Radiometric Dating - Assumptions have critical impact ?

[markearthling]

Gday

 

Do the accuracy/relevance of these dating techniques ( C14/C12 one example)

rest on some critical assumptions such as :

 

1. How much C14 originally present in sample.

2. No sources of contamination such as material leaching into samples.

3. decay rate has always been constant.

 

It seems that if any of the above assumptions are false in any given

case this could vastly affect any "accurate" result we are expecting.

 

Our dating techniques may not be what they are cracked up to be.

 

Interested in what others think.

[Ophiolite]

Do the accuracy/relevance of these dating techniques ( C14/C12 one example) rest on some critical assumptions .....?

Of course they do. All scientific work rests on critical assumptions. However, since researchers recognise the critical nature of these assumptions they are rigorously tested. Experiments and observations must be repeated with consistency; alternative methods of determining values are applied and the results compared.

 

1. How much C14 originally present in sample.

2. No sources of contamination such as material leaching into samples.

Careful analysis of the material, its context, mode of collection, preservation and transport, history, environment of 'deposition', chemical character, etc can allow us to avoid such errors. In addition the ages determined with this method can be correlated against other dating techniques, such as dendrochronology.

 

 

3. decay rate has always been constant.

There is no evidence to suggest decay rates have varies in any significant way. If they have, then our entire understanding of atomic behaviour is badly wrong and it is purest luck that our predictions based on theory are correct for everything from stellar charcteristics, to particle accelerators.

 

 

It seems that if any of the above assumptions are false in any given

case this could vastly affect any "accurate" result we are expecting.

If, occassionally, some of the assumptions (1 and 2, not 3) are poorly justified then the dates for that isolated example would be wrong, by some amount.

 

Our dating techniques may not be what they are cracked up to be.

You are right: they are probably better today than most people give them credit for.

 

Now may I ask you a question: for how long have you been a creationist?

[markearthling]

Ophiolite

 

Just because we have no evidence at present that decay rates may have varied

in the past doesn't mean that the fat lady has actually sung on this one yet.

 

Are you actually saying that our knowledge of atomic structure is now complete ?

 

Most things are actually open to interpretation in one way or the other.

Science conveniently interprets it's findings all the time.

Have you not read about any disturbing discrepancies in the dating findings ?

 

Here is my surmise. "Something" intelligent created life on this planet.

Think about the possibilities.

 

You believe that life just built itself. That's not an illogical stance to take now is it ?

Everything we make requires intelligence and yet a single cell, DNA, life and man

just popped out of a chemical soup.

 

Do you really know what you are talking about ? Do you know about the awesomely

complex chemical machinery in one single cell or how these different cells fit together

to form multicellular life in all it's different forms and phases ?

DNA is an information molecule and it has been encoded by something intelligent.

 

How much time do you think there was again to build all this ?

 

You need to keep an open mind and question what you base your shaky principles on.

 

There are also other interesting theories such as string theory and M theory

which suggest the universe may not be what it seems and there may be more

out there than is known. The universe is only a subset of the whole.

 

Knowing something about atomic and cosmic physics is only a small start.

 

Also dendrochronology has limitted application for supposedly really old samples

(thousands of years at most for tree ring dating).

[swansont]

Here is my surmise. "Something" intelligent created life on this planet.

 

!

Moderator Note

Surmising and conjecture belong in Speculations, and must follow the speculations rules. Religion belongs in the religion forum. The topic here is the science of radiometric dating, and it is expected you will discuss science. Deviations will quickly lead this thread to extinction.

[Hal.]

Marketearthling , how would you improve the technique of carbon dating ?

 

 

[Ophiolite]

Markearthling,

in order to respect the rules of the forum and the reminder from swansont I intend only to dicuss those portions of your post directly dealing with dating techniques, with a couple of exceptions, which relate to the background and context of the dating discussion. I'll address those first.

 

Most things are actually open to interpretation in one way or the other.

Science conveniently interprets it's findings all the time.

Yes, most things are open to interpretation. That is why the scientific method is so effective at guiding such interpretation. The method demands that observations be repeatable; that all assumptions and conclusions be questioned, not once, but many times; that all plausible interpretations be considered. Individual scientists, being human, may occassionally be dogmatic, but science has no room for, or tolerance of dogma.

 

Your comment that science conveniently interprets is a telling choice of words. This implies that science has an agenda, that it is trying to 'prove something' and selects interpretations that support this agenda. If this was your intent it displays a serious ignorance of the nature and objectivity of the scientific method. I hope you will take a more honest approach in our further discussion.

 

 

Do you really know what you are talking about ?

Yes, I do. I am careful to talk confidently only about those topics about which I am knowledgeable . In subject areas where I lack expertise I either ask for information, or remain silent. If I am expressing an opinion rather than an established truth I try to make that clear.

 

Do you know about the awesomely

complex chemical machinery in one single cell or how these different cells fit together

to form multicellular life in all it's different forms and phases ?

Yes. Do you know about the inspiring work being conducted my many researchers around the planet to elucidate how these awesome life forms arose and evolved? Do you understand how the work of botantists, zoologists, gentecists, anatomists, embyrologists, microbiologists, astronomers, statisiticians, palaeontologists, geochemists, biochemists, cladists, and members of a score of other disciplines, is all coming together to bring understaning and clarity to the separate processes of abiogenesis and evolution? Please do not answer this point here. If you wish to discuss this then start a new thread and pm me.

 

You need to keep an open mind and question what you base your shaky principles on.

None of my principles are shaky: that's why they are called principles.

 

Now to the specific issues in relation to dating.

 

Just because we have no evidence at present that decay rates may have varied

in the past doesn't mean that the fat lady has actually sung on this one yet.

This seems to be an intrinsically foolish statement. An equivalent would be this: just because I have never seen a dolphin walking down my local high street does not mean that might not happen tomorrow.

 

There is no reason to expect that any evidence will arise showing significant variations in decay rates. There is plenty of evidence to support the constancy of decay rates over time. It is unreasonable to withhold provisional acceptance of the constancy of decay rates. (In science all acceptance is provisional: dogma is prohibited.)

 

How much time do you think there was again to build all this ?

The Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old. The Late Heavy Bombardment Phase ended about 3.8 billion years ago. The first reasonable evidence of life is dated around 3.5 billion years, allowing 300 million years for life to arise.

 

I am from a minority school that suspects 'primitive' life may have arrived from space ready-made. This could then provide a longer time period and a larger volume in which life might develop.

 

Also dendrochronology has limitted application for supposedly really old samples

(thousands of years at most for tree ring dating).

I am at a loss as to what your objection is here. We are talking - at your suggestion - about carbon dating. Carbon dating is valid out to about 50,000 years. Dendrochronology runs out to beyond 10,000 years. That's the same order of magnitude and more than adequate to provide calibration of the carbon dating.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Ophiolite

[markearthling]

Ophiolite

 

1. I came to this forum initially to discuss some concerns regarding radiometric dating.

You were in fact the one who first raised the subject of creationism

and if we are only talking about carbon dating then you also raised the

subject of dendrochronology.

 

2. Quote/ Ophiolite

 

Individual scientists, being human, may occassionally be dogmatic, but science

has no room for, or tolerance of dogma.

 

and

 

(In science all acceptance is provisional: dogma is prohibited.)

 

End Quote

 

How convenient for you for as to dogma you can have your cake and eat it too.

It sounds like you are one of the select few who can apply dogma when it suits

you. You are almost religious in your precious approach to the subject.

 

3. As to your comical remark about dolphins walking down the main street

relating to rate of decay, if your evidence is so overwhelming

then present it.

 

4. Evolution theory is just that, theory and unsubstantiated ideas.

Supposedly we have overwhelming evidence for this.

Where is all this conclusive evidence by the way ?

 

When it comes to evolution, science definitely has an agenda

and it is ,"come hell or high water we support evolution".

This is your dogma but I forgot that scientists are human and only they

are allowed to be dogmatic at times when it suits the theory of evolution.

 

The only thing that works in evolutionary theory is Natural Selection

as this can be demonstrated in living species today but this only covers

the intrinsic built in genetic variability of species which is why

adaptability of species is possible BUT this does not demonstrate

any evolution. Cases in point are horses and dogs, how they have changed

over time. Again this demonstrates built in genetic variability

NOT evolution. Speciation is an interesting idea but there is no evidence

to support it. Chemical resistance of bacteria is also due to genetic

variability and NOT evolution.

 

The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate.

The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was

noted as early as the mid 19th century, and Charles Darwin saw it as

one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution

by natural selection ( genetic variability NOT evolution ).

 

5. You mentioned embryology above. Have you considered how awesomely complex

the process of embryo development is ? It is suspected now that the

genetic introns code found between genes on the chromosomes is actually

not padding/nonsense but regulatory DNA which controls timing and rate

of production of proteins specified by the genetic DNA.

Yet these highly complex programs for embryo development are all encoded

in our chromosomal DNA. How do you suppose this was all encoded by a

mindless chemical process that relies on purely random processes for change ?

 

An embryo not only develops but then changes chemically through juvenile

and then adult phases. A mindless random chemical process made all this ?

Evolution seems not only to have an intrinsic crystal ball but also to be

able to see around corners. The design of the DNA has to produce a viable

individual which needs to progress through many chemical phases in order

to survive and procreate. This cradle to the grave program is encoded in our

DNA by what ? A mindless random chemical process ?

 

5. If you are honest at least to yourself you will see how improbable the claims

of evolution are. Evolutionary theory is full of holes and weaknesses

but it is supported to the hilt because our precious theory must be

kept alive at all costs.

 

6. To HAL above I say that in many circumstances there are large

discrepancies which emerge from radiometric dating work.

I am not convinced that all scientists are being that objective

when they interpret their results. If there is a discrepancy there

is always a reason why we can conveniently massage the data and make it

fit evolutionary theory.

 

When people stop doing this and actually look in other more plausible

directions for answers then I will give radiometric dating a more

favourable viewing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ophiolite]

1. I came to this forum initially to discuss some concerns regarding radiometric dating.

You were in fact the one who first raised the subject of creationism

No. You implicitly raised the subject of creationism by posting a set of questions that are straight out of the creationists handbook. I have seen the same questions posed many times on a number of science forums, always by creationists.

 

Mark, I would also ask you to give some thought as to how you asked those questions. I stand ready to be corrected by you, but it seems you asked these from an honest, heartfelt belief - arising from your faith - that radiometric dating (and other related things) are flawed. However, you asked those questions in an oh so casual fashion, as if your objections were not faith related. That is sneaky and it is dishonest. I asked how long you had been a creationist to bring that out into the open. I hope you will maintain an openess in our further exchanges.

 

and if we are only talking about carbon dating then you also raised the

subject of dendrochronology.

Of course I did. You were questioning the validity of carbon dating as if it existed in some kind of vacuum. One of the reasons geochronologists have such confidence in carbon dating is that its numbers are confirmed and validated by other techniques, including dendrochronology. That is the immense strength of science that it uses, indeeds demands independent verification of observations and hypotheses.

 

 

2. Quote/ Ophiolite

Individual scientists, being human, may occassionally be dogmatic, but science

has no room for, or tolerance of dogma. and

 

(In science all acceptance is provisional: dogma is prohibited.)

 

End Quote

 

How convenient for you for as to dogma you can have your cake and eat it too.

It sounds like you are one of the select few who can apply dogma when it suits

you. You are almost religious in your precious approach to the subject.

I have emboldened the key statements in each of my quotes. You need to explain how you reach your bizarre conclusion. Perhaps you have misunderstood me. I'll try again:

 

Science does not tolerate dogma. The scientific method inhibits and eventually exposes and destroys dogma. In some regards the opposition to and destruction of dogma lies at the heart of science.

 

However, individual scientists (being human and subject to human fraility)) may, on occassion, behave in a most unscientific manner and fall into the trap of expounding dogma. This is a failing. This is a grotesque distortion of their role as scientists. This is unacceptable. And this is, sooner or later, exposed by the scientific method.

 

You say this is convenient. I assure you there is nothing convenient about it. It slows the progress of science and provides the opportunity for some individuals to deliberately or accidentally misunderstand how science works. That is damnably inconvenient!

 

3. As to your comical remark about dolphins walking down the main street relating to rate of decay, if your evidence is so overwhelming then present it.

Mark, you are the on challenging well established scientific hypotheses in a scientific context. It is your responsibility to provide evidence to support your non-standard, unconventional position. The solidity of geochronology rests on a vast amount of interlocked information, observation, experiment, testing, validation and the like. Are you truly prepared to study that material in order to reach an objective assessment as to its validity?

 

That is an important question for you. I certainly lack the skills to present the evidence in a brief form in a way that will convince someone like yourself. I did not arrive at acceptance of the dating methodologies because someone told me about them in a lecture theatre, or I read a paragraph or chapter in a textbook. I accepted them because of the mass of experimental results I saw reported, the anayltical techniques I witnesssed in action, the sampling process I saw practiced in the field, the theoretical issues I read about in research papers, the vigorous debates about issues of contamination and sources I was a spectator of. You have three choices:

1) You can put in the effort to explore this subject thoroughly and objectively, but I assure you - it will be an effort.

2) You can accept that the work of thousands of scientists on dating is broadly correct, since deficiencies and defects in the process have been progressively ironed out.

3) You can remain ignorant of the awesome power of the methodology and the exciting means by which it was developed.

 

If you choose option 1) I shall be happy to provide you with references that would get you started.

 

24. Evolution theory is just that, theory and unsubstantiated ideas.

Mark, you really need to do some studying. In science there is nothing no higher level than theory. Theory does not mean in science what it means to the layman - its not just an idea about how something might work. It is a integrated description of how things do work, validated by hundreds of thousands of experiments and tests and observations, subjected to intense, hostile scrutiny over decades - and in the case of evolution more than a century and a half. Every idea it rests upon has been substantiated many, many times over.

 

You appear to be repeating the dogma that sits in armory of every creationists I have ever talked to. It isn't convincing, it isn't right, it is ignorant and it is not conducive to a an exchange of views.

 

 

Where is all this conclusive evidence by the way ?

The only way you can fail to have seen this evidence is if you have closed your eyes to it. Let me ask you this - have you even bothered to read Origin of Species by Darwin? Now Darwin's ideas have been substantially modified over time, but he certainly opened our eyes to a new, productive way of looking at the world and is not a bad starting point for someone genuinely interested in assessing the validity of evolution. Are you willing to put in the effort to explore the evidence, or are you too scared you might be convinced?

 

 

When it comes to evolution, science definitely has an agenda

and it is ,"come hell or high water we support evolution".

This is your dogma but I forgot that scientists are human and only they

are allowed to be dogmatic at times when it suits the theory of evolution.

Please don't be silly. There is no benefit to supporting evolution for the sake of it. What would be the benefit of doing so, what would be the purpose? It's purest nonsense. You seem to be of that school of thought that believes all scientists are atheists out to prove the non-existence of God. I'm sorry if I become rude here, but that is monumentally dumb! You could ask the pope what he thinks about such nonsense for starters!

 

The only thing that works in evolutionary theory is Natural Selection

as this can be demonstrated in living species today but this only covers

the intrinsic built in genetic variability of species which is why

adaptability of species is possible BUT this does not demonstrate

any evolution. Cases in point are horses and dogs, how they have changed

over time. Again this demonstrates built in genetic variability

NOT evolution. Speciation is an interesting idea but there is no evidence

to support it.

Speciation has been observed. Are you willing to study the evidence, or are you going to continue to parrot the tired old creationist dogma that you have been spouting thus far? If you are willing to open your mind, there are many here who will take the time to explain things to you, but not if you approach this with opinions cast in stone.

 

The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate.

The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was

noted as early as the mid 19th century, and Charles Darwin saw it as

one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution

by natural selection ( genetic variability NOT evolution ).

You really are working through the standard objections, aren't you. Darwin saw that it was a potential objection to this theory. He raised, as any good scientist will, any and all objections to his own theory that he could think of. He also saw that in time the Cambrian explosion would be explainable. And so it has proved. Are you willing to do the extensive study that will demonstrate this to you, or will you insist in burying your head in a Holocene sand rather than a Cambrian outcrop?

 

5. If you are honest at least to yourself you will see how improbable the claims

of evolution are.

If I am honest to myself I must accept the reality of evolution.

If I am honest to the devoted work of armies of palaeontologists and biologists and genetecists and other scientists I must accept the reality of evolution.

If I am honest to the use of a brain and an ability to think for myself and a desire to understand the world then I must accept the reality of evolution.

If I am honest to the monumental mass of inter-related, well validated evidence supporting evolution then I must accept its reality.

There is a whiff of dishonesty in the air, but it is not coming from here.

 

When people stop doing this and actually look in other more plausible

directions for answers then I will give radiometric dating a more

favourable viewing.

No, you won't because your mind is closed. If it is not, then accept my challenge posed in option 1 above.

[swansont]

1. I came to this forum initially to discuss some concerns regarding radiometric dating.

 

!

Moderator Note

Please confine your discussion in this thread to matters directly related to that topic

[markearthling]

Ophiolite

 

Well you obviously possess an unshakable faith in science.

Faith though is not the issue, it is the findings and the interpretations that are

at issue.

 

You have misread me totally my friend for my mind is open and that is the only

way we continue to learn new things.

 

I would be particularly interested in any purported evidence you can point me at

regarding speciation. If it has been observed then this is the first I have heard

about it.

 

Anything you care to put my way I will make an effort to read.

 

Richard Dawkins is a case in point. I have read a couple of his books

and he is a story teller extraordinaire. His ideas are very interesting

until you realise that they don't seem to be backed up by much

hard scientific data. I can see many holes and weaknesses all through

his work. Plausible arguments don't necessarily substitute for reality.

 

Mankind still has a long way to go and a lot to learn.

If we don't recognise this fact we will simply become

arrogant, deluded and go backwards.

 

Who was it that said something like,

"We are only now standing at the edge of the sea of knowledge" ?

 

So lead on. I am prepared to meet your challenge over time.

 

Also I am not sure whether this is the appropriate place to continue this

as per swansonts' reminder. So if it has to be moved this does not bother

me.

Edited June 9, 2011 by markearthling

[swansont]

Richard Dawkins is a case in point. I have read a couple of his books

and he is a story teller extraordinaire. His ideas are very interesting

until you realise that they don't seem to be backed up by much

hard scientific data. I can see many holes and weaknesses all through

his work. Plausible arguments don't necessarily substitute for reality.

You are not going to garner any credibility with arguments like these. Not being aware of the research into radioactive decay and radiometric dating is not a good sign. Expecting others to do that work for you does not help; reading a few pop-sci books does not cut it. To those who are familiar with those the science, a nebulous claim of "I can see many holes and weaknesses" points toward a weakness in physics rather than a weakness of physics.

[ydoaPs]

Gday

 

Do the accuracy/relevance of these dating techniques ( C14/C12 one example)

rest on some critical assumptions such as :

 

1. How much C14 originally present in sample.

2. No sources of contamination such as material leaching into samples.

3. decay rate has always been constant.

 

It seems that if any of the above assumptions are false in any given

case this could vastly affect any "accurate" result we are expecting.

 

Our dating techniques may not be what they are cracked up to be.

 

Interested in what others think.

Welcome, my YEC friend! You might have a better time gaining credibility if you don't post threads which are more or less directly from this list of long-debunked YEC canards and their refutations.

[markearthling]

Swansont

 

When you refer to pop-sci books perhaps you are referring to the

works of one Richard Dawkins ?

 

Are you seriously suggesting that his work has anything to do with

physics ? Sorry but there are holes in his arguments big enough

to sink battleships. ROFL

[mooeypoo]

Swansont

 

When you refer to pop-sci books perhaps you are referring to the

works of one Richard Dawkins ?

 

Are you seriously suggesting that his work has anything to do with

physics ? Sorry but there are holes in his arguments big enough

to sink battleships. ROFL

 

Richard Dawkins isn't the only author out there. You might want to visit a library sometime soon.

[mississippichem]

Swansont

 

When you refer to pop-sci books perhaps you are referring to the

works of one Richard Dawkins ?

 

Are you seriously suggesting that his work has anything to do with

physics ? Sorry but there are holes in his arguments big enough

to sink battleships. ROFL

 

 

Off topic. Regardless of your feelings about Richard Dawkins, or silly young Earth theories; you've yet to present any evidence of the weaknesses of radiometric dating. I suspect that you don't understand concepts like first order decay kinetics, half-life, or carbon fixation.

 

If you want to convince us you're going to need a really good, air-tight argument. You'll have to convince the physicists here that they are wrong about radioactive decay kinetics, and you'll have to convince us chemists that we don't understand things like leaching or oxidation of organics. People who talk about us not knowing how much 14C is missing from the sample to begin with neglect the fact that we understand all these processes extremely well.

 

By the way, much of our radiometric dating is backed up by dendrochronology and/or various geological methods so you'll need to debunk those as well.

Pony up and give us a quantitative argument. We enjoy the challenge, or lack of.

Edited June 9, 2011 by mississippichem

[markearthling]

mississippichem

 

Thanks for your comments above. I will do some research and get

back to you on that.

 

Contrary to what swansont said above I don't need anyone to

do my work for me.

 

Any offers of help will always be viewed positively though.

[mississippichem]

Any offers of help will always be viewed positively though.

 

If you need help understanding the concepts of radiometric dating, then we are glad to help.

[ydoaPs]

mississippichem

 

Thanks for your comments above. I will do some research and get

back to you on that.

 

Contrary to what swansont said above I don't need anyone to

do my work for me.

 

Any offers of help will always be viewed positively though.

The Kahn Academy is a good place to start.

[swansont]

Swansont

 

When you refer to pop-sci books perhaps you are referring to the

works of one Richard Dawkins ?

 

Are you seriously suggesting that his work has anything to do with

physics ? Sorry but there are holes in his arguments big enough

to sink battleships. ROFL

 

You brought him up. If his works are not germane to the discussion, why would you do that? Especially after you were asked (twice) not to bring up topics outside of radiometric dating in a thread about radiometric dating? BTW, ridicule is not an approach that will cause slack to be cut when it comes to you not following moderator requests. Think twice before you head down that path.

 

Contrary to what swansont said above I don't need anyone to

do my work for me.

Then let your posts start to reflect this.

[Hal.]

Markearthling , good luck !

 

 

[Moontanman]

This guy is a great source of info on why radiocarbon dating works, if you are a YEC you might not get the humor....

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/Potholer54debunks#p/u/18/QbvMB57evy4

[John Cuthber]

As a chemist I object to this whole thread. It has nothing to do with organic chemistry. It should be somewhere else.

[Hal.]

The whole is the sum of the parts . Would we include or exclude op's op as organic chemistry ?

 

 

[Moontanman]

I agree with John, the OP has nothing to do with organic chemistry.

[mississippichem]

I agree with John, the OP has nothing to do with organic chemistry.

 

Moved to Earth Science for lack of a better place to put it.