Why radioactive decay dates beyond around 4300 years are invalid

[The Barbarian]

On 4/19/2024 at 5:44 PM, dad2 said:

No, He told us a lot about the past.

Which brings up the question as to why you feel compelled to make up new things about it.

[dad2]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

If you get to call in unscriptural miracles to fix the problems with your new doctrines, than any story become equally plausible.

Try to work with what you actually have.

What God does is not some 'unscriptural miracle'. Looking at the future, man will again live nearly 1000 years and the world will again be as in the days of Noah. The world will not be what we now have. Heaven will not be what we now have. Eden was not what we now have. From descriptions of the pre flood world, it was not what we now have.

[dad2]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Which brings up the question as to why you feel compelled to make up new things about it.

Attempting to explain why it was like it was is not making anything up. But since science incessantly seeks to make up things about how we got here by the belief that the samestatepastdunnit, it is appropriate to revisit their godless alternate reality past with reason and biblical acumen.

[The Barbarian]

51 minutes ago, dad2 said:

Attempting to explain why it was like it was is not making anything up.

Since you offered no evidence whatever, that's what it is.

52 minutes ago, dad2 said:

But since science incessantly seeks to make up things about how we got here by the belief that the samestatepastdunnit,

Comes down to evidence.   And so far, all of it says that the same laws that operate now were operating then.    No point in denying the fact.   Would you like to learn some ways that we know?

Your godless invention of "well it was different then", not withstanding.    Why not set your pride aside, and just accept it his way?

[The Barbarian]

f you get to call in unscriptural miracles to fix the problems with your new doctrines, than any story become equally plausible.

Try to work with what you actually have.

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

What God does is not some 'unscriptural miracle'.

But what you imagine requires an unscriptural miracle.    Stick with what God says and stop making things up for Him.

 

[Tristen]

Sorry - a bit late to the party.

On 10/16/2023 at 5:57 PM, dad2 said:

this thread is to discuss radioactive dating on earth. Unless you can prove that the laws were the same, then we can use young earth dates and still match all the patterns of isotopes we see in the rocks.

I'd suggest that there are far greater problems with "radioactive dating" than the old earth assumption.

1- The logic of "radioactive dating" is compromised by a fundamental, necessary, irreducible reliance upon a slew of unverifiable assumptions (and yes - that includes isochron dating). If even a single one of those assumptions happens to be wrong, then any supposed "ages" generated by the methods are entirely meaningless.

2- There is already a lot of evidence that the assumptions are commonly false (e.g. by testing newly generated rock formations). In fact, older geological papers commonly use the failure of these assumptions to explain why their data didn't line up with expectations.

3- The common impression of generated 'ages' being in overwhelming agreement is a demonstrable lie. It is very easy to find examples of "ages" disagreeing with each other. Or 'ages' that are so far outside of expectation as to be automatically rejected. Or where the 'ages' are rejected because they disagreed with the assumed fossil 'ages'. I recently read an old paper that tested the same sample (a single zircon (rock crystal)) seven times using the same method, generating seven different 'ages' (with non-overlapping errors).

Furthermore, these methods really should be in agreement more often - because many of the methods have been calibrated against each other by, a) rejecting 'ages' that disagree with those 'ages' generated by more trusted methods (i.e. leaving only agreed 'ages'), and b) literally calibrating one method to the other (i.e. using two methods, then using the 'age' generated by one to establish the decay rate of the other method). This practice should generate a bias towards broad agreement between the methods - which is still not achieved (despite the propaganda).

Another bias is due to the detection limits of the equipment - meaning that the method chosen is determined by the expectation of the investigator. That is, only certain methods can be theoretically used for certain expected 'ages'. Therefore, it is common for investigators to only use methods they consider to be valid for the 'ages' they are expecting.

I therefore don't trust "radioactive dating" whatsoever. I'm sure they can generate a relative pattern - but nothing precise enough to produce anything resembling a trustworthy 'age'.

[Tristen]

On 10/17/2023 at 10:04 AM, teddyv said:

C14 is just one of many methods

C14 is an interesting side-case to the other "radioactive dating" methods. 

The starting assumptions in C14 dating are far more local, and variable, and therefore far less trustworthy.

However, in the short term (over a few thousand years), we sometimes have local artifacts of actual known ages - against which to calibrate this method.

 

On 10/17/2023 at 10:04 AM, teddyv said:

The comment about dating 50,000 years into the future seems a bit suspect

I too have seen many carbon dated items give 'ages' into the future. My examples have all been under 10,000 years. But my impression is that this is a common outcome. 

It is a shame that modern journals don't publish full data sets anymore. There is, unfortunately, a positive results bias across all of science publication. This means we no longer have access to the data needed to assess the method itself.

 

On 10/17/2023 at 10:04 AM, teddyv said:

I'm not sure how that is even possible

It is only "possible" if, a) one (or more) of the assumptions failed, or b) the sample was contaminated.

 

On 10/17/2023 at 10:04 AM, teddyv said:

Certainly sample collection is pretty important. I don't know the checks involved in determining whether contamination is present, but that would certainly be a reason to dismiss a sample data point.

Sure - but is it a testable "reason"?

It has become a very convenient rationalization to simply disregard disagreeable data as sample "contamination". And then, Whoa!!! - what are we left with but data sets in overwhelming agreement. Funny how that happens.

 

On 10/17/2023 at 10:04 AM, teddyv said:

We used it once on a copper project for timing of the mineralization event (Re-Os, I think it was). It dated to an appropriate period based on the known dates of the surround host rocks.

And therefore gets a big green tick.

And by "known dates", you mean "dates" previously established by other methods using the same set of unverifiable assumptions. But not "known" in the sense of observed rock formation. I only point this out to demonstrate that allegiance to the method forces you to apply biased assumptions and use exaggerated language.

 

On 10/17/2023 at 10:04 AM, teddyv said:

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

Right - so that is the propaganda.

- Apart from an investigator determining that the generated 'age' "dated to an appropriate period", how do we know that an assumption is "good"?

- How do we distinguish between a "good" assumption and a false positive result?

- What do we do with the "millions" of data points generated by "radioactive methods" that fall outside of expectations (apart from simply not reporting them)?

- What do we do about the many examples of dating methods disagreeing with each other, or disagreeing with the fossils, or even disagreeing with themselves?

Regardless of how you answer the above questions, these inexorable components of the methods remain "assumptions" - i.e. unobserved, unverified, unverifiable elements which are a logical requirement of accepting supposed 'ages'. Therefore, regardless of how pompous the posturing and propaganda, no-one is rationally obligated to accept the methods as valid.

 

[dad2]

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

f you get to call in unscriptural miracles to fix the problems with your new doctrines, than any story become equally plausible.

Try to work with what you actually have.

But what you imagine requires an unscriptural miracle.    Stick with what God says and stop making things up for Him.

 

Miracles are not unsciptural. Disbelief is.

[dad2]

Quote

Sorry - a bit late to the party.

I'd suggest that there are far greater problems with "radioactive dating" than the old earth assumption.

1- The logic of "radioactive dating" is compromised by a fundamental, necessary, irreducible reliance upon a slew of unverifiable assumptions (and yes - that includes isochron dating). If even a single one of those assumptions happens to be wrong, then any supposed "ages" generated by the methods are entirely meaningless.

They are meaningless

 

Quote

2- There is already a lot of evidence that the assumptions are commonly false (e.g. by testing newly generated rock formations). In fact, older geological papers commonly use the failure of these assumptions to explain why their data didn't line up with expectations.

Great. I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt for about 4000 years though.

Quote

3- The common impression of generated 'ages' being in overwhelming agreement is a demonstrable lie. It is very easy to find examples of "ages" disagreeing with each other. Or 'ages' that are so far outside of expectation as to be automatically rejected. Or where the 'ages' are rejected because they disagreed with the assumed fossil 'ages'. I recently read an old paper that tested the same sample (a single zircon (rock crystal)) seven times using the same method, generating seven different 'ages' (with non-overlapping errors).

Even if 'ages' were in agreement, they would not be ages beyond the time when radioactive decay existed. I have no reason to assume it existed in Noah's day.

Quote

I therefore don't trust "radioactive dating" whatsoever. I'm sure they can generate a relative pattern - but nothing precise enough to produce anything resembling a trustworthy 'age'.

The pattern loses meaning if the physics/nature/forces/laws were not the same in the days of Genesis. The only way the ratios assume meaning is by attaching the meaning of what happens in today's nature to them. As if they all got here in this nature. They didn't

Some part of the ratios was here already at creation, and then was affected by the realities and laws in place at the time of Eden. Then there was the pre flood (and shortly post flood) days. Ratios were affected by the forces and laws that existed then as well. Then there is the present state. The ratios were affected by this nature as well (radioactive decay etc)

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, dad2 said:

Miracles are not unsciptural.

Any miracle not in scripture is unscriptural.   All those miracles you claim whenever your false beliefs are refuted by evidence are unscriptural miracles.

12 minutes ago, dad2 said:

The pattern loses meaning if the physics/nature/forces/laws were not the same in the days of Genesis.

Like that.   If such inventions are permitted, then all stories are equally plausible.