PDA

View Full Version : Radioactive dating



bob b
September 8th, 2004, 02:47 PM
Stratnerd seems to want to talk about radioactive dating instead of the "three tiny mysteries" so I will accomodate him by starting a thread for that purpose.



quote:
But basically one has to examine the assumptions behind the various radiometric aging methods.

OK... and? How is this a response to my post. I was looking for something linking expansion of the universe and geology, which is what you need to do to explain certain patterns.


[quote] by bob
I am sure you knew that. (radiometric dating is not generally used on sediments)


by S
I do know and I'm wondering why you brought it up. I wasn't talking about sedimentary layers but layers where you have successive/sequential igneous flows on top of each other (perhaps with sedimentary rock in between). For example, seethis article. Even without knowing the mechanisms behind accelerated decay rates you need to link expansion of the universe (ad hoc or is it based on known physical phenomena?) with "seemingly" younger strata on top of "seemingly" older strata - igneous that is.

Lava flows are notorious for giving false radiometric ages, e.g. dating millions of years old when the flow was known to have occurred in historical times. This is called the "excess argon problem".


this is why I was pointing out the value of a paradigm to show that specific explanations (ad hoc) can lead to situations that make things worse (even more ad hocs).

I agree. Rather than ignoring the excess argon problem researchers need to pin it down scientifically instead of merely telling stories that might possibly explain the discrepancies. Perhaps this might also tie into the reason we get long ages for rocks in the Earth when we know from revelation that they can't be more than a few thousand years old.

Stratnerd
September 8th, 2004, 03:03 PM
Lava flows are notorious for giving false radiometric ages, e.g. dating millions of years old when the flow was known to have occurred in historical times. This is called the "excess argon problem". Really, is it the majority or all the lava flows. Or is it the recent lava flows?


I agree. really? Are you the one that likes to invoke superspeciation, expansion/nuclear decay, decaying c, etc etc. The story that fits the data best (which is the science I like to do - let the hypotheses fight it out) is old earth. Like I've been asking: have you been able to tie in expansion of the universe with estimated dates. If dates are unreliable then why invoke the expanding universe thing? Or are you just invoking ad hoc willy nilly when needed?


we know from revelation that they can't be more than a few thousand years old. talk about telling stories...

philosophizer
September 8th, 2004, 03:04 PM
The good part about radioactive dating-- she glows in the dark.

The bad part about radioactive dating-- when you try to kiss her, your lips fall off.




Oh sorry... I think I got confused.

Lucky
September 8th, 2004, 03:06 PM
I prefer radioactive courting. :chuckle:

BillyBob
September 8th, 2004, 03:07 PM
I've had a few radioactive divorces.... :shocked:

aharvey
September 9th, 2004, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by bob b

Lava flows are notorious for giving false radiometric ages, e.g. dating millions of years old when the flow was known to have occurred in historical times. This is called the "excess argon problem".

Sheesh. You and I have discussed this topic at some length, and just when it was getting interesting, you abandoned that thread, only to reappear later with your original premise intact?!


Originally posted by bob b
Rather than ignoring the excess argon problem researchers need to pin it down scientifically instead of merely telling stories that might possibly explain the discrepancies.

I'm sure you're aware that geologist have indeed paid close attention to the "excess argon problem." They have a good idea of how common it is (i.e., it's rare), and what situations are most likely to yield a false reading. If you peruse the literature (you might go back and review Snelling's literature review on the topic), you'll see that the wildly inaccurate readings are from the older literature. If geologists didn't have anything more than a story-telling understanding of the problem, then you wouldn't see this trend.

And how does excess argon compromise all the other radiometric techniques out there?


Originally posted by bob b
Perhaps this might also tie into the reason we get long ages for rocks in the Earth when we know from revelation that they can't be more than a few thousand years old.

Strat said it all here... Again, you may be right, but don't pretend that science is involved.

bob b
September 9th, 2004, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

Really, is it the majority or all the lava flows. Or is it the recent lava flows?

Just the ones that are known to have occurred in historical times, like within the last several hundred or thousand years. If the ones that can be crosschecked are wrong, why should we believe the dates that can't be crosschecked?


really? Are you the one that likes to invoke superspeciation, expansion/nuclear decay, decaying c, etc etc. The story that fits the data best (which is the science I like to do - let the hypotheses fight it out) is old earth. Like I've been asking: have you been able to tie in expansion of the universe with estimated dates. If dates are unreliable then why invoke the expanding universe thing? Or are you just invoking ad hoc willy nilly when needed?

Why deviate from the evolutionary ad hoc approach.


talk about telling stories...

You and the rest of your kind are good story telling teachers and I should give thanks to you for that, but my "stories" are based on an infallible source, God.

Be patient, you guys will eventually catch up to the truth.

Chileice
September 9th, 2004, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by bob b


Be patient, you guys will eventually catch up to the truth.

The truth is... I always found radioactive dating to be a bit dangerous and a tad bit boring. Except for that time my date and I went to a uranium mine and fell in a bin of yellowcake. That was pretty fun. We had a certain glow about us after we got back. In general, though having to put on radiation suits just for a date isn't really worth it. :chuckle: :bannana:

bob b
September 9th, 2004, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by aharvey

Sheesh. You and I have discussed this topic at some length, and just when it was getting interesting, you abandoned that thread, only to reappear later with your original premise intact?!

I gave up trying to talk some sense into you. Your argument was basically that "the errors were small so we should ignore them".


I'm sure you're aware that geologist have indeed paid close attention to the "excess argon problem." They have a good idea of how common it is (i.e., it's rare),

It's rare because it is costly to test samples and since they know that excess argon will screw up samples that are known to be recent they don't waste their money testing samples that they know are recent. In other words they don't worry about excess argon for the same reason you don't: i.e. the errors are small for recent samples so we can ignore the problem by never testing samples known to be recent.


and what situations are most likely to yield a false reading. If you peruse the literature (you might go back and review Snelling's literature review on the topic), you'll see that the wildly inaccurate readings are from the older literature. If geologists didn't have anything more than a story-telling understanding of the problem, then you wouldn't see this trend.

Geologists have wised up and don't test samples known to be recent anymore. They believe they have stories that explain why the problem exists and have moved on. Neat.

And how does excess argon compromise all the other radiometric techniques out there?


Strat said it all here... Again, you may be right, but don't pretend that science is involved.

Depends on how you define science. Eliminating possibilities simply because they conflict with current theories is not my idea of good science.

aharvey
September 9th, 2004, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by bob b

I gave up trying to talk some sense into you. Your argument was basically that "the errors were small so we should ignore them".
Well, there was another part to my argument, which was that Snelling's own data did not even say what he claimed it did, for two different reasons, one of which he even acknowledged (and then dismissed, with absolutely no explanation). Also, I'm curious. Is there no margin of error in your estimate of the age of the Earth? Of the Flood?


Originally posted by bob b

It's rare because it is costly to test samples and since they know that excess argon will screw up samples that are known to be recent they don't waste their money testing samples that they know are recent. In other words they don't worry about excess argon for the same reason you don't: i.e. the errors are small for recent samples so we can ignore the problem by never testing samples known to be recent.

Geologists have wised up and don't test samples known to be recent anymore. They believe they have stories that explain why the problem exists and have moved on. Neat.
Sorry, you misread my statement. It's not that geologists have stopped looking at samples known to be Recent, it's that they no longer test Recent samples likely to contain excess argon. See Snelling's table, as I already suggested. He cites plenty of post-1970's studies on Recent samples.


Originally posted by bob b

And how does excess argon compromise all the other radiometric techniques out there?
It doesn't, as far as I can tell.


Originally posted by bob b

Depends on how you define science. Eliminating possibilities simply because they conflict with current theories is not my idea of good science.
How about eliminating possibilities simply because they conflict with current data? And regardless, if you think good science is incompatible with eliminating possibilties because they conflict with current theories, then there's no way you can think good science is in any way compatible with eliminating possiblities because they conflict with (your interpretation of) divine revelation!

On Fire
September 9th, 2004, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by philosophizer

The good part about radioactive dating-- she glows in the dark.

The bad part about radioactive dating-- when you try to kiss her, your lips fall off.


:darwinsm:

bob b
September 9th, 2004, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by aharvey

Well, there was another part to my argument, which was that Snelling's own data did not even say what he claimed it did, for two different reasons, one of which he even acknowledged (and then dismissed, with absolutely no explanation). Also, I'm curious. Is there no margin of error in your estimate of the age of the Earth? Of the Flood?

The primary reason that people doubt the billions of years idea that has gained overwhelming sway in our culture is of course divine revelation. However, once one seriously suspects that the old age methods may be flawed there are plenty of real world evidences that validate the suspicion.


How about eliminating possibilities simply because they conflict with current data? And regardless, if you think good science is incompatible with eliminating possibilties because they conflict with current theories, then there's no way you can think good science is in any way compatible with eliminating possiblities because they conflict with (your interpretation of) divine revelation!

I am really amused at the implication that somehow people who believe that the scriptures teach a young earth are only guilty of misinterpreting scripture. Such an argument borders on the irrational. The primary reason why people try to twist scripture in this area is because they believe the scientific case for a billions of year old Earth is so solid that it could never possibly be falsified.

Some of us disagree and can think of possibilities that have been overlooked. That is why I raised the issue of the ZPE, which most scientists already believe is a reality, even though its scale and ramifications are mind boggling.

(As one example of how mind boggling, the amount of energy contained in one cc of so-called "empty" space is said to be equivalent to the energy output of a billion stars shining for a million years).

Skeptic
September 9th, 2004, 04:03 PM
bob b,

If humans did not have the Bible, and there were no creation myths to which we could refer, do you believe science would eventually be able trace the origins of the galaxies, stars, planets, life and humans back to roughly 6,000 years ago (or whatever YEC figure you prefer)?

If so, how do you think science would go about it?

bob b
September 9th, 2004, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic

bob b,

If humans did not have the Bible, and there were no creation myths to which we could refer, do you believe science would eventually be able trace the origins of the galaxies, stars, planets, life and humans back to roughly 6,000 years ago (or whatever YEC figure you prefer)?

If so, how do you think science would go about it?

There always seem to be a few mavericks in science who do not follow the crowd but prefer to follow where the evidence leads them.

Because of this the field of origins will eventually gravitate toward the correct solution to the mystery of origins. Dogmatic belief in current invalid paradigms can only delay the inevitable.

I mentioned the discovery of the ZPE. Most scientists still have not realized that this may be the discovery that inevitably leads to the correct interpretation of the physical evidence and breaks the stranglehold that interpretations such as radiometric dating and starlight travel time have on the minds of our generation.

But then again it may not, but it certainly does seem promising to me at this point in time.

aharvey
September 10th, 2004, 08:07 AM
Talk about a non sequitur post!


Originally posted by bob b

The primary reason that people doubt the billions of years idea that has gained overwhelming sway in our culture is of course divine revelation. However, once one seriously suspects that the old age methods may be flawed there are plenty of real world evidences that validate the suspicion.

So far the only "real world evidence" I've seen has been bogus evidence of the kind presented by Snelling, which you are wise to have ignored. I'm intrigued, though, that you kinda skipped over my query about margins of error in YEC estimates. If one were to look at the margin of error in "old age methods" and the amount of evidence that does not support an old earth vs. the margin of error in "young earth methods" -- oh, wait, there aren't any, there are just young age assertions, aren't there? -- and the amount of evidence that supports a young (let's say less than 10Kya) earth, which would you say has a stronger case?


Originally posted by bob b
I am really amused at the implication that somehow people who believe that the scriptures teach a young earth are only guilty of misinterpreting scripture. Such an argument borders on the irrational. The primary reason why people try to twist scripture in this area is because they believe the scientific case for a billions of year old Earth is so solid that it could never possibly be falsified.

Huh? I can only conclude you misread my statement. Let me make my point in the form of a question: if you think good science is incompatible with eliminating possibilties because they conflict with current theories, do you think good science is in any way compatible with eliminating possiblities because they conflict with your interpretation of divine revelation? The "your interpretation" part is there only because, as is abundantly clear in other sections of TOL, different believers interpret Scriptures differently. If it makes you feel better, feel free to answer the question without the offending three words: if you think good science is incompatible with eliminating possibilties because they conflict with current theories, do you think good science is in any way compatible with eliminating possiblities because they conflict with divine revelation?


Originally posted by bob b
Some of us disagree and can think of possibilities that have been overlooked. That is why I raised the issue of the ZPE, which most scientists already believe is a reality, even though its scale and ramifications are mind boggling.

(As one example of how mind boggling, the amount of energy contained in one cc of so-called "empty" space is said to be equivalent to the energy output of a billion stars shining for a million years).

Wow, that is compelling evidence that the earth is only 6000 years old!

john2001
September 21st, 2004, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by bob b


Lava flows are notorious for giving false radiometric ages, e.g. dating millions of years old when the flow was known to have occurred in historical times. This is called the "excess argon problem".


I agree. Rather than ignoring the excess argon problem researchers need to pin it down scientifically instead of merely telling stories that might possibly explain the discrepancies. Perhaps this might also tie into the reason we get long ages for rocks in the Earth when we know from revelation that they can't be more than a few thousand years old.

Anyone reading this should read a real book on the subject, instead of merely trusting the barefaced lies of Bob B.

I would refer interested parties to a text
such as _Radiogenic Isotope Geology_ by
Alan P. Dickin. Chapter 10 of this book
discusses the issue of "inherited argon".
(It hasn't been called the "excess argon problem for decades, in part, because it
is no longer a problem.)

The issue of inherited argon is a well studied phenomenon that no longer presents a problem in radiometric dating because methods for mitigating any problem associates with the problem have been developed. All of these approaches have in common that they are data driven, and depend on the notion of isochron dating.

In addition, one individual's "problem" is another individual's valuable source of thermal history and geochemical information.

Shame on Bob B for denigrating the work of individuals who are more honest than he will ever be, and who are more competent than he ever was. Shame.

bob b
September 22nd, 2004, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by john2001

Anyone reading this should read a real book on the subject, instead of merely trusting the barefaced lies of Bob B.

I would refer interested parties to a text
such as _Radiogenic Isotope Geology_ by
Alan P. Dickin. Chapter 10 of this book
discusses the issue of "inherited argon".
(It hasn't been called the "excess argon problem for decades, in part, because it
is no longer a problem.)

The issue of inherited argon is a well studied phenomenon that no longer presents a problem in radiometric dating because methods for mitigating any problem associates with the problem have been developed. All of these approaches have in common that they are data driven, and depend on the notion of isochron dating.

In addition, one individual's "problem" is another individual's valuable source of thermal history and geochemical information.

Shame on Bob B for denigrating the work of individuals who are more honest than he will ever be, and who are more competent than he ever was. Shame.

Both sides in this dispute seem to use the same references (Dickin).

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/henke4.html

john2001
September 22nd, 2004, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by bob b

Both sides in this dispute seem to use the same references (Dickin).

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/henke4.html

You are quoting an abominable piece of garbage written by Dave Plaisted a software engineer who wouldn't know science if it bit him on the butt. (He's even less knowledgeable in science than you are.)

However, I would point out that the "Dr. Henke" referred to in Plaisted's ignorant scree is has some other items that would be of interest to people who actually want to learn something:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/henke_on_woody.htm

bob b
September 22nd, 2004, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by john2001

You are quoting an abominable piece of garbage written by Dave Plaisted a software engineer who wouldn't know science if it bit him on the butt. (He's even less knowledgeable in science than you are.)

I didn't actually quote anybody. I simply remarked that both sides use the same references, which statement was authenticated by the link I gave. Your emotional outburst only convinces me that you have fallen prey to the difficulty that Feynman warned about.


However, I would point out that the "Dr. Henke" referred to in Plaisted's ignorant scree is has some other items that would be of interest to people who actually want to learn something:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/henke_on_woody.htm

From the titles of his documents I can only conclude that Dr. Henke has the same problem that you do.

aharvey
September 23rd, 2004, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by bob b

I didn't actually quote anybody. I simply remarked that both sides use the same references, which statement was authenticated by the link I gave. Your emotional outburst only convinces me that you have fallen prey to the difficulty that Feynman warned about.

From the titles of his documents I can only conclude that Dr. Henke has the same problem that you do.

Bob b, that's a pretty hilarious example of the pot calling the kettle black! At one level, I agree with you: when I looked at the titles of Henke's documents, my initial reaction was something like, "Jeez, this guy's as emotionally overwrought as the YECs he's criticizing!" Kinda makes Henke the exception that proves the rule. On the other hand, if you read Henke's articles, not just the titles, you'll find he makes some interesting, I daresay compelling, points that would be worth some further discussion in this forum...