Accuracy of radioisotopic dating

[Michael37]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

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.

On the contrary. It is because I have done enough analysis that I make the statement. To my knowledge A.K. Dewdney is not a Creationist but I have recently read his book "Yes We Have No Neutrons", and plan to read "Two Hundred Percent Of Nothing" when I have the opportunity. Both of these deal with assumptions and bad practices that lead to mistakes and deceptive results.  (See A.K. Dewdney Books & Articles here)

Yes, We Have No Neutrons

(Yes, We Have No Neutrons, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1997)

The title, suggested by the marketing geniuses at Wiley, replaces the author's title: The Sorcerer's Apprentice. The introduction explains how science works when investigators follow the scientific method. (See Science and Technology) The eight examples of "bad science" (a term we are forced to adopt in place of "non-science") span the twentieth century: N-rays, IQ, Freud, SETI, neural nets, Biosphere 2, and cold fusion. There are some fascinating stories of how pride and ambition prevent scientists (sorcerers) and would-be scientists (apprentices) from realizing the dreadful mistakes they are making. Some problems are subtle, as in SETI, the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. If aliens are sending us messages, fine! But if aliens are not sending us messages, there is no way for Drake's search program to discover this since there is no stopping rule. The hypothesis is non-falsifiable. At best, the SETI program amounts to only half an experiment.

Two Hundred Percent of Nothing

(Two Hundred Percent of Nothing, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1993)

A review of current patterns of math abuse and innumeracy in the modern world. It's not getting better, but worse! Examples of misapplied statistics, advertising math, chart abuse, how special interest groups of all stripes bend math to their liking, government figures, and much more. All examples are from real life, sent in by hundreds of math abuse detectives. The final section is a must read: math education is declining, even though (as the book demonstrates) we all have an inborn ability to do mathematics, as evidenced by the complexity of social calculations.

[one.opinion]

6 hours ago, Michael37 said:

On the contrary. It is because I have done enough analysis that I make the statement.

I didn't mean to suggest you haven't done enough reading, in general, but about the specific topic of the accuracy of radiometric dating. You indicated that you haven't investigated enough to answer cursory questions.

Quote

Re. your questions, I don't have time or the will to go that deep

You are relying on someone else's interpretation of evidence that you haven't examined for yourself. You are getting all your information from one side - the side that happens to support what you already believe.

In Dr. Don DeYoung's layman's version of "Thousands, not Billions" (here), he states that there is evidence for an earth hundreds of millions to billions of years old, and that at some time in the past, this radioactive decay must have occurred much faster than it does now in order for this evidence to be explained in a young earth context.

Quote

Consider a burst of nuclear decay, corresponding to several billions of years’ worth of decay at present rates.

Quote

RATE research further indicates that an additional accelerated decay episode then took place during the Genesis flood event which occurred about 1,500 years after the creation. This episode corresponded to roughly 500 million years’ worth of nuclear decay at today’s rates.

From all the evidence I have seen, this is pure conjecture. For 500,000,000 years' worth of radioactive decay to be compressed into 1,500 years, the decay rate would have to be over 100,000 times the decay rate we observe today. I have seen no evidence directly supporting this and no indirect evidence that has not been addressed and explained elsewhere.

Additionally, decay rates accelerated to that point would release massive amounts of energy that would be a serious challenge to the existence of living organisms. I have seen no explanation for how this inherent problem could be explained.

Just to re-cap:

1. Dr. DeYoung admits that there is evidence in radiometric dating that would conclude that the earth is orders of magnitude greater than what is acceptable in YEC science.

2. His conclusion is contrary to a logical conclusion based on the available data.

3. He must generate alternative explanations for why his conclusion doesn't match the data.

4. There is a complete lack of evidence for the decay rates of isotopes used for rock dating (Uranium-235, Rubidium-87, Potassium-40, and others) to have exhibited a previously accelerated decay rate of 100,000 times or more.

 

[Jostler]

3 hours ago, Vince said:

Barry Setterfield's c-decay curve is untenable for these reasons:

1. He says that the speed of light has stopped decaying around 1960 and is constant now.  That is convenient because that is when we started to be able to measure the speed of light most accurately. We have not measured any decay in the speed of light in modern physics.  

2. He says that his curve does not go back to creation but levels off days before with no real explanation except that the decay starts with the fall. He is using religion not science here.  This is so he can claim the area under the curve is the age of the earth.  Which is ridiculous because the units under the curve would be km not time.

3. He claimed a perfect 1.000000000 correlation of data even though not one point was on the curve.  He subsequently revised that down after real scientists noted the fact and calculated it for him.

4. It is clear in his statements that his goal was to prove that the earth was young.

5.  He uses actual data as far back as 1675 without accounting for the accuracy of measurements.  No way the accuracy in 1675 is the same as today's measurements.  He also took this number as actually calculated in  1675 at 299,270 km/s with an accuracy of 5% and used the number 301,300 km/s to fit the curve with no justification.  Today number is 299,792 km/s which they were pretty close with the stated number.  

6.  The ICR has rejected it early on.

He has not been ignored by scientists because they don't like his conclusions he is ignored because real scientists debunked his theory earl on.  It has no merit.  There are scientists looking into the speed of light changing in some circumstances but no scientist is saying it is decaying over time or that it was once 1,500,000,000,000,000 km/s at one time as Setterfield has said.

 

 

 

I think you  have mixed up someone  else.  I am pretty familiar with Setterfield's body of work, and have not EVER seen any of those claims made....ever.  You might want to check your sources one more ttime

[Michael37]

7 hours ago, one.opinion said:

In Dr. Don DeYoung's layman's version of "Thousands, not Billions" (here), he states that there is evidence for an earth hundreds of millions to billions of years old, and that at some time in the past, this radioactive decay must have occurred much faster than it does now in order for this evidence to be explained in a young earth context.

Yeah, but if the very principle and indeed the methodology of measuring radioactive decay is flawed, ... so tiresome.

[one.opinion]

5 minutes ago, Michael37 said:

Yeah, but if the very principle and indeed the methodology of measuring radioactive decay is flawed, ... so tiresome.

No, 10-15% variation in isochron dating results does not mean the methodology is flawed. And I just haven't seen any real evidence that indicates the supposed flaws.

[Jostler]

2 minutes ago, Vince said:

Is this him? http://www.setterfield.org/

Here is an article from ICR in 1988 rejecting Setterfields work on the decay of c.  https://www.icr.org/article/283/

Here is a talk origins article on him and his theory.  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html

There are creation scientists and non creation scientists that dismiss his theory because the evidence is not there.

 

 

 

You've evidently taken time to read his detractors pretty thoroughly.  Have you read what he actually did say?

The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time

 

Critiques and Responses Regarding Atomic Constants, Light and Time

 

The Speed of Light Curve

 

That is only a small sample of the body of his work, and a thorough examination of all of it is really necessary to see the level of scientific rigor present.

What I find so compelling about Setterfield and his associates is his consistent refusal to throw out "inconvenient" data points and how subsequent, very recent discoveries from places as diverse as CERN to astronomical observations are fitting neatly  into  and even expanding  on Setterfield's ideas about  ZPE (there is no vacuum ) and how those give plausible explanations to what we see in Scripture.

The cosmos is "wearing out"...slowing down as the Bible seems to indicate:

Quote

Heb 1:10

And:

“You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.

Heb 1:11

They will perish, but You remain;
And they will all grow old like a garment;

Heb 1:12

Like a cloak You will fold them up,
And they will be changed.
But You are the same,
And Your years will not fail.”[fn]

 

The following article, if you  read between the lines (Barry studiously  avoids attacking his detractors personally, a courtesy most of those detractors do not return) you  can discern why some creationists from  other  corners so vigorously  attack him.

You may not agree with  Barry's arguments, but they  are  most assuredly  internally  consistent and logically coherent.....and most of all they fit with  more of the Bible's witness.  Easily.

 

Where Do We Stand Compared to Other Creationists?

 

[Michael37]

6 hours ago, one.opinion said:

No, 10-15% variation in isochron dating results does not mean the methodology is flawed. And I just haven't seen any real evidence that indicates the supposed flaws.

I find that strange, since scientists have been writing and speaking about them for decades, and explaining further problems of radioactive dating caused by the increase in atmospheric radiation from atomic bombs, nuclear disasters, and radioactive incidents.

Billion-Fold Acceleration Of Radioactivity Shown in Laboratory

Conclusion

This exciting demonstration that isotopic ‘clocks’ can be accelerated at least a billion-fold is good news to creationist scholars. It raises fundamental questions about the temporal stability of isotopic ‘clocks’. What else have we failed to consider in terms of the physics of radioactive decay? The myth of the virtual invincibility of radioactive decay to external forces has been decisively shattered, and the door to further research has now been swung wide open.

• 2017 Airborne radioactivity increase in Europe in autumn 2017
• 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster
• 2001 Instituto Oncologico Nacional radiotherapy accident
• 1997 Tokaimura nuclear accident
• 1996 San Juan de Dios radiotherapy accident
• 1990 Clinic of Zaragoza radiotherapy accident
• 1987 Goiânia accident
• 1986 Chernobyl disaster and Effects of the Chernobyl disaster
• 1979 Church Rock uranium mill spill
• 1979 Three Mile Island accident and Three Mile Island accident health effects
• 1969 Lucens reactor
• 1962 Thor missile launch failures during nuclear weapons testing at Johnston Atoll under Operation Fishbowl
• 1961 SL-1 nuclear meltdown
• 1961 K-19 nuclear accident
• 1959 SRE partial nuclear meltdown at Santa Susana Field Laboratory
• 1958 Mailuu-Suu tailings dam failure
• 1957 Kyshtym disaster
• 1957 Windscale fire
• 1957 Operation Plumbbob
• 1954 Totskoye nuclear exercise
• 1950 Desert Rock exercises
• Bikini Atoll
• Hanford Site
• Rocky Flats Plant, see also radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant
• Techa River
• Pollution of Lake Karachay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and_radioactive_incidents

[one.opinion]

22 minutes ago, Michael37 said:

I find that strange, since scientists have been writing and speaking about them for decades

Great, I will check this out soon. I have intended (and think I probably succeeded) in saying things like “I have not seen evidence” of massive variation in decay rates, rather than “there is no evidence”. Nothing in what you have referenced before contained any, but this may be different.

[one.opinion]

12 hours ago, Michael37 said:

Billion-Fold Acceleration Of Radioactivity Shown in Laboratory

The author of this linked article bases his comments on one specific paper, demonstrating vastly-accelerated nuclear decay of a particular parent/daughter pair of isotopes. This is hypothesized to possibly occur in plasma conditions of a star.

Quote

187Re may become highly ionized in the hot plasma of a star, and bound-state b2 decay may decrease the half-life from 42.3 6 1.3 Gyr [4] by more than 9 orders of magnitude.

Clearly, such specialized conditions would not occur on a planet.

13 hours ago, Michael37 said:

scientists have been writing and speaking about them for decades, and explaining further problems of radioactive dating caused by the increase in atmospheric radiation from atomic bombs, nuclear disasters, and radioactive incidents.

Then it should be straightforward to present some scientific evidence that these atomic bombs, nuclear disasters, and radioactive incidents have resulted in sustained periods of vastly-accelerated radioactive decay.

Is there anything in the following list related to vastly-accelerated radioactive decay?

13 hours ago, Michael37 said:

• 2017 Airborne radioactivity increase in Europe in autumn 2017
• 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster
• 2001 Instituto Oncologico Nacional radiotherapy accident
• 1997 Tokaimura nuclear accident
• 1996 San Juan de Dios radiotherapy accident
• 1990 Clinic of Zaragoza radiotherapy accident
• 1987 Goiânia accident
• 1986 Chernobyl disaster and Effects of the Chernobyl disaster
• 1979 Church Rock uranium mill spill
• 1979 Three Mile Island accident and Three Mile Island accident health effects
• 1969 Lucens reactor
• 1962 Thor missile launch failures during nuclear weapons testing at Johnston Atoll under Operation Fishbowl
• 1961 SL-1 nuclear meltdown
• 1961 K-19 nuclear accident
• 1959 SRE partial nuclear meltdown at Santa Susana Field Laboratory
• 1958 Mailuu-Suu tailings dam failure
• 1957 Kyshtym disaster
• 1957 Windscale fire
• 1957 Operation Plumbbob
• 1954 Totskoye nuclear exercise
• 1950 Desert Rock exercises
• Bikini Atoll
• Hanford Site
• Rocky Flats Plant, see also radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant
• Techa River
• Pollution of Lake Karachay

Sure, nuclear incidents occur. But I have not seen any evidence showing that nuclear incidents alter radioactive decay rates at all - let alone in such an exaggerated way that would fit radiometric evidence.

[Jostler]

3 hours ago, Vince said:

Well yes.  I looked at what scientists were saying and compared it to the paper he wrote.  They seemed to be correct about his data.  However, I will read it more thoroughly.  

 

One piece of evidence we have that the speed of light could not have been a million times faster is the equation E=mc^2.  If the speed of light was a million times faster or even a thousand times faster then the energy output of the sun at this time would have been so large as to not sustain life on the planet or the sun and earth would have been so small (less mass) as to affect the gravitational forces for life to be impossible to exist.  Maybe he addresses this problem in the paper.

Actually he did address the problem pretty directly.  Let me dig up a link where his explanation is.  I found it entirely  plausible.  The short of it was that the wavelengths of energy emitted by faster decay were proportionately weaker resulting  no net change of total energy released.  I'll add the link and tag you if I find it...i recall one that doesn't take much time to review if I can locate it

 

2 hours ago, Vince said:

Did you read this paper in 1988 where the ICR evaluated the data using a more appropriate analysis method by giving weight to each data point based on the reported error range?  They find that using  this method the decay rate was  0.0000140 +/- .0000596 km/s/yr.  

This is an important quote from this paper:

 

I did read it but honestly wasn't quite diligent enough to actually dig deeper.  I had already inspected Setterfield's original statistical method and found it sound so I honestly kinda glossed over the criticism.  Give me a bit and I'll do a deeper comparison and give the criticism a more fair look.

Edited January 25, 2019 by Jostler