B., 1969. "40Ar/36Ar Analyses of Historic Lava
> >Flows" in _Earth and Planetary Science Letters_ vol. 6, pp. 47-55.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy P. Hamilton | "Damn the electric fence!,
Building Manager, Alco Hall | Damn the electric fence!"
University of Ediacara | Anonymous Cow.
Kalandros M
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
> >From occu...@Stassen.COM Fri Jan 9 13:16:32 1998
> >Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 13:12:45 -0500
> >From: occu...@Stassen.COM (Chris Stassen)
> >Subject: Re: Reliability of Radiometric Dating
>
> >[Posted and E-mailed]
>
> >David Plaisted wrote:
> >> The reason that this is relevant is that it states that in nearly
> >> every case, recent lava flows give very old radiometric ages.
>
> >If it makes that claim, it tells a lie. See for example
> >Dalrymple (1969), a comprehensive survey of the argon content
> >of "historic" (observed in modern times) lava flows. Of
> >samples from 26 different sources, 25 of them gave results
> >less than 250,000 years (which is essentially zero to
> >within measurement accuracy, because it represents an error
> >of less than 0.0002 half-lives).
>
> So why do those other 25 give old ages, even if a small error from a
> long time standpoint? There must be excess argon coming from
> somewhere. Where is it coming from? And how do you know that it
> could not be a much larger quantity in other cases?
>
These "old" ages reflect only the resolution of the measurement.
Realize
that the amount of Argon present cannot be measured to infinite
precision.
There is a certain amount of uncertainty in that measurement. The decay
rate is slow enough that that uncertainty corresponds to 250K years of
decay. Imagine trying to measure the length of an insect with a
yardstick.
You have the same problem trying to use a method that can measure
hundreds of millions of years to measure a few years.
> [SNIP]
>
> Another factor we know about that can cause radiometric dating
> to err -- how many factors are there that we do not know about?
There may well be. But the existence of an error that systematically
affects all of the different radiometric techniuques so similarly is
extremely remote. Until such an error source is suggested, I think
we're safe assuming these are fairly accurate.
As has been mentioned before, its not the presumed accuracy of one
technique that is hard to argue against (you've made some good ones)
but the fact that so many DIFFERENT techniques have consistent
results.
Mike
hamilton
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
> >> b. [...] A certain rock from Apollo 16 gave lead ages from 7
> >> to 18BY but was chemically treated until it yielded an acceptable
> >> "corrected" age of 3.8BY.22
> >[The reference is: Nunes & Tatsumoto, 1973. "Excess Lead in
> > "Rusty Rock" 66095 and Implications for an Early Lunar
> > Differentiation" in _Science_ vol. 182, pp. 916-920]
>
> >Once again, David's source has played fast and loose (*extremely*
> >loose) with the facts. First, the paper does not produce the ages
> >"7 to 18BY" which the creationists claim. These computations are
> >almost certainly non-isochron calculations (performed by the
> >creationists) based on simple parent-to-daughter ratios. U/Pb
>
> What is your evidence that these calculations were done by
> creationists?
Who else would have done such a bogus calculation? Aren't
you the one who harps so much about contamination leading
to bad dates - particularly for non-isochron methods?
The fact is that the phony age under question is not reported
in the paper. You can thank Chris for *figuring out* where
the age came from. This implies a careful reading of the
primary literature on his part. I for one am grateful that he
takes the trouble.
> And simple parent to daughter ratios are one of the
> most common methods of radiometric dating. Whoever did it would not
> have been unreasonable.
It is unreasonable to get an anomalous date, and then
not try to find out if any *known causes* caused the date to
be off. It is more than unreasonable, it is irresponsible,
lazy, or dishonest.
> If the values had turned out more
> reasonable they might have been accepted. (Not that I have any
> objection to the final values that are inferred.)
Not when two or methods of dating are available. It is always
risky to base your conclusions on one measurement. If you do,
you had better eliminate all known sources of error. That just
makes sense, does it not?
> And anyway, it is revealing as I said before that we have a situation
> where a common method of radiometric dating can go wrong (simple
> ratios). We now have at least several such factors that can
> cause trouble, and possibly more we don't know about.
All of these factors are the same thing - contamination. You have
a long row to hoe to show that contamination affects dates
obtained by a variety of methods in a *systematic* way. There
is no physical reason that it should be so.
I have questions: When it comes time to describe the factors that
lead to anomalous dates, and how to correct for them, which
creationist WWW site comes even close to the t.o. FAQ? Are
there any factors known to affect dating on creationist WWW sites
that are not mentioned in the t.o. FAQ? Are there any creationist
WWW sites that may bring up only problems with dating, but not how
to deal with the anomalies? Is that an honest approach?
> >dates computed in this manner are generally not taken seriously
> >because they do not have detection of or defense against isotope
> >migration.
> >The alleged "chemical treatment" is actually a series of washes
> >(water and various acids) by which portions of the rock were
> >dissolved and measured. It was found that the isotopic ratios
> >of lead removed gave two clear and distinct values -- one set
> >for "easily leached" lead, and a different set for the remainder.
> >This data did not itself yield an age, but did suggest that
> >non-radiogenic lead had been added to the rock. ("These
> >observations indicate that we have a good separation of
> >radiogenic Pb generated in situ (the residual portion) and
> >excess Pb.") This data indicates that the creationists'
> >computations ("7 to 18BY") are meaningless.
I point out that this is a test of whether contamination was
likely.
> Again you did not give the evidence that these computations were done
> by creationists. That is only an assumption.
Well, out with the actual reference for the date! This Science
article is talking about the same rock, based on the inclusion
of the actual reported date for the rock with the "anomalous date"
of mysterious origin. Is this sloppy scholarship typical of
creation science?
> >It is a blatant lie for the creationists to suggest that
> >"chemical treatments" were applied "until" the desired age was
> >reached.
> It could have been a misunderstanding, or a difference of opinion.
> I think your attitude is rather hostile.
I think it is rather generous, since the creationists date
was not obtained from the paper, and the original reference
is not given, so that one can see whether chemical treatments
were applied until the desired age was obtained. Is that not
the way it should be? If I used scientific data from an
article without referencing it, when it was the only source
of data in my article, I would rightly expect to be assaulted
at our next meeting for such outrageous conduct on my part.
Why is the reference hidden for accusations of conduct that
is fraudulent?
> >In actuality, the good age that is reported was computed by a
> >simple U-Pb isochron plot derived from a mineral separation of
> >the rock (Figure 1 in the referenced paper). The "chemical
> >treatment" was not relevant to the isochron plot. The isochron
> >data were fairly co-linear and yielded an age of 3.82 +/- 0.28
> >billion years.
>
> >(The authors did attempt to compute a more precise age based on
> >the isotopic composition and timing of the added lead. This
> >involved additional assumptions, such as the age of the Moon
> >its Pb isotopic composition at formation, and the number of
> >stages in the rock's history. They also discussed implications
> >for the early history of the Moon at length. See the original
> >paper for details.)
>
> >So, here we have a case where: an isochron method yielded an
> >accurate age; additional checks gave more information on the
> >history of the rock; simple parent-to-daughter ratios did
> >not yield accurate ages; and the creationists either did not
> >understand, or else lied about, the contents of the paper.
>
> Here at least you allow the possibility of misunderstanding.
This is still no excuse for *poor* scholarship. Do you have a
*single* example of scholarship that you would have confidence
in?
hamilton
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>
> One or more people said that the recent carbon 14 dates for fossils,
> oil, and coal are in error because of contamination or in one case,
> shellac. As for the shellac, I would think it would be obvious if a
> bone were covered with shellac, but even if not, the test could easily
> be done without this problem to see if the result is correct or not.
> It would be necessary to find a dinosaur bone with an organic residue
> on it. Even if bones are commonly shellacked, it does not follow that
> this one was.
Very well. Where is this bone? Where was it found? You do realize
that one of the hallmarks of science is being able to check results.
Would you be willing to pay for the test (what type of organic
residue, not the dating) if you are wrong?
> As for the contamination issue, as far as I know the charge of
> contamination is unsubstantiated.
Most fossils are coated for *protection*. They break easily.
Did the people who carbon dated the bone dig it out themselves
or obtain it from elsewhere? Did they make any effort to determine
its past treatment? Is there a lab report available with
the name of a lab on it? Do these people have names?
> And at any rate, there is plenty of
> coal that could be extracted without contamination and carbon 14 dated
> to settle the issue, at least for coal. Likewise for petroleum and
> fossils.
And most of the radiocarbon dates you list as anomalies lie
near the detection limit, particularly for 1960's technology.
You do understand why the date near the detection limit
is indistinguishable from infinity?
I am still waiting for a more exact reference for the 1300
year old coal that is found in much older strata.
Chris Stassen
[Posted and E-mailed]
Message-ID: <34b999f0...@ediacara.org>
[Discussion of "Reunion Island" lava flows]
> Well, it does at least give one factor that can make radiometric
> dating inaccurate. One that we know about.
There are two problems with David's response: (1) The example itself
was not really relevant, because this discussion started on supposed
problems with *isochron* dating methods; (2) the U/Pb data are *not*
evidence even of problems with non-isochron dating, because the real
problem is that the creationist authors did not understand the
significance of the U/Pb data (*). It's not that U/Pb dating is
"made inaccurate," it's that the U/Pb data are not used correctly.
(*) The U/Pb method which the creationists used does not account for
radiogenic Pb accumulation in the source of the lava. It cannot
possibly yield the age of the flow itself.
[lunar soil ages]
> Another factor that we know about that can make radiometric
> dating inaccurate -- it doesn't apply to moon dust.
Radiometric dating doesn't apply to house dust, either, but that does
not form the basis for a reasonable criticism of its accuracy when
applied in an appropriate manner to the appropriate kind of rocks.
[ICR "Grand Canyon Dating Project"]
> What is your evidence that it is chicanery? That's a strong
> statement. How would you like me to use that against geologists?
You're welcome to make the same accusation -- as long as you are
capable of supplying equally good documentation. The documentation is
present in the FAQ, but here is a quick overview of the paper trail:
(1988) Austin publishes inherited isochron from someone else's data on
these lava flows; (1990) Austin samples same flows for ICR "Grand
Canyon Dating Project;" (1992) Austin publishes his own inherited
isochron (same flows, but his own data).
Austin claims in the later (1992) Impact that he wanted to "test"
Rb/Sr dating. If that is so, why did he *rig* the test by going to
lava flows which he *knew* in advance (proven by 1988 publication)
to yield an inherited age, carefully selected from a larger body of
more-scattered data? Why are the five samples carefully selected
(four different flows and one phenocryst) so that no two of them
are cogenetic? (That is exactly the pattern of sample selection
that one would want in order to obtain a minimum age for the
*source* of the lava.)
Does this seem likely to be explainable by mere carelessness or
cluelessness -- on the part of one of the very few legitimate
PhD geologists in the entire creationist movement?
Message-ID: <34b99b24...@ediacara.org>
[K-Ar ages on "historic" lavas]
> So why do those other 25 give old ages, even if a small error from
> a long time standpoint? There must be excess argon coming from
> somewhere. Where is it coming from? And how do you know that it
> could not be a much larger quantity in other cases?
[Note: "40Ar*" refers to "radiogenic" 40Ar, the 40Ar that remains
after a correction for atmospheric argon ratios is applied.]
This was in response to your claim that "most" ages of historic lava
yielded old results. The truth is that essentially every historic
lava that has been measured has yielded a K-Ar age that is very
young. *None* of the 25 flows had enough 40Ar* to yield an old age
outright, or even enough to interfere noticeably with the accuracy
of age determinations once significant 40Ar* had accumulated. Maybe
it "could be" a "much larger quantity" in "some cases," but there is
no evidence to suggest that. Now, if you are willing to disown your
original false claim, we can move on to additional details...
About 1/5 of the 25 flows yielded detectable 40Ar* (two of them
near 200ka) and a few others yielded apparently negative 40Ar*.
These values were higher than the minimum detection limits, so they
probably cannot be attributed solely to uncertainties introduced
by the equipment. "Where did it come from?" There's no guarantee
that a single explanation covers all cases, but in my (and the
author's) opinion isotope fractionation is likely since the effect
is very slight and it can also explain negative 40Ar* values.
What does this data imply? It implies that initial conditions may
insert a small error in K-Ar age determinations, which can prevent
high accuracy on the youngest dates. It does *not* imply that old
K-Ar age determinations can be dismissed as bogus results on
formations that are actually young. In fact, it implies the exact
opposite -- the initial isotope ratios of historic lavas were
*consistently* sufficient for good old-age determinations. (Which,
if you recall, refutes your original claim.)
Message-ID: <34b99db6...@ediacara.org>
[The reference is: Nunes & Tatsumoto, 1973. "Excess Lead in
"Rusty Rock" 66095 and Implications for an Early Lunar
Differentiation" in _Science_ vol. 182, pp. 916-920]
I wrote:
>> [...] the paper does not produce the ages "7 to 18BY" which the
>> creationists claim. These computations are almost certainly
>> non-isochron calculations (performed by the creationists) [...]
> What is your evidence that these calculations were done by
> creationists?
Those ages are not reported in the referenced paper, which is the
only reference the creationists give for their claim. Either the
creationists computed the ages themselves, or else they copied the
computation out of another source without credit (isn't that
plagiarizing?). I chose the option most favorable to the
creationists. In either case, their statement gives the misleading
impression that those ages were presented in the referenced paper.
> And simple parent to daughter ratios are one of the most common
> methods of radiometric dating.
My initial reaction: "How would you know?" But it doesn't matter,
anyway. The topic under discussion was the reliability of isochron
dating methods, which are not subject to the same sorts of
weaknesses and problems as simple parent/daughter ratios. Examples
of problems with these simple methods do *not* help your case in
dismissing all of the "inconvenient" isochron results.
The only isotope pair where simple parent/daughter ratios are
generally successful in a straightforward way is K/Ar. U/Pb dating
(as in this example) is very complicated, because with a few key
exceptions it depends on assessing the radiogenic Pb growth in the
source. (I'd recommend the U/Pb chapter in Dickin's recent
_Radiogeic Isotope Geology_ over even Faure's treatment of the
topic.)
I wrote:
>> It is a blatant lie for the creationists to suggest that
>> "chemical treatments" were applied "until" the desired age was
>> reached.
> It could have been a misunderstanding, or a difference of opinion.
Obtain the original paper. I bet that even you will see clearly
that the "chemical treatment" (Table 2) is not involved in the
isochron determination (Table 1 & Figure 1). It is not simply a
"difference of opinion." The creationists' claim is trivially
demonstrated to be false.
It may not be a deliberate lie, but if not it is at the very least
a serious error that "fortunately" happens to be favorable to
their position.
Message-ID: <34b9a067...@ediacara.org>
> It would be necessary to find a dinosaur bone with an organic
> residue on it.
This by itself is insufficient, because there is no reason to
believe (let alone way to guarantee) that any "organic residue"
was derived from the bone's owner or avoided later contamination.
Carbon dating isn't my specialty, but I believe that the modern
way of avoiding contamination would be to extract collagen from
the bone and perform carbon dating on the collagen's carbon only.
This may require a lot (>1kg) of bone. (If there's no collagen
remaining, there's no reason to believe that any *other* "organic
residues" represent the original owner's carbon, either.)
howard hershey
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>
> >From occu...@Stassen.COM Sat Jan 10 15:24:47 1998
> >Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 15:21:04 -0500
> >From: occu...@Stassen.COM (Chris Stassen)
> >Subject: Re: Reliability of Radiometric Dating
>
> >David Plaisted quoted:
> >[http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder12.htm]
>
> >I was able to track down two more of these references at the local
> >library. If legitimate problems for isochron-equivalent dating
> >methods are so obvious and common, how do we explain the
> >creationists' abysmally poor track-record in producing them?
>
> >> c. Granite from the Black Hills gave strontium/rubidium and various
> >> lead system ages varying from 1.16 to 2.55BY.23
> >[The reference is: Zartman et al., 1964, "Ancient Granite Gneiss in
Please note that the dates given, although, as is pointed out, somewhat
more 'iffy' than the usual dating precision for very good (and specimen
dependent reasons) still completely incongruent with the expectations of
YEC.
Yet another specimen-specific *known* problem. You still have not
produced any *systematic* error that could account for the large (yet,
according to YEC theory, false) ages.
>
> >> b. [...] A certain rock from Apollo 16 gave lead ages from 7
> >> to 18BY but was chemically treated until it yielded an acceptable
> >> "corrected" age of 3.8BY.22
> >[The reference is: Nunes & Tatsumoto, 1973. "Excess Lead in
> > "Rusty Rock" 66095 and Implications for an Early Lunar
> > Differentiation" in _Science_ vol. 182, pp. 916-920]
>
> >Once again, David's source has played fast and loose (*extremely*
> >loose) with the facts. First, the paper does not produce the ages
> >"7 to 18BY" which the creationists claim. These computations are
> >almost certainly non-isochron calculations (performed by the
> >creationists) based on simple parent-to-daughter ratios. U/Pb
>
> What is your evidence that these calculations were done by
> creationists?
The fact that they weren't done by the authors of the paper.
> And simple parent to daughter ratios are one of the
> most common methods of radiometric dating. Whoever did it would not
> have been unreasonable. If the values had turned out more
> reasonable they might have been accepted. (Not that I have any
> objection to the final values that are inferred.)
>
> And anyway, it is revealing as I said before that we have a situation
> where a common method of radiometric dating can go wrong (simple
> ratios). We now have at least several such factors that can
> cause trouble, and possibly more we don't know about.
All the ones that cause trouble are specimen-specific rather than
systematic.
>
> >dates computed in this manner are generally not taken seriously
> >because they do not have detection of or defense against isotope
> >migration.
>
> >The alleged "chemical treatment" is actually a series of washes
> >(water and various acids) by which portions of the rock were
> >dissolved and measured. It was found that the isotopic ratios
> >of lead removed gave two clear and distinct values -- one set
> >for "easily leached" lead, and a different set for the remainder.
> >This data did not itself yield an age, but did suggest that
> >non-radiogenic lead had been added to the rock. ("These
> >observations indicate that we have a good separation of
> >radiogenic Pb generated in situ (the residual portion) and
> >excess Pb.") This data indicates that the creationists'
> >computations ("7 to 18BY") are meaningless.
>
> Again you did not give the evidence that these computations were done
> by creationists. That is only an assumption.
But a reasonable one since it is clear that the authors did not do so.
>
> >It is a blatant lie for the creationists to suggest that
> >"chemical treatments" were applied "until" the desired age was
> >reached.
>
> It could have been a misunderstanding, or a difference of opinion.
> I think your attitude is rather hostile.
Who was it who implied that the original authors applied chemical
treatments until the desired age was reached (i.e., that the originial
authors were being dishonest)? If it was misunderstanding, that
indicates that the 'creationist' commentators are so ignorant that they
cannot be relied upon to give a rational comment.
wf...@enter.netxx
On 11 Jan 1998 23:20:00 -0500, plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>
>My impression is that textbooks in evolution and geology gloss over
>the problems. Reading them would be a good idea but not as high a
>priority as it would otherwise be.
hmmm...yes, creationists do tend to assert conspiracies among
scientists to hide the facts. the fact, however, that creationists
routinely quote from scientific publications about problems in science
seems to argue against the creationist position, however.
>
>Well, it does at least give one factor that can make radiometric
>dating inaccurate. One that we know about.
<chuckle> uh, so? if im making a measurement and the battery in my
geiger counter drops in voltage that can lead to an error too!
>
>
>Another factor that we know about that can make radiometric
>dating inaccurate -- it doesn't apply to moon dust. How many other
>such factors are there that we don't know about?
golly you're kinda arguing against your own position. for how do we
know about the earth being 6000 yrs old if we can make no physical
measurements at all. thats the creationist position...science is
impossible because no measurements can be made. funny how scientists
continue to do what religious fundamentalists assert cant be done..
>
.>Your attitude does not bode well for the statement that science
>is objective about creationism.
>
science is objective about creationism. its wrong. and its religion.
so your point is?
Don Lindsay
In article <34b999f0...@ediacara.org>,
<plaiste...@cs.unc.edu> wrote:
>>I take it you are not going to bother to study isotope geology
>>*except* second-hand via creationist literature? I'm disappointed
>>(but I can't say I'm surprised).
>
>My impression is that textbooks in evolution and geology gloss over
>the problems.
Your impression is thoroughly incorrect. There is nothing a graduate
student likes better than finding a problem in someone else's data. My
niece's geology thesis did exactly that.
Incidentally, your web pages gloss over the problems with
liquefaction. Like, the fact that it was discarded _two centuries_
ago, as being utterly incompatible with the evidence. Like, the fact
that Christian evangelical geologists reject it today.
Would you perhaps have two standards of scholarship?
--
Don D.C.Lindsay http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/Home.html
Steve Geller
On 11 Jan 1998 23:20:00 -0500, plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>>[ICR "grand canyon dating project"]
>
>>There is a FAQ on this one. It's a prime example of creationist
>>chicanery, but not a legitimate problem for isotope geology.
>
>What is your evidence that it is chicanery? That's a strong
>statement. How would you like me to use that against geologists?
>It could be just a difference of opinion, or a misunderstanding.
It's pretty cut-and-dried creationist chicanery, in the same class as
the Hawaiian pillow lavas. In fact, lava is the problem here.
Dr. Austin got funded, at least partially, by the ICR. He had
(legitimately) dated some rock near the bottom of the canyon which
came out younger than rocks above it. "Therefore" radiometric dating
is all hokum.
Austin got called on this result by someone who pointed out that the
rock Austin dated was part of an ancient intrusion of lava.
I take it that the ICR propaganda people are still using the result,
figuring that most of their clients won't know about the lava.
It's the continuing supply of stuff like this, which you've been
posting here, that makes it comfortable to discount most creationist
claims.
howard hershey
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>
> One or more people said that the recent carbon 14 dates for fossils,
> oil, and coal are in error because of contamination or in one case,
> shellac. As for the shellac, I would think it would be obvious if a
> bone were covered with shellac, but even if not, the test could easily
> be done without this problem to see if the result is correct or not.
> this one was.
On the contrary, if this is the particular case of the Cedarville
College sample, they were informed by the geological laboratory that did
the dating that the sample was coated and thus likely contaminated with
recent carbon. That they then portrayed this coating as being due to
organic material from the dinosaur shows, in the kindest interpretation,
'naivite' and 'ignorance'. In a less kind interpretation, the words
'deliberately misleading', 'fraud', and 'lying for Jesus' come to mind.
Because I am not on some jury in a criminal case, I would be perfectly
happy to let them plead ignorance. Regardless, the date they obtained
was *still* inconsistent with the expectations of the YEC model.
Is there *any* dating method that is *congruent with* the expectations
of the YEC model? *Any* at all? This is an important point, since
science looks not just at what models that are most consistent with the
evidence (and you still haven't convinced me that the problematica and
anomalies you present are *significant* problems for the standard
geological models) but *also* judges models which are more or less
completely inconsistent with the evidence (and guess where the YEC model
fits in). The latter models (ones incongruent with the evidence) can be
rejected even if some aspects of the former models are called into
question. So your problem is not just that a whole series of dating
methods (radiodating by several independent methods, astronomical
methods for measuring the age of the universe, ice core sampling, tree
rings, estimates based on rates of presently observable processes) with
independent assumptions and methodologies largely agree on a particular
model (standard geology/astronomy) but also that all this evidence is
specifically incongruent with the model that you support.
Given this massive build up of evidence against your model, your only
recourse seems, to me, to be to try to reject *all* the evidence on the
grounds of conspiracy by a cabal of
geologists/radiochemists/astronomers/scientists. Who knows. It might
just work. After all, claiming that the cops planted all the evidence
(a conspiracy theory) sometimes gets defendents off, particularly if the
defendant is a beloved icon being charged by a group which many people
distrust.
>
> As for the contamination issue, as far as I know the charge of
> contamination is unsubstantiated. And at any rate, there is plenty of
> coal that could be extracted without contamination and carbon 14 dated
> to settle the issue, at least for coal. Likewise for petroleum and
> fossils.
Yes. And these uncontaminated samples give, nearly always, dates greater
than 30,000 ybp (i.e. dates which are essentially infinity given the
sensitivity of the method because of background noise).
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu
I'm trying to respond to a number of people at once.
Someone (Tracy Hamilton?) requested a reference which I don't have.
Someone said it would be plagiarism if the K-Ar parent-daugher ratio
moon rock dates were listed, but no reference were given for where
they came from. It could be that they got it from another reference
and just forgot to list it. They did list a closely related
reference.
As for the young date for the dinosaur bone, my impression was that
the bone was obtained directly from the field and not from a museum,
so it could not have had shellac on it. But I'm trying to get more
information about this.
My own position is that the universe is probably old, but I can't
completely rule out a young one. As for the earth, I'm open to a
number of possibilities, including a couple that reconcile a young
earth with old radiometric dates. Or it could be old. Those who are
interested in the details can consult my web site, but I don't have a
burden to defend any particular position on this issue.
As for reading textbooks, I have some reference materials at hand
which I frequently consult, as well as having read a great number of
articles in popular, semi-popular, and technical scientific journals
over the years. I don't recall having read a geology textbook, but
maybe I have at one time or another.
With so many messages, I may have forgotten something, so please
send me email if there are other outstanding issues.
-----
Now I want to focus on the claim that radiometric dates for a given
geologic period agree with each other. I would like to know what is
the exact (or approximate) information content of this assertion, and
whether it could be (or has been) tested statistically. It's not as
easy as it might sound.
Let's suppose that we have geologic periods G1 ... Gn. Let's only
include rocks whose membership in the geologic period can be discerned
independent of radiometric dating methods. Let's also only include
rocks which are considered datable by at least one method, since some
rocks (I believe limestone) are considered not to hold argon, for
example.
Now, we can take a random rock from Gi. We will have to restrict
ourselves to places where Gi is exposed, to avoid having to dig deep
within the earth. Let's apply all known dating methods to Gi that are
thought to apply to this kind of rock, and obtain ages from each one.
Then we can average them to get an average age for this rock. We can
also compute how much they differ from one another.
Now we have to be careful about lava flows -- which geologic period do
they belong to? What about rocks that are thought not to have their
clock reset, or to have undergone later heating episodes? Just to
make the test unbiased, we will assign altitude limits to each
geologic period at each point on the earth's surface (at least in
principle) and include all rocks within these altitude limits within
Gi, subject to the condition that they are datable.
The measurements should be done in a double-blind manner to insure
lack of unconscious bias.
For each geologic period and each dating method, we will get a
distribution of values. We will also get a distribution of averaged
values for samples in each period. Now, some claim is being made
about these distributions. It is undoubtedly being claimed that the
mean values ascend as one goes up the geologic column. It is also
being claimed that the standard deviations are not too large. It is
also being claimed that the different methods have distributions that
are similar to one another on a given geologic period.
Anyway, I'd like to know more about what is being claimed, and how and
whether these claims have been tested, and whether the tests showed
that the claims hold or not. It could be that the test should be
framed in a manner different than what I have proposed; if so, how?
This question reminds me of the question whether life is hierarchical
in discussions of the theory of evolution.
Thank you for considering this question.
Mr. C.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Now everybody knows that dino bones can't have any Carbon 14 left in them.
I mean, hasn't the current evolutionary biased based speculation assumed
that the dino's died out 65 MY ago? Wouldn't the carbon 14 have decayed 64
MY ago?
Heck, their ain't much left after 15,000 years.
If there is any carbon 14 left doesn't that mean the bones really arn't
that old?
After all the evolutionist CAN'T be incorrect...can they????
It's OBVIOUS the samples were contaminated. Their theories MUST say so if
their true. Because they have found Carbon 14 in some Dino bones.
......by, by, theory of evolution. It's been nice knowing you.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Mr. C.
In article <34BB32...@indiana.edu>, howard hershey
<hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
snip
>
> Yes. And these uncontaminated samples give, nearly always, dates greater
> than 30,000 ybp (i.e. dates which are essentially infinity given the
> sensitivity of the method because of background noise).
So?
Who says the ratio of C14 to C12 was the same prior to the flood? I know
NOT thinking out of the box evolutionary uniformatarian thought does. But
is the evolutionary logic sound?
If the vapor canopy theory is correct, then the canopy would have shielded
the earth from the cosmic radiation that strikes the nitrogen atoms and
produces C14.
This would have meant there was less C14 prior to the collapse of the
canopy. Everything that then died prior to the flood would then date older
compared to todays standards.
Others feel the stronger magnetic field 4,000 years ago around the earth
also could have shielded the earth and prevented the C14 from forming.
This too would have made anything that died prior to the flood appear
older when compared to todays standard.
Still others feel that prior to the flood not enough cosmic radion had
entered into our atmosphere and interacted with the nitrogen atoms. Due to
the lack of time the ratio was different than today. Once again anything
that died prior to the flood would appear older.
Is an age of 30,000 ybp out of reason? I think not, and, I presented you
with three lines of thought that would fit the YEC models.
Mr. C
ks...@fast.net
Evolution is not full of holes:
it is mostly holes with a
little half-substance here and there. (jw)
Kalandros M
Mr. C. wrote:
1) Tree ring dating is used to correct for different C14/C12 ratios. These
trees
can correct for dates that should be well before the supposed flood.
2) If this were true, wouldn't we see two groupings of C14 measuements?
A set young measurements corresponding to post-flood artifacts, and
a set of old measurements corresponding to pre-flood artifacts. The
division btw the two should be easy to see. Yet, IIUC, we see a fairly
even distribution of measurements all the way back to 30K years.
Mike
Kalandros M
Mr. C. wrote:
Of couse, this has been found on 1 fossil, and may be contanimated. If YEC
were true, finds like would be common. Oops. Thank you for playing.
Mike
hamilton
> snip
> > Yes. And these uncontaminated samples give, nearly always, dates greater
> > than 30,000 ybp (i.e. dates which are essentially infinity given the
> > sensitivity of the method because of background noise).
>
> So?
>
> Who says the ratio of C14 to C12 was the same prior to the flood? I know
> NOT thinking out of the box evolutionary uniformatarian thought does. But
> is the evolutionary logic sound?
Well, you are quite incorrect when you say the NOT thinking out of
the box evolutionary uniformitarian says the ratio of C14 to C12
is always the same (there was no flood to be before). Not only
that, but they have far surpassed what you suggest and actually
determined the amount of C-14 produced per year by experiment.
They used overlapping series of tree rings to do this going back
thousands of years.
Get out of your box, man!
[snip most of very speculative scenario that is now shown incorrect]
Mr. C.
In article <34BBECC6...@hubble.colorado.edu>, Kalandros M
<kala...@hubble.colorado.edu> wrote:
> Mr. C. wrote:
>
> > In article <34BB32...@indiana.edu>, howard hershey
> > <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> >
> > snip
> > >
> > > Yes. And these uncontaminated samples give, nearly always, dates greater
> > > than 30,000 ybp (i.e. dates which are essentially infinity given the
> > > sensitivity of the method because of background noise).
> >
> > So?
> >
> > Who says the ratio of C14 to C12 was the same prior to the flood? I know
> > NOT thinking out of the box evolutionary uniformatarian thought does. But
> > is the evolutionary logic sound?
> >
> > If the vapor canopy theory is correct, then the canopy would have shielded
> > the earth from the cosmic radiation that strikes the nitrogen atoms and
> > produces C14.
> > This would have meant there was less C14 prior to the collapse of the
> > canopy. Everything that then died prior to the flood would then date older
> > compared to todays standards.
> > Others feel the stronger magnetic field 4,000 years ago around the earth
> > also could have shielded the earth and prevented the C14 from forming.
> > This too would have made anything that died prior to the flood appear
> > older when compared to todays standard.
> > Still others feel that prior to the flood not enough cosmic radion had
> > entered into our atmosphere and interacted with the nitrogen atoms. Due to
> > the lack of time the ratio was different than today. Once again anything
> > that died prior to the flood would appear older.
> >
>
> 1) Tree ring dating is used to correct for different C14/C12 ratios. These
> trees
> can correct for dates that should be well before the supposed flood.
Some trees can grow more than one ring in a year.
...and...you have to assume your overlapping of tree ring to tree ring is
accurate.
> Mike
Dennis Curran
Mr. C. wrote:
>
> In article <34BB32...@indiana.edu>, howard hershey
> <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> snip
> >
> > Yes. And these uncontaminated samples give, nearly always, dates greater
> > than 30,000 ybp (i.e. dates which are essentially infinity given the
> > sensitivity of the method because of background noise).
>
> So?
>
> Who says the ratio of C14 to C12 was the same prior to the flood? I know
> NOT thinking out of the box evolutionary uniformatarian thought does. But
> is the evolutionary logic sound?
DMC->Everyone who knows anything about what their talking about!
> If the vapor canopy theory is correct, then the canopy would have shielded
> the earth from the cosmic radiation that strikes the nitrogen atoms and
> produces C14.
DMC->What evidence is their for this "vapor canopy"?
> This would have meant there was less C14 prior to the collapse of the
> canopy. Everything that then died prior to the flood would then date older
> compared to todays standards.
DMC->If the "vapor canopy" collapsed causing the flood, where did all
the water go?
> Others feel the stronger magnetic field 4,000 years ago around the earth
> also could have shielded the earth and prevented the C14 from forming.
> This too would have made anything that died prior to the flood appear
> older when compared to todays standard.
DMC->If the theory is correct, could have, would have, might have; where
is the *EVIDENCE* for *DID*? There isn't any! Who are these mysterious
"Others"? How about citing the "Others"! You are just spinning tales,
and not very interesting ones at that!
> Still others feel that prior to the flood not enough cosmic radion had
> entered into our atmosphere and interacted with the nitrogen atoms. Due to
> the lack of time the ratio was different than today. Once again anything
> that died prior to the flood would appear older.
DMC->The "Others" are back, and there gonna getcha!
> Is an age of 30,000 ybp out of reason? I think not, and, I presented you
> with three lines of thought that would fit the YEC models.
DMC->Three lines of thought that would fit the YEC model... *IF there
were any evidence whatsoever for your claims. Where is the evidence? In
a scientific debate what "others feel" is totally irrelevant.
Feelings,...woowoowooh,...feelings... Ooops, I got carried away by
"feelings"! I "feel" that quantum mechanics is *really* hard, but no one
changed the theory to suit *MY* personal whim! My classmates and I
couldn't sit around and concoct an alternate theory of QM out of *thin
air* unless we all wanted to flunk and get laughed out of the
department! Karl wrote the truest statement I've read on t.o. above: "I
think not"! Quite an admission!
--
Dennis Curran
Comments and questions are welcome and will be answered ASAP.
Insults and flames are ignored.
********************************************************
* *
* "All our science, measured against reality, is *
* primitive and childlike - and yet it is the most *
* precious thing we have." *
* *
* Albert Einstein - "Bertie" is an evobabbler!" *
* Karl *
********************************************************
Derek Potter
On 13 Jan 1998 20:15:42 -0500, ks...@fast.net (Mr. C.) wrote:
'
'>Some trees can grow more than one ring in a year.
'>...and...you have to assume your overlapping of tree ring to tree ring is
'>accurate.
Er, Karl, they use more than one tree.
Emmanuelle Foster
Mr. C. wrote:
> > 1) Tree ring dating is used to correct for different C14/C12 ratios. These
> > trees
> > can correct for dates that should be well before the supposed flood.
>
> Some trees can grow more than one ring in a year.
Exact, but trees used for dendrochronology are not one of these particular trees.
Emmanuelle
howard hershey
Mr. C. wrote:
>
> In article <34BB32...@indiana.edu>, howard hershey
> <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> snip
> >
> > Yes. And these uncontaminated samples give, nearly always, dates greater
> > than 30,000 ybp (i.e. dates which are essentially infinity given the
> > sensitivity of the method because of background noise).
>
> So?
>
> Who says the ratio of C14 to C12 was the same prior to the flood? I know
> NOT thinking out of the box evolutionary uniformatarian thought does. But
> is the evolutionary logic sound?
Actually I don't think there ever was any global Flood (there is a total
lack of supporting evidence for such). Nor do I think that C14/C12 has
been perfectly constant over time. Indeed, I *know* that this ratio has
changed dependant upon the amount of energy striking the upper
atmosphere. This is known because of correlations done between C14
dating and tree rings. The change has been about 10-12% max, as I
recall. For it to be significantly different, there would have to be
both a dramatic change in the amount of solar energy producing C14 *and*
extensive and rapid mixing of atmospheric levels.
But my comment still holds. 30,000 ybp (under the standard assumptions
of radiocarbon dating or even if that assigned age is adjusted in
accordance your *systematic* conversion to younger ages) would still be
the same as infinity in C14 dating, regardless of the because it is
indistinguishable (or just barely distinguishable) from background noise
in the measurement techniques produced by such things as cosmic rays,
other isotopes in the material being studied, flourescent materials,
etc. It is the same problem as background hiss on a recording tape. If
the music you are listening to is the 1812 overture, you won't notice
the hiss. If it is an extremely quiet passage, the hiss becomes
noticeable, and, as the music gets quieter, eventually all you hear is
the hiss. 30,000 ybp is essentially the transition between barely
hearing the music over the hiss and only hearing the hiss itself.
> If the vapor canopy theory is correct, then the canopy would have shielded
> the earth from the cosmic radiation that strikes the nitrogen atoms and
> produces C14.
That is a mighty big *if* there. The vapor canopy theory has no
scientific basis and is certainly incorrect and physically impossible.
> This would have meant there was less C14 prior to the collapse of the
> canopy. Everything that then died prior to the flood would then date older
> compared to todays standards.
Specifically, everything pre-Flood would have very little C14 because
there was very little being produced. Then immediately after the
magical disappearance of the vapor canopy (whose liquid apparently went
into the cave system of the hollow earth), the level of atmospheric C14
would have to build up to present (roughly) equilibrium atmospheric
levels. This transition time between a low atmospheric C14/C12 to the
present equilibrium level would produce specific effects that would
differ from that seen if the level were simply variations around the
equilibrium level. Also, given the equilibrium amount of C14 in the
current atmosphere, it should be possible to predict how much radiation
would be required to produce that amount of C14 in the time between the
Flood and the most ancient object dated by C14 dating which had a
*known* age by documented historical record, because after that point it
is perfectly clear that the standard assumptions about an equilibrium
level of atmospheric C14 hold (within the 10-12% variation). If you put
the flood at 4000 ybp, you probably have a maximum of 500 years to build
up the atmospheric C14 to present levels. Can you do so without frying
every living creatures on earth by the cosmic radiation?
> Others feel the stronger magnetic field 4,000 years ago around the earth
> also could have shielded the earth and prevented the C14 from forming.
> This too would have made anything that died prior to the flood appear
> older when compared to todays standard.
I have already stated, in a reply to another poster on this thread, that
this is your best hope (but an extremely slim one) for the appropriate
systematic bias in the ages produced by carbon dating. But an analysis
of how this also systematically led to multiple tree rings per year on a
world-wide basis would be of some help. How strong would the force
field have to be to prevent the appropriate amount of C14 forming? Is
there sufficient time to reach the current equilibrium level? Do you
have any independent evidence that there actually was a lower flux of
radiation in the past that dramatically increased from essentially zero
at Flood times to the present equilibrium level by about 500 years after
the Flood time? You cannot just present a hand-waving assumption that
'maybe cosmic rays did it?' and expect me to immediately jump on board.
Besides, even if you could show that there is a systematic bias in
carbon dating that produces somewhat older ages for things than an
appropriately modified analysis would, that finding would not
necessarily produce the very specific dates your particular theory
requires. Moreover, because there are alternative ways of measuring
ages that involve entirely different assumptions, but which concur with
dates obtained by the standard assumptions of radiocarbon dating, you
could call this single method of measuring ages into question without
disturbing the conclusion that the bulk of evidence indicates ages
incompatible with YEC. You really do have to discover reasons why *all*
these independent methods are both largely congruent with each other
*and* with a particular model of the earth that is incompatible with the
specific expectations of YEC.
> Still others feel that prior to the flood not enough cosmic radion had
> entered into our atmosphere and interacted with the nitrogen atoms. Due to
> the lack of time the ratio was different than today. Once again anything
> that died prior to the flood would appear older.
>
> Is an age of 30,000 ybp out of reason? I think not, and, I presented you
> with three lines of thought that would fit the YEC models.
As mentioned, 30,000 ybp is the same as infinity in radiocarbon dating.
There are, as I pointed out, specific transition problems in trying to
use these *systematic* corrections of assumptions used in carbon dating
to make the data fit the YEC model that I think make these ideas
unlikely to be compatible with the continued existence of life on the
earth (I think you would fry life during the necessarily rapid
transition between low atmospheric C14 and the current level of C14).
Kalandros M
Mr. C. wrote:
> In article <34BBECC6...@hubble.colorado.edu>, Kalandros M
> <kala...@hubble.colorado.edu> wrote:
>
> > Mr. C. wrote:
> >
> > > In article <34BB32...@indiana.edu>, howard hershey
> > > <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > snip
> > > >
> > > > Yes. And these uncontaminated samples give, nearly always, dates greater
> > > > than 30,000 ybp (i.e. dates which are essentially infinity given the
> > > > sensitivity of the method because of background noise).
> > >
> > > So?
> > >
> > > Who says the ratio of C14 to C12 was the same prior to the flood? I know
> > > NOT thinking out of the box evolutionary uniformatarian thought does. But
> > > is the evolutionary logic sound?
> > >
> > > If the vapor canopy theory is correct, then the canopy would have shielded
> > > the earth from the cosmic radiation that strikes the nitrogen atoms and
> > > produces C14.
> > > This would have meant there was less C14 prior to the collapse of the
> > > canopy. Everything that then died prior to the flood would then date older
> > > compared to todays standards.
> > > Others feel the stronger magnetic field 4,000 years ago around the earth
> > > also could have shielded the earth and prevented the C14 from forming.
> > > This too would have made anything that died prior to the flood appear
> > > older when compared to todays standard.
> > > Still others feel that prior to the flood not enough cosmic radion had
> > > entered into our atmosphere and interacted with the nitrogen atoms. Due to
> > > the lack of time the ratio was different than today. Once again anything
> > > that died prior to the flood would appear older.
> > >
> >
> > 1) Tree ring dating is used to correct for different C14/C12 ratios. These
> > trees
> > can correct for dates that should be well before the supposed flood.
>
> Some trees can grow more than one ring in a year.
> ...and...you have to assume your overlapping of tree ring to tree ring is
> accurate.
>
> > Mike
>
> Mr. C
> ks...@fast.net
>
> Evolution is not full of holes:
> it is mostly holes with a
> little half-substance here and there. (jw)
You didn't address my second point.
Mike
howard hershey
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> As for the young date for the dinosaur bone, my impression was that
> the bone was obtained directly from the field and not from a museum,
> so it could not have had shellac on it. But I'm trying to get more
> information about this.
If it is the case I am thinking about, it was from a museum and was
acquired under somewhat misleading circumstances (no mention was made
that C14 dating was planned).
>
> My own position is that the universe is probably old, but I can't
> completely rule out a young one.
What evidence are you using to make your decision and why is it
convincing?
> As for the earth, I'm open to a
> number of possibilities, including a couple that reconcile a young
> earth with old radiometric dates. Or it could be old.
What evidence are you using to make your decision? And what models are
being proposed that reconcile a young earth with the consistently old
radiometric dates (other than Gosse's belly-button solution)? I have
been repeatedly asking for models that consistently and *systematically*
give old radiometric dates for young events and all I get are more
anomalies that differ from the consensus old dates as a way to cast
aspersions on these consensus dates.
> Those who are
> interested in the details can consult my web site, but I don't have a
> burden to defend any particular position on this issue.
If you hold that an alternative position is possible, you have a burden
to present the way that that position is or can be made consistent with
the available evidence. If it is not consistent with the majority of
available evidence and there is no way you can see to make it so, it is
not a position you should try to defend as being scientifically viable.
>
> As for reading textbooks, I have some reference materials at hand
> which I frequently consult, as well as having read a great number of
> articles in popular, semi-popular, and technical scientific journals
> over the years. I don't recall having read a geology textbook, but
> maybe I have at one time or another.
>
[snip]
>
> Now I want to focus on the claim that radiometric dates for a given
> geologic period agree with each other. I would like to know what is
> the exact (or approximate) information content of this assertion, and
> whether it could be (or has been) tested statistically. It's not as
> easy as it might sound.
>
[snip]
For an easy introduction, you might want to start with a Scientific
American article which deals with how (and with what precision) one can
get dates for the most difficult and rare samples (unaltered rocks on
earth that are the oldest ones found). Sci. Amer. Jan. 1993, 90-96. It
also deals with the methods of Ur/Pb dating that circumvent some of the
daughter leaching or infusion problems you worry about.
Chris Stassen
[Posted and E-mailed]
David Plaisted wrote:
> With so many messages, I may have forgotten something, so please
> send me email if there are other outstanding issues.
I believe that some outstanding issues remain, many of them from
my most recent posting on the topic. I would like to see your
comments on:
1. The real meaning of the Reunion Island U/Pb data.
2. The circumstances surrounding ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project.
3. Argon isotope ratios in recent lavas vs your previous claims.
4. Misleading claims on the "7-18BY" lunar rock (obtain the paper!).
5. Percentage of "good" vs "bad" (not "undateable") results.
6. Real (non-imaginary) serious problems for *isochron* methods.
You're welcome to bow out of #1 if you don't think you are really
in a position to comment on the data. (In general, though, I
would recommend against putting forth arguments unless you
understand them well enough to discuss/defend them in at least
a little depth.)
> Now I want to focus on the claim that radiometric dates for a given
> geologic period agree with each other. I would like to know what is
> the exact (or approximate) information content of this assertion, and
> whether it could be (or has been) tested statistically. It's not as
> easy as it might sound.
I would recommend that you obtain Dalrymple (1986) [full reference
information in the t.o Age of the Earth FAQ] for a few examples of
this sort of test. There's one on K-Ar ages versus various Land
Mammal divisions of the Cenozoic; there's another on radiometric
age versus distance from the Hawaiian hot spot which is a spectacular
confirmation of both radiometric dating and continental drift.
> Let's also only include rocks which are considered datable by at
> least one method, since some rocks (I believe limestone) are
> considered not to hold argon, for example.
Sedimentary rocks (such as limestone) are not generally datable
by isotopic methods in a straightforward manner. It wouldn't
matter whether they retain (or fail to retain) the relevant
isotopes.
> The measurements should be done in a double-blind manner to
> insure lack of unconscious bias.
Do you think it likely that the wants of the experimenters
will change the output of the mass spectrometer?
Mr. C.
In article <34cb9d87...@news.dial.pipex.com>,
derek....@bigfoot.com (Derek Potter) wrote:
> On 13 Jan 1998 20:15:42 -0500, ks...@fast.net (Mr. C.) wrote:
>
> '
> '>Some trees can grow more than one ring in a year.
> '>...and...you have to assume your overlapping of tree ring to tree ring is
> '>accurate.
>
>
> Er, Karl, they use more than one tree.
ER, Derek, thats what I just said. Duh.
Mr. C.
In article <34BCCEA1...@lib.drury.edu>, Emmanuelle Foster
<efo...@lib.drury.edu> wrote:
> Mr. C. wrote:
>
> > > 1) Tree ring dating is used to correct for different C14/C12
ratios. These
> > > trees
> > > can correct for dates that should be well before the supposed flood.
> >
> > Some trees can grow more than one ring in a year.
>
> Exact, but trees used for dendrochronology are not one of these
particular trees.
Says who? you? ...ref. please.
>
> Emmanuelle
Derek Potter
On 14 Jan 1998 16:33:47 -0500, ks...@fast.net (Mr. C.) wrote:
'>In article <34cb9d87...@news.dial.pipex.com>,
'>derek....@bigfoot.com (Derek Potter) wrote:
'>
'>> On 13 Jan 1998 20:15:42 -0500, ks...@fast.net (Mr. C.) wrote:
'>>
'>> '
'>> '>Some trees can grow more than one ring in a year.
'>> '>...and...you have to assume your overlapping of tree ring to tree
ring is
'>> '>accurate.
'>>
'>>
'>> Er, Karl, they use more than one tree.
'>
'>ER, Derek, thats what I just said. Duh.
'>
OK, Karl. They use more than one *set of tree rings*.
It's been done more than once. With consistent results.
Mark D. Kluge
>Mr. C. wrote:
> If the vapor canopy theory is correct, then the canopy would have shielded
> the earth from the cosmic radiation that strikes the nitrogen atoms and
> produces C14.
Even better, if the vapor canopy "theory" is correct, then the canopy
would have shielded the Earth from the sun's ultraviolet light! Yippee! No
sunburn!
In fact, the canopy sould have shielded the Earth from the sun's light
responsible for photosynthesis. Just think, gardens wouldn't have had any
weeds!
Mkluge
howard hershey
This lack of light would make Eden a very interesting garden. Mushrooms
rather than apples, anyone? But mushrooms depend upon death and rotting
material, which hadn't happened yet either. So what do you grow in such
an Edenesque garden, Herr Doktor Professor C.?
hamilton
Mark D. Kluge wrote:
>
> >Mr. C. wrote:
>
> > If the vapor canopy theory is correct, then the canopy would have shielded
> > the earth from the cosmic radiation that strikes the nitrogen atoms and
> > produces C14.
>
> Even better, if the vapor canopy "theory" is correct, then the canopy
> would have shielded the Earth from the sun's ultraviolet light! Yippee! No
> sunburn!
This proves that Adam and Eve were very white. After the Fall,
the genome got corrupted and we got all these dark people now. :)
There are hate groups that are also creationist,
who would believe this "logical conclusion"! This is not to imply
that even a significant minority of creationists are racists.
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu
>From occu...@stassen.com Wed Jan 14 12:33:13 1998
>Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 09:29:17 -0800
>From: occu...@stassen.com (Chris Stassen)
>Subject: Re: Reliability of Radiometric Dating
>[Posted and E-mailed]
>David Plaisted wrote:
>> With so many messages, I may have forgotten something, so please
>> send me email if there are other outstanding issues.
>I believe that some outstanding issues remain, many of them from
>my most recent posting on the topic. I would like to see your
>comments on:
>1. The real meaning of the Reunion Island U/Pb data.
I think I was confusing Reunion Island with the Hawaii lava flow.
The old U/Pb dates would indicate nothing about the age of the flow.
>2. The circumstances surrounding ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project.
I'd like to hear Austin's side of the story before making a
judgment. In fact, it would be a good idea if the talk.origins
archive would give those it criticizes a chance to write a
response. Is this done?
Anyway, this appears to be a case where the ``clock did not get
reset'' for this lava flow, if I understand it correctly.
This is not necessarily a problem for the conventional view,
but it does complicate the process of computing dates. How can
we know when the clock has been reset? My impression is that
we get an ``almost isochron'' but when some of the points
are omitted one gets an isochron.
Now, it may not be that uncommon for geologists to omit points from
isochrons that do not fit in. This is not necessarily dishonesty;
they may think that those other points are spurious for some reason.
So what Austin did may not be out of line in this respect. It's also
possible that his point was that if a geologist happens to pick the
wrong samples, he or she can get an isochron yielding a false age.
This is then a problem for isochrons. Maybe he did it himself on some
of the points just to verify that they would produce an isochron as
claimed.
For this discussion my main concern is the reliability of radiometric
dating, for which clocks not getting reset is a real problem, as is
the problem of happening to pick points that yield an isochron giving
a bad age.
It could well be that for many of the isochrons in the literature, if
a few more points had been picked, they also would no longer form
isochrons.
>3. Argon isotope ratios in recent lavas vs your previous claims.
There was a dating of Vesuvius recently, so an error of 250,000 years
for K-Ar dating is not noise. So there is extra argon coming from
somewhere. Why could it not be much larger? As for the Hawaii lava
flow, if this had appeared in precambrian rock, the age of 3 billion
years might have been accepted as valid. Can one always know when
there are enclosed rocks yielding added argon?
>4. Misleading claims on the "7-18BY" lunar rock (obtain the paper!).
I think I responded to this.
>5. Percentage of "good" vs "bad" (not "undateable") results.
I don't recall the question.
>6. Real (non-imaginary) serious problems for *isochron* methods.
This may be answered in some other posts which I have made. In
general, I think the isochron method is good, assuming constancy of
decay rates, but how can one know if a problem is imaginary? There
are mixing scenarios that can invalidate isochrons, and geologists
admit some of the ages obtained by isochrons are wierd.
How much of the fossil-containing geologic column can be dated by
isochrons?
>You're welcome to bow out of #1 if you don't think you are really
>in a position to comment on the data. (In general, though, I
>would recommend against putting forth arguments unless you
>understand them well enough to discuss/defend them in at least
>a little depth.)
>> Now I want to focus on the claim that radiometric dates for a given
>> geologic period agree with each other. I would like to know what is
>> the exact (or approximate) information content of this assertion, and
>> whether it could be (or has been) tested statistically. It's not as
>> easy as it might sound.
>I would recommend that you obtain Dalrymple (1986) [full reference
>information in the t.o Age of the Earth FAQ] for a few examples of
>this sort of test. There's one on K-Ar ages versus various Land
>Mammal divisions of the Cenozoic; there's another on radiometric
>age versus distance from the Hawaiian hot spot which is a spectacular
>confirmation of both radiometric dating and continental drift.
Well, as for the second, it is only a confirmation if the dates were
independently obtained from some other source. I'll comment on the
first in another posting. But land mammal divisions of the Cenozoic
seems to be a rather restricted test. Also, this does not answer the
question of how different methods agree on the geologic column, which
was one of the points in question. The fact that methods often
disagree is suggested by the following quote from
http://hubcap.clemson.edu/spurgeon/books/apology/Chapter7.html :
-----
It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute
dating methods that they claimed to be. Age estimates on a given
geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite
different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is not
absolutely reliable long-term radiological "clock". The uncertainties
inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and
evolutionists... [47]
-----
Picking out a few cases where radiometric dates appear to be
well-behaved reminds me of evolutionary biologists focusing on a few
cases where there may be transitional sequences. It does not answer
the overall question. And as I said above, I'm interested to know how
much of the fossil-bearing geologic column can be dated by isochrons,
and how the dates so obtained compare to others.
>> Let's also only include rocks which are considered datable by at
>> least one method, since some rocks (I believe limestone) are
>> considered not to hold argon, for example.
>Sedimentary rocks (such as limestone) are not generally datable
>by isotopic methods in a straightforward manner. It wouldn't
>matter whether they retain (or fail to retain) the relevant
>isotopes.
>> The measurements should be done in a double-blind manner to
>> insure lack of unconscious bias.
>Do you think it likely that the wants of the experimenters
>will change the output of the mass spectrometer?
The experimenters could only alter the results if they were
highly charged, highly magnetic, or very heavy.
I'll give a more detailed response in a separate post.
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu
I wanted to respond to Chris Stassen when he questioned the need for a
double-blind study of radiometric dating. He cited an example from
Dalrymple where K-Ar dates seem to correlate properly with Cretaceous
mammal fossils, I believe. In the first place, the fact that argon is
highly mobile in rock makes me suspicious. For rocks that are being
dated, contamination with atmospheric argon is a persistent problem
that is mentioned a number of times. Thus it is clear that argon
enters rock easily. It is claimed that we can know if a rock has
added argon by its spectrum when heated; different temperatures yield
different fractions of argon. It is claimed that the argon that
enters from the atmosphere or other rocks, is less tightly bound to
the crystal lattice. But how do we know what happens over thousands
of years? It could be that this argon which is initially loosely
bound (if it is so initially) gradually becomes more tightly bound by
random thermal vibrations, until it becomes undetectable by the
spectrum technique. The fact that rock is often under high pressure
might influence this process, as well.
Also, suppose we leave a rock in the atmosphere until it absorbs
essentially all of the argon it can. How much will this typically
increase its K-Ar age, computed by a simple parent-to-daughter ratio?
Now, isochrons would probably solve this problem. So I'm curious to
know how much of the geologic column is datable by K-Ar isochrons.
Concerning the need for a double blind test, it would seem that there
are many places where human judgment could influence the distribution
of measured radiometric dates. It could increase the percentage of
anomalies, if they were regarded as more interesting. It could
decrease them, if they were regarded as flukes. Human judgment could
determine whether points were collinear enough to form an isochron.
It could determine whether a point can justifiably be tossed out and
the remaining points used as an isochron. It could determine whether
one should accept simple parent-to-daughter K-Ar ratios or whether
some treatment needs to be applied first to get better ages. It could
influence whether a spectrum is considered as flat, whether a rock is
considered to have undergone leaching or heating, whether a rock is
porous or not, or whether a sample has been disturbed in some way.
Since one of the main reasons for accepting radiometric dates (at
least I keep hearing it) is that they agree with each other, I think
that geologists have an obligation to show that they do agree,
specifically on the geologic column. Since we do not know whether or
how much human judgment is influencing radiometric dating, a double
blind study is most reasonable. And it should not be restricted to
just one or two well-behaved places, but should be as comprehensive as
possible.
I repeat the following quote which may indicate that there are
serious problems:
-----
It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute
dating methods that they claimed to be. Age estimates on a given
geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite
different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is not
absolutely reliable long-term radiological "clock". The uncertainties
inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and
evolutionists... [47]
-----
This is taken from
http://hubcap.clemson.edu/spurgeon/books/apology/Chapter7.html .
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu
The following material is from http://www.rae.org/ch04tud.html: (It
looks like C14 dating is the ``bad boy'' of radiometric dating.)
-----
Dr. Libby, the discoverer of the C14 method, which won for him a Nobel
prize, expressed his shock that human artifacts extended back only
5000 years, a finding totally in conflict with any evolutionary
concept. Older dates were found to be very unreliable (CRSQ , 1972,
9:3, p.157). By this time tens of thousands of C14 dates have been
published from tests performed by various laboratories around the
world. In the annual volumes in which the dates are published,
concerns have been expressed about many relatively young dates that
violate established geological age notions. One example given was
Ice-Age materials that were dated by C14 to fall within the Christian
era (CRSQ , 1969, 6:2, p.114). In his book on prehistoric America,
Ceram notes a classic case of the difficulties that befall C14
dating. Bones 30,000 years old were found lying above wood dated at
16,000 years (Ceram, 1971, p.257-259).
Another classic C14 problem was noted for Jarmo, a prehistoric village
in northern Iraq. Eleven samples were dated from the various strata
and showed a 6000-year spread from oldest to most recent. Analysis of
all the archaeological evidence, however, showed that the village was
occupied no more than 500 years before it was finally abandoned
(Custance, 1968, Mortar samples can be given normal C14 tests since
mortar absorbs carbon dioxide from the air. Mortar, however, from
Oxford Castle in England gave an age of 7,270 years. The castle was
built about 800 years ago. The kind of contamination is
unclear. Living trees near an airport were dated with C14 as l0,000
years old, because the wood contained contamination from plane exhaust
(CRSQ , 1970, 7:2, p.126; 1965, 2:4, p.31). p.19).
[I wouldn't be surprised if these last 2 examples have simple
explanations.]
C14 analysis of oil from Gulf of Mexico deposits showed an age
measured in thousands of years - not millions. Data produced by the
Petroleum Institute at Victoria, New Zealand, showed that petroleum
deposits were formed 6,000-7,000 years ago. Textbooks state that
petroleum formation took place about 300,000,000 years ago
(Velikovsky, 1955, p.287; CRSQ , 1965, 2:4, p.10). Fossil wood was
found in an iron mine in Shefferville, Ontario, Canada, that was a
Precambrian deposit. Later the wood was described as coming from Late
Cretaceous rubble, which made it about 100 million years old instead
of more than 600 million years old. Two independent C14 tests showed
an age of about 4000 years (Pensee , Fall 1972, 2:3, p.43).
The last major glacial advance in America was long dated at about
25,000 years ago. C14 dates forced a revision down to 11,400
years. The United State Geological Survey carried out studies that
gave a C14 date as recent as 3300 years ago, but no text treats such a
puzzling find that falls well within historic times (Velikovsky, 1955,
p.158-159; CRSQ , 1968, 5:2, p.67). Here is a remarkable example of
C14 difficulties in a book published by Stanford University Press. Six
C14 ages were determined from a core in an attempt to date the
formation of the Bering Land Bridge. The dates ranged from 4390 to
15,500 Before Present.
<picture>
The first problem was that the results were so disarranged from bottom
to top of the core that no two samples were in the correct order. Then
the oldest date was discarded because it was 'inconsistent' with other
tests elsewhere. Next the remaining dates were assumed to be
contaminated by a fixed amount, after which the authors concluded that
the delta under study had been formed 12,000 years ago (Hopkins, 1967,
p.110-111). ... Even more astonishing is this cynical statement made
at a symposium of Nobel Prize winners in Uppsala, Sweden, in 1969: If
a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it
does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it
is completely 'out of date,' we just drop it (Pensee , Winter 1973,
p.44).
-----
As for the contamination issue, someone asserted that any C14 date of
30,000 years or more is due to contamination. If this is so, then why
do they say the method is accurate to 50,000 years? If any C14 date
has ever yielded a value over 30,000 years, this implies that such
contamination is not ubiquitous. Of course, it could be that older
measurement techniques were less accurate. Now, 30,000 years is about
5 half lives of C14, which means that a contamination of 1/32
(slightly less) would be required to achieve this date for a sample of
infinite age. This is a substantial contamination.
Anyway, as for C14 dating in general, it seems clear that many, many
results are much too young according to the standard view, and that
explaining away one or two of them does not appreciably diminish the
problem.
John Stockwell
>> Mr. C. wrote:
>>
>> > > 1) Tree ring dating is used to correct for different C14/C12
>ratios. These
>> > > trees
>> > > can correct for dates that should be well before the supposed flood.
>> >
>> > Some trees can grow more than one ring in a year.
>>
>> Exact, but trees used for dendrochronology are not one of these
>particular trees.
>
>Says who? you? ...ref. please.
>>
Why Karl, thanks for asking, let me point you to a couple.
Here is some info on three recent papers on the subject of the calibration
of the 14C technique. [Becker, et al, 1991] show through a comparison
of 14C dates with tree ring dates (including 13C/14C and 3H/14C isochron
plots) which permits the calibration of 14C dating back to 10,500 years
before the present. [Edwards, et al., 1993] calibrate the 14C dating scale
back to more than 13,000 years before the present using U-230Th dating
of corals in the Huon peninsula in Papua New Guniea. [Bard, et al,990]
show a U-230Th calibration of radiocarbon dating dating back to 30,000 years
before the present for corals in Barbados using mass spectrometer 14C
ages.
Simply asserting that a particular problem "could occur" does not
shoot down the method. What creationists have to do to make their case
is to do the necessary science to address these issues. They have
not done this.
Indeed, scientists are neither dumb, nor are they
dishonest. We all welcome the opportunity to find mistakes and
inconsistencies in each others' work. Also, the radiocarbon
dating community is not sloppy, either. There are periodic
reviews of techniques and laboratories so that other members of
the radiocarbon community can be aware of potential pitfalls
and problems with both techniques and laboratories.
Reference:
Bard, E., Hamelin, B., Fairbanks, R. G., and Zinder, A.(1990)
Calibration of the 14C timescale over the past 30,000 years using
using mass spectrometric U-Th ages from Barbados corals, Nature,
345, 405-410.
Becker, B., Kromer, B., and Trimborn P., 1991, A stable-isotope
tree-ring timescale of the Late Glacial/Holocene boundary:
Nature, vol. 353 (17 Oct 1991), 647-649.
Edwards, R. L., Beck, J. W., Burr, G. S., Donahue, D. J.,
Chappell, J. M. A., Bloom, E. R. M., Druffel, E. R. M.,
Taylor, F. W., 1993, A large drop in atmospheric 14-C/12-C
and reduced melting in the Younger Dryas*, documented with
230-Th ages in corals: Science, vol. 260 (14 May 1993),
962-967.
>Mr. C
>ks...@fast.net
-John
John Stockwell | jo...@dix.Mines.EDU
Center for Wave Phenomena (The Home of Seismic Un*x)
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, CO 80401 | http://www.cwp.mines.edu/cwpcodes
voice: (303) 273-3049 | fax: (303) 273-3478.
Kalandros M
plaiste...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
[SNIP]
I think a good place to start is
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html
It looks like it has links to Austin's work. The accusation is
that he didn't do the isochron right in the first place AFAIK.
Apparently you should be able to look at Austin's report and
see this. Austin doesn't have a rebuttal, but Woodmorape
made similar criticizms which are included as a link in the
FAQ, so it looks like rebuttals are allowed.
Mike