Are Fossils evidence of evolution ....or are the evidence of fossils

[Sparks]

2 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

I’ve looked up the calibration for a spectrometer, steps may vary based on the model of the spectrometer, the process follows a few universal steps though.

1 The spectrometer is turned on and allowed to warm up.

2 It is then set to the wavelength to be calibrated.

3 A blank is prepared by filling the cuvette with the solution to the halfway point.

4 The operator cleans the cuvette so that oils and other outside influences are not introduced into the calibration.

5 Load the blank into the spectrometer.

6 Conduct the process using the blank.

7 Evaluate the results.

8 Adjust the spectrometer to rectify issues found from the blank.

Repeat the steps as necessary.

That's not really it, but now that you think you have calibrated it, how can it age things like stone, or lava?  Just hit the 'age' button?

[BeyondET]

23 minutes ago, Sparks said:

That's not really it, but now that you think you have calibrated it, how can it age things like stone, or lava?  Just hit the 'age' button?

Well looked into that as well, to date the age of stone a Mass spectrometer is used. here’s a bit of info I read on how it’s done.

For isotopic dating with a mass spectrometer, a beam of charged atoms, or ions, of a single element from the sample is produced. This beam is passed through a strong magnetic field in a vacuum, where it is separated into a number of beams, each containing atoms of only the same mass. Because of the unit electric charge on every atom, the number of atoms in each beam can be evaluated by collecting individual beams sequentially in a device called a Faraday cup. Once in this collector, the current carried by the atoms is measured as it leaks across a resistor to ground. Currents measured are small, from only 10−11 to 10−15 ampere, so that shielding and preamplification are required as close to the Faraday cup as possible. It is not possible simply to count the atoms, because all atoms loaded into the source do not form ions and some ions are lost in transmission down the flight tube. Precise and accurate information as to the number of atoms in the sample can, however, be obtained by measuring the ratio of the number of atoms in the various separated beams. By adding a special artificially enriched isotope during sample dissolution and by measuring the ratio of natural to enriched isotopes in adjacent beams, the number of daughter isotopes can be readily determined. The artificially enriched isotope is called a “spike.” It is usually a highly purified form of a low-abundance natural isotope, but an even better spike is an isotope with a mass not found in nature at all. Lead-205 produced in a type of particle accelerator called a cyclotron constitutes such an ideal spike.

the rest of the process link below

https://www.britannica.com/science/dating-geochronology/Instruments-and-procedures

Edited March 20, 2021 by BeyondET

[Sparks]

14 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

Well looked into that as well, to date the age of stone a Mass spectrometer is used. here’s a bit of info I read on how it’s done.

For isotopic dating with a mass spectrometer, a beam of charged atoms, or ions, of a single element from the sample is produced. This beam is passed through a strong magnetic field in a vacuum, where it is separated into a number of beams, each containing atoms of only the same mass. Because of the unit electric charge on every atom, the number of atoms in each beam can be evaluated by collecting individual beams sequentially in a device called a Faraday cup. Once in this collector, the current carried by the atoms is measured as it leaks across a resistor to ground. Currents measured are small, from only 10−11 to 10−15 ampere, so that shielding and preamplification are required as close to the Faraday cup as possible. It is not possible simply to count the atoms, because all atoms loaded into the source do not form ions and some ions are lost in transmission down the flight tube. Precise and accurate information as to the number of atoms in the sample can, however, be obtained by measuring the ratio of the number of atoms in the various separated beams. By adding a special artificially enriched isotope during sample dissolution and by measuring the ratio of natural to enriched isotopes in adjacent beams, the number of daughter isotopes can be readily determined. The artificially enriched isotope is called a “spike.” It is usually a highly purified form of a low-abundance natural isotope, but an even better spike is an isotope with a mass not found in nature at all. Lead-205 produced in a type of particle accelerator called a cyclotron constitutes such an ideal spike.

Allegedly done.  But you know better, right?

[BeyondET]

3 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Allegedly done.  But you know better, right?

Not really but you asked and I found info on how it’s done

Edited March 20, 2021 by BeyondET

[Eternally Gratefull]

15 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Everyone has an opinion.   Facts are harder to get.  What do you have?

 

I got my belief by reading and studying multiple scientific studies, there are for to many to read, 

while yes I have an opinion, it is not blind

[Sparks]

17 hours ago, teddyv said:

Why are the only one in the world who seems to understand this problem? Forgive me if I am extremely skeptical of your opinion and experience.

So, have you solved the candle problem below?

Question:  You find a candle burning in a room.  How long has it been burning?

Problem:  It's impossible to tell without a video camera, witness, or more information.  No instrument can tell you the time it was lit, just as no instrument can tell you how old a stone is, or lava flow.  It's the same problem, exactly.

[teddyv]

A candle burning, while a compelling analogy, actually fails because the candle is burning, not decaying. If we could keep that candle trapped in a container so that the  waste products (mainly Co2 and H2O) from the combustion reaction, calculated the mass of them, and the mass of the remaining candle, then we could reconstruct the candle based on the density and composition of the paraffin wax of the remaining candle.

Anyway, I agree there are assumptions involved, but these assumptions have been tested repeatedly. Assumption is not a bad word.

You agree the instruments can read the elemental concentrations reasonably well, so we should be able to ascertain the relative percentages of the daughter elements to the original element in a given sample. We can utilize instruments to count the production of particles from decay to determine half-lives. So, using careful sampling and analytical techniques we can make reasonable inferences as to starting conditions.

Also, I forgot about isochron dating methodology which is the most common for use in geological applications. From the wikipedia page:

"The advantage of isochron dating as compared to simple radiometric dating techniques is that no assumptions are needed about the initial amount of the daughter nuclide in the radioactive decay sequence. Indeed, the initial amount of the daughter product can be determined using isochron dating. This technique can be applied if the daughter element has at least one stable isotope other than the daughter isotope into which the parent nuclide decays.[1][2][3]"

 

[Sparks]

3 hours ago, teddyv said:

A candle burning, while a compelling analogy, actually fails because the candle is burning, not decaying. If we could keep that candle trapped in a container so that the  waste products (mainly Co2 and H2O) from the combustion reaction, calculated the mass of them, and the mass of the remaining candle, then we could reconstruct the candle based on the density and composition of the paraffin wax of the remaining candle.

Anyway, I agree there are assumptions involved, but these assumptions have been tested repeatedly. Assumption is not a bad word.

You agree the instruments can read the elemental concentrations reasonably well, so we should be able to ascertain the relative percentages of the daughter elements to the original element in a given sample. We can utilize instruments to count the production of particles from decay to determine half-lives. So, using careful sampling and analytical techniques we can make reasonable inferences as to starting conditions.

Also, I forgot about isochron dating methodology which is the most common for use in geological applications. From the wikipedia page:

"The advantage of isochron dating as compared to simple radiometric dating techniques is that no assumptions are needed about the initial amount of the daughter nuclide in the radioactive decay sequence. Indeed, the initial amount of the daughter product can be determined using isochron dating. This technique can be applied if the daughter element has at least one stable isotope other than the daughter isotope into which the parent nuclide decays.[1][2][3]"

 

I appreciate your reply.

The candle problem has the same issues as the instrumentation because there is something missing from from the required formula for each problem.  Both are dealing in time.  You are trying to convert half-life measurements into time.

Remember the lava dating problem?  You can see the scientists did a lousy job dating that material because we know that particular lava flowed 200 years ago, as we actually observed the flow when it was happening.   The dating method didn't fail just this time, it fails every single time it's used.  It's simply claimed as a success because not every test can be countered by observable history.

Once you realize this, you will have the correct answer that the dating methods don't ever work.

[teddyv]

40 minutes ago, Sparks said:

I appreciate your reply.

The candle problem has the same issues as the instrumentation because there is something missing from from the required formula for each problem.  Both are dealing in time.  You are trying to convert half-life measurements into time.

We can observe the candle while it's burning to determine the rate of wax consumption. Back calculating does imply an assumption that he rate is constant, but enough measurements while we observe strengthens the assumption.

 

40 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Remember the lava dating problem?  You can see the scientists did a lousy job dating that material because we know that particular lava flowed 200 years ago, as we actually observed the flow when it was happening.   The dating method didn't fail just this time, it fails every single time it's used.  It's simply claimed as a success because not every test can be countered by observable history.

I'd have to see what happened here before I can comment further

 

 

40 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Once you realize this, you will have the correct answer that the dating methods don't ever work.

 

We do have non-radiometric dating methods that do corroborate certain radiometric methods. Sure, not for U-Pb or K-Ar.

[Sparks]

17 hours ago, teddyv said:

We can observe the candle while it's burning to determine the rate of wax consumption.

It won't help.  You don't know the original size of the candle.  But for the sake of argument, let's say the candle burns at 1 inch per hour and it's presently 3 inches tall when you walked in.  

When was it lit?

17 hours ago, teddyv said:

I'd have to see what happened here before I can comment further

Fine.  Want to research it?  It was the 1801 eruption of the Hualalai volcano in Hawaii. 

Remember, any date result shown that was not 200 years, is wrong.

17 hours ago, teddyv said:

We do have non-radiometric dating methods that do corroborate certain radiometric methods. Sure, not for U-Pb or K-Ar.

All dating methods have the same problem as the candle problem.