Why radioactive decay dates beyond around 4300 years are invalid

[RV_Wizard]

8 hours ago, Eman_3 said:

What about hermaphrodites, those born with bodies that are difficult to classify as either "male" or "female?"

We elect them president.

[Sparks]

On 10/16/2023 at 8:04 PM, teddyv said:

Yes, there are assumptions - good ones that have been consistently repeated over millions of times. 

C14 seems to never work if you actually know the true date of something being tested, before hand.  That is partly why samples get tossed out.  They don't get tossed out if you don't know the true date, and are then assumed accurate.

The reason C14 dating does not work is that the world has never reached an equilibrium of C14 production in the atmosphere, versus decay, and that means the earth is less that 30,000 years old.  I think a lot less.  

Never mind that diamonds contain C14, though they are supposed to be trillions of years old.  The half-life of C14 is 5730 years, so diamonds cannot be that old, either.

[The Barbarian]

On 12/16/2023 at 8:33 AM, Sparks said:

C14 seems to never work if you actually know the true date of something being tested, before hand.  That is partly why samples get tossed out.  They don't get tossed out if you don't know the true date, and are then assumed accurate.

No, that turns out to be a false assumption.   We have a way to calibrate those dates...

A sequence of annually laminated sediments is a potential tool for calibrating the radiocarbon time scale beyond the range of the absolute tree-ring calibration (11 ka). We performed accelerator mass spectrometric (AMS) 14C measurements on >250 terrestrial macrofossil samples from a 40,000-yr varve sequence from Lake Suigetsu, Japan. The results yield the first calibration curve for the total range of the 14C dating method.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/40000year-varve-chronology-from-lake-suigetsu-japan-extension-of-the-14c-calibration-curve/B78DA2F6FAAC4D19334864ECAD34829E

And because cosmic rays vary a bit over time, the C-14 curve is now a bit more accurate due to direct measurement of precisely known dates.    C-14 has very little to do with paleontology, of course.   The half-life is way too short to be very useful.   However, it turns out we can calibrate longer-lived istopes as well...

https://newsarchive.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/pompeii.html

On 12/16/2023 at 8:33 AM, Sparks said:

Never mind that diamonds contain C14, though they are supposed to be trillions of years old.  The half-life of C14 is 5730 years, so diamonds cannot be that old, either.

That's wrong, too.   First, no one says that diamonds are trillions of years old.    Second, C-14 is produced by ionizing radiation on nitrogen.   And diamonds contain inclusions of nitrogen.   So all that's necessary is for radioactive isotopes to be present in the blue earth that contains diamonds.   Would you like me to show you that?

https://socratic.org/questions/how-does-carbon-14-form-1

Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry (2022) 88 (1): 809–875

Research Article| July 01, 2022

Carbon and Nitrogen in Mantle-Derived Diamonds

[The Barbarian]

 

On 12/16/2023 at 5:53 AM, RV_Wizard said:

  On 12/15/2023 at 8:53 PM, Eman_3 said:

What about hermaphrodites, those born with bodies that are difficult to classify as either "male" or "female?"

On 12/16/2023 at 5:53 AM, RV_Wizard said:

We elect them president.

"Show us that gorgeous chest. We want to see it. We've never seen a chest quite like it." @realDonaldTrump jokes that the doctors wanted to see his "gorgeous" chest when he went to the hospital and he wasn't wearing a tie.

And then we indict them for crimes they committed in office.

[Sparks]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No, that turns out to be a false assumption.   We have a way to calibrate those dates...

A sequence of annually laminated sediments is a potential tool for calibrating the radiocarbon time scale beyond the range of the absolute tree-ring calibration (11 ka). We performed accelerator mass spectrometric (AMS) 14C measurements on >250 terrestrial macrofossil samples from a 40,000-yr varve sequence from Lake Suigetsu, Japan. The results yield the first calibration curve for the total range of the 14C dating method.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/40000year-varve-chronology-from-lake-suigetsu-japan-extension-of-the-14c-calibration-curve/B78DA2F6FAAC4D19334864ECAD34829E

And because cosmic rays vary a bit over time, the C-14 curve is now a bit more accurate due to direct measurement of precisely known dates.    C-14 has very little to do with paleontology, of course.   The half-life is way too short to be very useful.   However, it turns out we can calibrate longer-lived istopes as well...

https://newsarchive.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/pompeii.html

That's wrong, too.   First, no one says that diamonds are trillions of years old.    Second, C-14 is produced by ionizing radiation on nitrogen.   And diamonds contain inclusions of nitrogen.   So all that's necessary is for radioactive isotopes to be present in the blue earth that contains diamonds.   Would you like me to show you that?

https://socratic.org/questions/how-does-carbon-14-form-1

Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry (2022) 88 (1): 809–875

Research Article| July 01, 2022

Carbon and Nitrogen in Mantle-Derived Diamonds

The reason Carbon dating does not work is there is no equilibrium in C14 production versus decay.  For it to correctly work, the planet must have equal production to decay.  Because there is no equilibrium, the further back you go the more inaccurate the readings would be because there is less C14 production in the past.  It would actually appear that things were much older, because there is more C14 today than in the past. 

Oh, and I say trillions of years because it might as well be.  No methods work because they cannot calibrate the instruments to anything.

I left some Ar/Ar isotope readings here once, and asked all of you to go ahead and convert those isotope readings to time.  None of you did, including you.  I guess that is because it the method is entirely made up.

 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

The reason Carbon dating does not work is there is no equilibrium in C14 production versus decay.  For it to correctly work, the planet must have equal production to decay.

That's why the data from the L. Sugetsu varves are so important.   Directly shows the amount at different times over the last 40,000 years or so.

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

Oh, and I say trillions of years because it might as well be.

Being off by a factor of 1000 may not seem much to a creationist, but trust me, it is a big deal.

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

I left some Ar/Ar isotope readings here once, and asked all of you to go ahead and convert those isotope readings to time.  None of you did, including you.  I guess that is because it the method is entirely made up.

I didn't see that, but I'd be happy to look at the checkable data for you.   If it didn't work, it's kind of surprising that it was able to accurately date the eruption that buried Pompeii.    Show us what you have. 

You probably should know that Ar/Ar dating only shows closing data for specific minerals.   For example, granite is composed of several minerals, each with their own melting point.   That's why granite is grainy; they solidifiy at different times.   So if you tested each mineral, you'd get different dates, depending on when that particular mineral solidified.   It matters with granite, which is intrusive, meaning it can take a very long time to solidify.

But let's see your data.

 

[Sparks]

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

That's why the data from the L. Sugetsu varves are so important.   Directly shows the amount at different times over the last 40,000 years or so.

Being off by a factor of 1000 may not seem much to a creationist, but trust me, it is a big deal.

I didn't see that, but I'd be happy to look at the checkable data for you.   If it didn't work, it's kind of surprising that it was able to accurately date the eruption that buried Pompeii.    Show us what you have. 

You probably should know that Ar/Ar dating only shows closing data for specific minerals.   For example, granite is composed of several minerals, each with their own melting point.   That's why granite is grainy; they solidifiy at different times.   So if you tested each mineral, you'd get different dates, depending on when that particular mineral solidified.   It matters with granite, which is intrusive, meaning it can take a very long time to solidify.

But let's see your data.

None of the hundreds of dating methods work, because you cannot calibrate them to time, nor convert isotope values to time, just like C14.  

If you were lost in a cave and found a Rolex watch, and wound it, and it worked; how would you set it to the right time without a reference like the sun, or a radio channel telling you the time, and so on?  You can't.

So in summary, the Rolex is precision and will very accurately count out the seconds, but you cannot set the time because you have no reference.  It is the same with the instruments used to 'date' items:  no way to set them.

Don't just plaster links.  Read what I said, and answer the question.

 

[The Barbarian]

56 minutes ago, Sparks said:

None of the hundreds of dating methods work, because you cannot calibrate them to time, nor convert isotope values to time, just like C14.

Of course you can.   It's not just the observed rate of decay.   It's also those varves of known age that show us the calibration is good.

56 minutes ago, Sparks said:

If you were lost in a cave and found a Rolex watch, and wound it, and it worked; how would you set it to the right time without a reference like the sun, or a radio channel telling you the time, and so on?  You can't.

That's not how radioisotopes work.   I thought you knew.

56 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Don't just plaster links.  Read what I said, and answer the question.

Pretty simple, really.   All you do is take the amount of C-14 in a living organism and compare it to the amount of C-14 in some organic material.    You have to be careful to rule out contamination or organisms that get carbon from geologic sources.     The measured rate of decay then tells you how long its been since that material was part of a living organism.    Sugetsu varves allow a more precise date, because cosmic rays vary a bit.  

You were going to show us your data.   Or did I just assume you were going to?

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by The Barbarian

[Sparks]

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Of course you can.   It's not just the observed rate of decay.   It's also those varves of known age that show us the calibration is good.

That's not how radioisotopes work.   I thought you knew.

Pretty simple, really.   All you do is take the amount of C-14 in a living organism and compare it to the amount of C-14 in some organic material.    You have to be careful to rule out contamination or organisms that get carbon from geologic sources.     The measured rate of decay then tells you how long its been since that material was part of a living organism.    Sugetsu varves allow a more precise date, because cosmic rays vary a bit.  

You were going to show us your data.   Or did I just assume you were going to?

So, you are going to set the watch using C14.  Interesting. 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

So, you are going to set the watch using C14.

Lake varves.   We can precisely date them because they form 2 layers annually, a light one and a dark one.   Just as tree rings can calibrate C14 for more recent dates.

But it has little to do with the evidence for evolution, since it is accurate only to about 50,000 years.

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

Interesting.

There's a lot more to it than that.   We can discuss it further, if you like.  Do you still have the data you were talking about?

 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by The Barbarian