Radiometric Dating

[Spock]

I believe the main form of evidence supporting an old earth is radiometric dating, measured ages of rock are based on very slow rates of decay measured in laboratories. The following links show that radiometric decay slows down slightly when there is more solar radiation:Decay is affected by the sun's core:http://www.purdue.ed...JenkinsDec.htmlhttp://news.stanford...sun-082310.htmlDecay drops in Julyhttp://www.purdue.ed...ce-warning.htmlFrom about 200AD and earlier the earth's protective magnetic field was 1.5 times stronger than today, which would have greatly reducedsolar and cosmic radiation reaching the earth's surface.Conclusion: If decay slows down slightly when there is a slight increase in solar radiation, its highly probable that decay was significantly faster during the time when the strength of the magnetic field caused a large decrease in solar radiation and cosmic radiation. Thus the main source of evidence for an old earth is based on a logical fallacy.

 

Can anyone fault this logic?

So I went ahead and read the first reference there. Here is a question for you Argosy, have you looked at the actual numbers involved? The variations in frequency of events are in terms of per year units (a hertz is oscillation per second). That means these are tiny, tiny fluctuations. Have you sat down, maybe put in the maximum oscillation, added them up for 4 or 5 billion years, to see if that would make up for a *4.5 billion year* shortfall? I say this in the spirit of non jerkiness, but it does not work.

 

What I think YEC sometimes don't see is the enormous chasm between 10,000 years and 4,500,000,000 years, 6 orders of magnitude. If you want to turn to scientific discovery to come up with an explanation for a difference in 6 orders of magnitude it needs to be very striking. Otherwise, things such as this do not present your position in the best light.

Hey alpha,

You have a keen interest in physics. Would you mind reading the article I cited above and tell me the strengths and weaknesses of the article, especially the part discussing the radioactive isotopes with a half life over 68,000,000. Thanks.

[ARGOSY]

 

I believe the main form of evidence supporting an old earth is radiometric dating, measured ages of rock are based on very slow rates of decay measured in laboratories.

<snip>

 

Thus the main source of evidence for an old earth is based on a logical fallacy.

 

I only have one comment. Please be careful against disproving the other side as a means of confirming your side. There is also a likelihood that both sides are in error.

 

Fair comment. But I already believe the bible above evolutionary timeframes, and so any doubt of those timeframes merely confirms the truth in my eyes.

[ARGOSY]

The earth's magnetic field is in a constant state of flux, there is always an ebb and flow. 

 

 

I agree the magnetic field  fluctuates over time. But those dates are meaningless because decay would speed up whenever the field is stronger than its current strength.

Edited January 20, 2014 by ARGOSY

[ARGOSY]

Here is an article that helped me sort some things out. It takes on the creationist arguments and rebuts them one at a time. Answers in Genesis made a big deal about some study of rocks taken from mt St. Helens eruption in 1980 saying radio metric dating is not reliable because the testing showed these igneous rocks to be millions of years old, which they obviously couldn't be. . This articles shows why that study was flawed. Like I said, this article is very helpful. Enjoy.

http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/reliability.php

I can't see any rebuttal there that applies to my point in the opening post. Please post something if you find a good rebuttal, I look forward to my argument being challenged.

[ARGOSY]

So I went ahead and read the first reference there. Here is a question for you Argosy, have you looked at the actual numbers involved? The variations in frequency of events are in terms of per year units (a hertz is oscillation per second). That means these are tiny, tiny fluctuations. Have you sat down, maybe put in the maximum oscillation, added them up for 4 or 5 billion years, to see if that would make up for a *4.5 billion year* shortfall? I say this in the spirit of non jerkiness, but it does not work.

 

What I think YEC sometimes don't see is the enormous chasm between 10,000 years and 4,500,000,000 years, 6 orders of magnitude. If you want to turn to scientific discovery to come up with an explanation for a difference in 6 orders of magnitude it needs to be very striking. Otherwise, things such as this do not present your position in the best light.

 

I agree that the solar cycle has a negligible effect on decay, I included that article just to strengthen my argument that the dips in decay are caused by any type of increase in solar radiation. Whether its the July effect, the midnight effect, solar flares or  solar cycles; decay rates always react to changes in solar radiation.  The bigger the changes the more the effect. 

 

The effect is difficult to quantify, because the cause is unknown. Remember the formula of the half-life is based on randomness and now there's evidence that decay is not random. This affects rates of decay in an exponential manner.

 

Change to radioactive decay is 0.1 percent during the solar cycle, it would be interesting to know what percentage the following changes during this same 33 day cycle:

1) High speed protons

2) Muons on earth's surface

3) Ionizing background

4) The sun's energy output 

 

http://phys.org/news202456660.html   " Jenkins and Fischbach collaborated with Peter Sturrock, a professor emeritus of applied physics at Stanford University and an expert on the inner workings of the sun, to examine data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on the rate of decay of the radioactive isotopes silicon-32 and chlorine-36. The team reported in the journal Astroparticle Physics that the decay rate for both isotopes varies in a 33-day recurring pattern, which they attribute to the rotation rate of the sun's core. In general, the fluctuations that Jenkins and Fischbach have found are around a tenth of a percent from what is expected, as they've examined available published data and taken some measurements themselves."

I can't find enough information on the maths behind the cause/effect, could you kindly supply more evidence if you feel the effect under stronger magnetic fields would be negligible.

 

 

[Enoch2021]

Here is an article that helped me sort some things out. It takes on the creationist arguments and rebuts them one at a time. Answers in Genesis made a big deal about some study of rocks taken from mt St. Helens eruption in 1980 saying radio metric dating is not reliable because the testing showed these igneous rocks to be millions of years old, which they obviously couldn't be. . This articles shows why that study was flawed. Like I said, this article is very helpful. Enjoy.

http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/reliability.php

 

I'll take a crack at er   from your source: http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/reliability.php

 

I could spend all evening going through each one which would be a waste of time.  I'll just take the KING Tree (Rate Limiting Step) for the House of Cards and chop it down which will render the whole thing basically HogWash .....#5

 

Note:  #4 and #7 are Strawman and a few cross over each other.

1. Claim: Radiometric dating is based on index fossils whose dates were assigned long before radioactivity was discovered.

2. Claim: No one has measured the decay rates directly; we only know them from inference.

3. Claim: If the half-lives are billions of years, it is impossible to determine them from measuring over just a few years or decades.

4. Claim: The decay rates are poorly known, so the dates are inaccurate.

6. Claim: There is little or no way to tell how much of the decay product, that is, the daughter isotope, was originally in the rock, leading to anomalously old ages.

7.  Claim: There are only a few different dating methods.

8.  Claim: A young-Earth research group reported that they sent a rock erupted in 1980 from Mount Saint Helens volcano to a dating lab and got back a potassium-argon age of several million years.

9.  Claim: Different dating techniques usually give conflicting results.

 

 

The King Tree or the House of Cards Foundation....

 

"5. Claim: To date a rock one must know the original amount of the parent element. But there is no way to measure how much parent element was originally there.

Response: It is very easy to calculate the original parent abundance, but that information is not needed to date the rock. All of the dating schemes work from knowing the present abundances of the parent and daughter isotopes.  The original abundance N₀, of the parent is simply N₀ = N e^kt, where N is the present abundance, t is time, and k is a constant related to the half life"

 

"It is very easy to calculate the original parent abundance....The original abundance N₀, of the parent is simply N₀ = N e^kt, where N is the present abundance, t is time, and k is a constant related to the half life"   Say Again??  Is this a "begging the question" equation?

 

LOL this is classic "slight of hand'..... Absolutely Preposterous.  Of course... "All of the dating schemes work from knowing the present abundances of the parent and daughter isotopes."  That's not the Contention or the ISSUE.  What he fails to mention is the ASSUMPTION that what he is measuring...  IS THE ORIGINAL PARENT ABUNDANCE!!!  There is absolutely no way he can know that....there is no TEST for that.  He would have to be absolutely sure that:

   

1. When the rock forms (hardens) there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter radiogenic (derived by radioactive decay of another element) atoms;

2. After hardening, the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added to or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating groundwaters.

 

“As in the case with radiometric ages determined from almost any rock unit it is impossible to establish unequivocally that the ages reported here reflect the time of original crystallization or emplacement of the bodies from which they are derived.”

Barton Jr, I.M., Canad. J. Earth Sciences 14:1641, 1977

 

 

Scenario/Analogy...

 

You walk happen across a Track Meet @ the local High School. There are no signs stating what distance the race is but the race has already started.  You start timing right then and the lead runner has only 100 meters to go.  He crosses the finish line and your watch says 20 seconds.

Question 1:  When did the race start?

Question 2:  What was his rate per lap/seconds for the unknown laps (if any) that you didn't witness?

Question 3:  Did the rate per lap/seconds differ from the first to the second or second to the third laps, ect (if there were multiple laps)...?

Question 4:  How many Total Laps did he run?

Question 5:  How Long/Distance was the race?

 

 

Can you see it NOW??  Assumptions from here to CHRISTMAS!!

[Spock]

Thanks Enoch,

Two quick questions:

1. Do you believe in the reliability of any dating method? ( I think I know your answer, but just want to be sure.)

2. Do you think it is possible to date anything, be it rocks, bones, other fossils, etc? Or do you think all these radiometric methods are just a waste of time?

Thanks,

Spock

[Enoch2021]

Thanks Enoch,

Two quick questions:

1. Do you believe in the reliability of any dating method? ( I think I know your answer, but just want to be sure.)

2. Do you think it is possible to date anything, be it rocks, bones, other fossils, etc? Or do you think all these radiometric methods are just a waste of time?

Thanks,

Spock

 

Hey Spock,

 

IMHO just from a Common Sense standpoint, these 2 are Giant Woolly Mammoths in the Room.....

 

1. When the rock forms (hardens) there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter radiogenic (derived by radioactive decay of another element) atoms;

2. After hardening, the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added to or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating groundwaters.

 

There is NO Equation or TEST to ascertain this Vital/Critical data.  Without it, they're basing the end result on assumptions... I see no way around the fact.

[alphaparticle]

 

So I went ahead and read the first reference there. Here is a question for you Argosy, have you looked at the actual numbers involved? The variations in frequency of events are in terms of per year units (a hertz is oscillation per second). That means these are tiny, tiny fluctuations. Have you sat down, maybe put in the maximum oscillation, added them up for 4 or 5 billion years, to see if that would make up for a *4.5 billion year* shortfall? I say this in the spirit of non jerkiness, but it does not work.

 

What I think YEC sometimes don't see is the enormous chasm between 10,000 years and 4,500,000,000 years, 6 orders of magnitude. If you want to turn to scientific discovery to come up with an explanation for a difference in 6 orders of magnitude it needs to be very striking. Otherwise, things such as this do not present your position in the best light.

 

I agree that the solar cycle has a negligible effect on decay, I included that article just to strengthen my argument that the dips in decay are caused by any type of increase in solar radiation. Whether its the July effect, the midnight effect, solar flares or  solar cycles; decay rates always react to changes in solar radiation.  The bigger the changes the more the effect. 

 

The effect is difficult to quantify, because the cause is unknown. Remember the formula of the half-life is based on randomness and now there's evidence that decay is not random. This affects rates of decay in an exponential manner.

 

Change to radioactive decay is 0.1 percent during the solar cycle, it would be interesting to know what percentage the following changes during this same 33 day cycle:

1) High speed protons

2) Muons on earth's surface

3) Ionizing background

4) The sun's energy output 

 

http://phys.org/news202456660.html   " Jenkins and Fischbach collaborated with Peter Sturrock, a professor emeritus of applied physics at Stanford University and an expert on the inner workings of the sun, to examine data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on the rate of decay of the radioactive isotopes silicon-32 and chlorine-36. The team reported in the journal Astroparticle Physics that the decay rate for both isotopes varies in a 33-day recurring pattern, which they attribute to the rotation rate of the sun's core. In general, the fluctuations that Jenkins and Fischbach have found are around a tenth of a percent from what is expected, as they've examined available published data and taken some measurements themselves."

I can't find enough information on the maths behind the cause/effect, could you kindly supply more evidence if you feel the effect under stronger magnetic fields would be negligible.

 

The issue is, we know what the earth's magnetic field has been doing as lookingforanswers has pointed out. So I suppose my question is, what is it that you want me to look up? Rates in a 5 Tesla field? I am not sure what that gains you insofar as earth's magnetic field was never that strong. If there were external fields that strong, we would have seen that also.

 

You need some phenomenon which affects the decay rates of all the radioactive isotopes used for radiometric dating in the exact same way, and that can account for a 6 orders of magnitude shortfall of time. What is it you want to propose?

[alphaparticle]

 

 

I believe the main form of evidence supporting an old earth is radiometric dating, measured ages of rock are based on very slow rates of decay measured in laboratories. The following links show that radiometric decay slows down slightly when there is more solar radiation:Decay is affected by the sun's core:http://www.purdue.ed...JenkinsDec.htmlhttp://news.stanford...sun-082310.htmlDecay drops in Julyhttp://www.purdue.ed...ce-warning.htmlFrom about 200AD and earlier the earth's protective magnetic field was 1.5 times stronger than today, which would have greatly reducedsolar and cosmic radiation reaching the earth's surface.Conclusion: If decay slows down slightly when there is a slight increase in solar radiation, its highly probable that decay was significantly faster during the time when the strength of the magnetic field caused a large decrease in solar radiation and cosmic radiation. Thus the main source of evidence for an old earth is based on a logical fallacy.

 

Can anyone fault this logic?

So I went ahead and read the first reference there. Here is a question for you Argosy, have you looked at the actual numbers involved? The variations in frequency of events are in terms of per year units (a hertz is oscillation per second). That means these are tiny, tiny fluctuations. Have you sat down, maybe put in the maximum oscillation, added them up for 4 or 5 billion years, to see if that would make up for a *4.5 billion year* shortfall? I say this in the spirit of non jerkiness, but it does not work.

 

What I think YEC sometimes don't see is the enormous chasm between 10,000 years and 4,500,000,000 years, 6 orders of magnitude. If you want to turn to scientific discovery to come up with an explanation for a difference in 6 orders of magnitude it needs to be very striking. Otherwise, things such as this do not present your position in the best light.

Hey alpha,

You have a keen interest in physics. Would you mind reading the article I cited above and tell me the strengths and weaknesses of the article, especially the part discussing the radioactive isotopes with a half life over 68,000,000. Thanks.

 

From what I am seeing it seems to present solid points. I think people on the thread would benefit from going through this article.

 

In my mind, it seems nearly inconceivable that dating from multiple different isotopes, thousands of these tests done on many different kinds of samples, all happen to converge on this single coherent picture of the earth as billions of years old, yet somehow everyone is grossly mistaken and the earth is really only a few thousand years old. I'm trying to figure out, in principle, what sort of mistake could lead to that and truly I cannot think of what that would be aside from God wanting us to all be wrong.