Jump to content
IGNORED

Accuracy of radioisotopic dating


one.opinion

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

I recognize that several science-y contributors here do not agree with the alleged accuracy of radioisotopic dating of fossils and other rock samples. I have enough Chemistry background to understand the basics of radioactive decay and how they can be used for dating purposes, but I do plan on doing some reading regarding the accuracy of the method. I will be reading sites that support the method and those that do not, so please chime in with literature that supports your belief - whether "for" or "against" the accuracy of the method. It is unlikely I will respond to any posts that lack referenced material.

Thanks in advance!

Edited by one.opinion
(short rephrase)
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Servant
  • Followers:  21
  • Topic Count:  238
  • Topics Per Day:  0.11
  • Content Count:  6,776
  • Content Per Day:  3.24
  • Reputation:   4,725
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/05/2018
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/23/1954

22 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I recognize that several science-y contributors here do not agree with the alleged accuracy of radioisotopic dating of fossils and other rock samples. I have enough Chemistry background to understand the basics of radioactive decay and how they can be used for dating purposes, but I do plan on doing some reading regarding the accuracy of the method. I will be reading sites that support the method and those that do not, so please chime in with literature that supports your belief - whether "for" or "against" the accuracy of the method. It is unlikely I will respond to any posts that lack referenced material.

Thanks in advance!

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth

 
 
Will this do for studies that find for inaccuracy?
  1. Discordance among different dating methods is common.
  2. Key assumptions underlying radioisotope dating methods are untenable.
  3. Mixing of mantle and crustal sources also mixes their isotopic signatures.
  4. Residual 14C appears to be present in all fossil biogenic material.
  1. Large quantities of daughter elements like Pb, He, and Ar are present.
  2. Many of the daughter elements are in proximity to the parent elements.
  3. Fission tracks and radiohalos are numerous.
  1. Lava flows exhibit isotopic characteristics of the mantle.
  2. Isotopic data suggest basalts were generated from melting of old mantle.
  3. Isotopic data also suggest basalt magmas were contaminated during their ascent.
  1. Large quantities of He are still present in many granites today.
  2. If He was formed millions of years ago, it should have already escaped.
  3. Experimentally-determined diffusion rates of He agree with recent production of He.
  4. Po halos appear to have formed during rapid cooling of granite plutons during the Flood (eliminating millions of years).
  5. If the cooling of the plutons was rapid, then metamorphism was also rapid during the Flood (eliminating millions of years).
  1. Massive nuclear decay requires higher decay rates before the present.
  2. Radiohalos formed during the Flood require decay rates higher than observed today.
  3. Helium diffusion data imply the decay occurred within thousands of years ago.
  4. Deep 14C implies the decay occurred within thousands of years ago.
  1. Variation in compactified dimensions could affect coupling constants.
  2. Consequent variation in coupling constants could cause accelerated decay.
  3. Changes in potential well depth change the α-particle wave function.
  4. Changes in the α-particle wave function change decay half-lives.
  1. Conventional radioisotope dating methods are unreliable.
  2. Massive nuclear decay has occurred in rocks.
  3. Isotopic mixing between the earth’s mantle and crust has occurred.
  4. Residual He and radiohalos suggest recent nuclear decay.
  5. Massive nuclear decay, radiohalos, helium diffusion, and deep 14C all imply accelerated decay.
  6. Studies in theoretical physics suggest accelerated nuclear decay can occur.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

13 minutes ago, Michael37 said:

Will this do for studies that find for inaccuracy?

I’ll check the link out tomorrow. Let’s try to keep the thread snark-free, though. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 1/21/2019 at 10:51 PM, Michael37 said:

Discordance among different dating methods is common.

The original data may be hard to find, but do you have more detail in reference to this claim?

1. How much difference is considered "discordant"? I've seen figures of 10-15% difference after statistical standard error, but that doesn't sound like enough to completely discard the dating method.

2. How old are these discordant claims? Are dating methods still discordant over the last 10-15 years after the techniques have been improved?

3. How many instances of discordance make it "common"? What was the total sample size? In other words, how frequently are largely discordant dates observed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Servant
  • Followers:  21
  • Topic Count:  238
  • Topics Per Day:  0.11
  • Content Count:  6,776
  • Content Per Day:  3.24
  • Reputation:   4,725
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/05/2018
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/23/1954

8 hours ago, one.opinion said:

The original data may be hard to find, but do you have more detail in reference to this claim?

1. How much difference is considered "discordant"? I've seen figures of 10-15% difference after statistical standard error, but that doesn't sound like enough to completely discard the dating method.

2. How old are these discordant claims? Are dating methods still discordant over the last 10-15 years after the techniques have been improved?

3. How many instances of discordance make it "common"? What was the total sample size? In other words, how frequently are largely discordant dates observed?

Re. your questions, I don't have time or the will to go that deep but for general reading up on others who question accuracy there is plenty of material to sift through. Critics of radiometric dating have been around since it was first developed which is a good thing for true science as it exposes the false stuff and requires scientists to hone their skills.

Is Carbon Dating Reliable by Helen Fryman

The Radiometric Dating Game

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, Michael37 said:

Critics of radiometric dating have been around since it was first developed which is a good thing for true science as it exposes the false stuff and requires scientists to hone their skills.

It doesn’t seem like you’ve done enough analysis to make such a blanket statement. You have merely read articles that support what you already believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

47 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

My point is, we're using a unit of measurement that isn't accurate across time.

How do you know this? From what I have read thus far, there is still only speculation that radioactive decay rates have varied significantly in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  25
  • Topic Count:  6
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,679
  • Content Per Day:  1.41
  • Reputation:   3
  • Days Won:  16
  • Joined:  01/19/2019
  • Status:  Offline

This is hours and hours  of reading, but Barry Setterfield (http://www.setterfield.org/) is a physicist who has dedicated his career to studying time and the speed of light (closely entwined subjects of course :) )  You can search YouTube for some of his lectures if you prefer more visual input, but the nitty gritty is in the papers.

Let me try to summarize so you can decide if this is something you wish to pursue. 

1.  We have two ways to measure time.  One is geologic time or solar time, measured by the rotation of the earth  around the sun.  The other is atomic decay.

2.  Has found evidence that atomic time is slowing down, it may not be the "constant" we've been taught to believe it  is.  Atomic time and geologic time are, and have been diverging.

3. Has found evidence that the rate  of slowing has changed over time.  Extrapolation indicates that time was slowing down MUCH faster in ages past and that the rate of slowing continues to  decrease.

There is a Russian physicist who has done some papers on the topic as well, I forget his name but Barry refers to him.

Of course, Barry has been completely ignored by mainstream science because his work presents a very plausible, scientific explanation for how the earth could be 6000 yrs old but appear to be billions of years old to our current methods of dating.

You can check his work to see how sound you believe it is.  My own opinion after review is that he has been scientifically rigorous and his data does show a statistically significant change in time and the speed of light just in the few centuries we've been able to measure the speed of light.

If he's correct, he's got some pretty  powerful evidence for a young earth.

 

An aside:

Secular scientists who don't refer to creation at all are discovering that the speed of light is not a constant as well.  Under certain conditions the speed of light can be changed.  Bose-Einstein condensates, aerogels, several other circumstances have been discovered where the speed of light can be modified....significantly.  The closer we get to nano and quantum scales, the stranger things are becoming :)   Here's an article that's easy to read and highlights a few of the scientists and experiments that have called the constancy  of lightspeed into question in the last 30 yrs.

https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/is-the-speed-of-light-slowing-down

 

Bottom line:  If the speed of light  has changed even marginally over time, radio carbon dating is useless unless and until we know the speed of light at the time it was formed, and the rate of change of time since it was formed.

Edited by Jostler
added URL for setterfield.org. Not sure how i left it out to begin with :)
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

30 minutes ago, Jostler said:

Bottom line:  If the speed of light  has changed even marginally over time, radio carbon dating is useless unless and until we know the speed of light at the time it was formed, and the rate of change of time since it was formed.

Experimentally, I don’t believe the speed of light in a vacuum has been shown to be variable. Scientists have known for decades that the speed of light is slightly variable in some odd circumstances. I have not seen any evidence that the variability is significant and does not refute the massive distances between stars and galaxies, or the time required for light to travel between them. However, I will check out the videos over the next couple of days to see if new data is presented.

Carbon-14 has a much shorter half-life than the isotopes used for dating rocks and fossils. Carbon-14 dating is used extensively in archeology for organic samples (Biblical archeologists have no issue with this type of dating when used for their own projects), but cannot be used for dating fossil or rock samples.

Like I said, I’ll check out the videos to see if there is significant data evidence instead of someone just making conclusions without supporting data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

12 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

You misunderstand. C-14 decays at 50% every 5730 years.

I do understand the basic principles of radioactive decay. Carbon-14 dating cannot be used for fossil and rock dating because of its relatively short half-life and extremely low abundance in rock samples. Other radioisotopes must be used.

Additionally, why do Biblical archeologists use carbon dating if it isn’t accurate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...