|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Assumptions involved in scientific dating | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
You mean ICANT, not NoNukes.
/quibble by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
What is the formula used to determine the age of materials? ... I'll presume you mean the formula to determine the 14-C age of organic materials.
quote: Now I will note that 5568 is not that accurate for the half-life of 14-C: the current value is listed as 5,730 40 years (wiki), so a more accurate age would be older than this CRA, however the CRA needs to be corrected anyway due to the variation in 14-C content in the atmosphere from year to year, because it is not constant as assumed. As Coyote noted in Message 1 this correction is done by comparison to CRA values for samples of known age -- tree rings, lake and marine varves, etc. and this calibration also incorporates the correction for the half life. This correction in detailed in 14C Calibration and Correlations and the calibration curves for tree rings and varves are
As you can easily see the actual calibrated ages are consistently older than the straight line CRA age. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
What assumptions are geologists making when dating rocks, etc? I'm wanting to find out the issues. It's just a matter of if one of you are going to provide them. I'm looking at the information and a few of the assumptions I'm seeing are how much daughter product was in the sample, how much parent was in the sample, that their model of gravitational physics is true, and I'm sure there are some inside the formula such as constant variables.. This is getting a bit off-topic for this thread, but there are two basic methodologies for dating rocks. The first (and oldest known) is relative dating of layers by the law of superposition (wiki):
quote: This is still useful today, because not all types of rock are datable by radiometric methods: dating a layer above the target rock and one below then provides a window of age for the target rock. The second methodology is of course radiometric methods, and for this I refer you to an excellent reference:
quote: This provides an excellent overview of all types of radiometric dating methods. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The absolute constancy of the decay rates of relevant isotopes under terrestrial conditions is as well established as the atomic constituents of a water molecule. The processes that govern decay are fundamental to the operation of the Universe, and changes would leave unmistakable traces in an astonishing number of places. We've looked; they aren't there. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/oct01.html, The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: August 2006. Thanks for that. I think I can use it in The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 3) Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
3 links provided This is a rule violation:
rules quote: Please take what you think is the best argument from your links, present it and defend it. Otherwise people will dismiss them as they have already done, one their weakest argument. If you can't defend it then it must not be that good ... Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... Which is fine but I'm more interested with the truth. And if you represent the main way of thinking I can definitely see why there is a debate. Christians who are in seek mode are looking to conclude in truth not on bias with regards to dating. ... "Truth" (TRVTH, Truth, truth) is a bad measure, it is too malleable to personal bias and belief. In effect there is no such thing. And that's the truth. As I see it. Curiously, I prefer reality and the relationship of our knowledge to that reality. Again, reality is a squirmy object, just when we think we know something, a new finding throws it in doubt ... because all we can do with science is approximate reality: theories are explanations that approximate reality to the best of our knowledge, and as falsified concepts are discarded those approximations become closer to what must be reality.
... (People) In this regard, any belief system (in a person's worldview) that relies on denial of certain known evidence is less based on reality than one that doesn't. The goal then, for personal beliefs (for "truth,") is to find beliefs that don't need to deny any objective empirical evidence, discarding those beliefs that are falsified by objective empirical evidence. Thus we can discard a young earth (as you have done), and we can discard a global flood, accept they are allegories at best, and go from there. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I disagree. Truth is available. You just have to find it. ... Give me an example, some profound truth that has not changed through time. "Truth" wears many cloaks. Just look at Trump and his followers ....
... Further it is truthful if you are objective AND provide data without the bias shrouding it. ... As you have failed to do with your links? It is always amusing when people come to this forum and trumpet some attempt at skepticism of all things science, but fail utterly to be just as skeptical of their beliefs ... when there is less objective evidence and data for them, and more reason to be skeptical of them as a result. The pseudoskeptic is only skeptical of what he doesn't believe and doesn't apply the same degree of evidence and lack of bias on his own beliefs that he demands from others.
... In doing so the interpreter is able to conclude -a- "truth". ... (fixed it for you) ... and when a different interpreter is able to conclude a different truth? We see it all the time on this forum. Your purported skepticism of dating methods for instance. Something that you hold to be true, and I hold to be tentative or false, based on the same evidence and data shows that there is no unmalleable truth involved ... at least one of us is wrong, having only opinion, bias and assumption of being "right" instead of tentative conclusions based on objective evidence and reality approximating knowledge that doesn't claim to be anything more.
... This idea that there is no truth is essentially a delusion ... Curiously, you provide no evidence, no data, no objective argument "without the bias shrouding it" for your claim. A delusion is holding a belief in spite of contradictory information. I see no contradictory information as yet. Therefor I have no reason to accept your argument as valid.
... unless you find idealism optional. You talking to yourself? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I disagree. Truth is available. You just have to find it. Further it is truthful if you are objective AND provide data without the bias shrouding it. In doing so the interpreter is able to conclude truth. This idea that there is no truth is essentially a delusion unless you find idealism optional. Here's another approach, a challenge, for you to demonstrate your truthiness beliefs: You have made comments and references regarding the validity of 14C dating methods.
The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1) deals with the evidence that supports 14C dating, from tree rings to marine and lake varves. It also has sections on testing the validity of the systems and determining their accuracy.
The challenge for old age deniers (especially young earth proponents) is to explain why the same basic results occur from different measurement systems if they are not measuring actual age? If you think this is wrong (you're entitled to your opinion) then detail where and why, provide evidence that is objective and empirical and free of bias shrouding it. On that thread I deal with known facts and the rational conclusions that can be reached. The floor is yours. Start with Message 1: Correlations, Calibrations and Consilience and Message 2: Definitions of Some Terms Used so you can see the premises or assumptions involved and then proceed to the first set of data on Message 3: The Oldest Known Non-Clonal Trees Who knows, you might learn something. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I disagree. Truth is available. You just have to find it. Further it is truthful if you are objective AND provide data without the bias shrouding it. In doing so the interpreter is able to conclude truth. This idea that there is no truth is essentially a delusion unless you find idealism optional. Here's another approach, a challenge, for you to demonstrate your truthiness beliefs: You have made comments and references regarding the validity of 14C dating methods.
The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1) deals with the evidence that supports 14C dating, from tree rings to marine and lake varves. It also has sections on testing the validity of the systems and determining their accuracy.
The challenge for old age deniers (especially young earth proponents) is to explain why the same basic results occur from different measurement systems if they are not measuring actual age? If you think this is wrong (you're entitled to your opinion) then detail where and why, provide evidence that is objective and empirical and free of bias shrouding it. On that thread I deal with known facts and the rational conclusions that can be reached. The floor is yours. Start with Message 1: Correlations, Calibrations and Consilience and Message 2: Definitions of Some Terms Used so you can see the premises or assumptions involved and then proceed to the first set of data on Message 3: The Oldest Known Non-Clonal Trees Who knows, you might learn something. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In Message 189 you said:
... I was not thinking just of radio carbon dating but all dating methods in my original responses. So we come back to the basics, what base on knowledge can we build for validating "all dating methods" and check to see if you are right, or if you are wrong.
Here's another approach, a challenge, for you to demonstrate your truthiness beliefs: You have made comments and references regarding the validity of 14C dating methods.
The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1) deals with the evidence that supports 14C dating, from tree rings to marine and lake varves. It also has sections on testing the validity of the systems and determining their accuracy. I don't have an issue of debate in that thread. The time from Gen 1:1 to Abraham is not absolutely established. The geneaologies are not absolutely known to be used to age the earth and neither are the days in creation. Curiously, what I was suggesting is that you look at how the evidence shows radioactive dating to be valid. As I also said:
If you think this is wrong (you're entitled to your opinion) then detail where and why, provide evidence that is objective and empirical and free of bias shrouding it. On that thread I deal with known facts and the rational conclusions that can be reached. The floor is yours. Start with Message 1: Correlations, Calibrations and Consilience and Message 2: Definitions of Some Terms Used so you can see the premises or assumptions involved and then proceed to the first set of data on Message 3: The Oldest Known Non-Clonal Trees Who knows, you might learn something For instance this diagram shows remarkable consilience and correlation between several different methods of deriving dates and the level of 14C in the samples
Some of them radiometric and some by layer counting. Note that "Conventional 14C Age" is actually just the measured amount of 14C in the samples modified by a mathematical formula:
Message 23 in The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1): Age Calculation(7)
quote: Note that 5568 is the "Libby half-life" for 14C that was used in the first calculations of "14C-age," and this has been adopted as the standard to avoid correcting this twice when making calibrations and obtaining calibrated dates. The value of Aon is constant, established so that the measured 14C calculation will start at 1950: Aon = Asn(1950 14C). Thus the above formula could be reduced to 14C'age' = Kln(14C level measured) by combining all the constant values into K, or we can simply calculate Asn as a percentage of Aon:
Asn/Aon % = 100e^(-t/8033) where -8033 = 5568/ln(1/2) to convert to natural logs. This is the mathematical basis for radiocarbon dating calculations. It is a purely mathematical conversion of the measured 14C/14C(1950CE) levels to the theoretical age based on the decay half-life of 5568 years. Why does this pattern happen if all radiometric methods are questionable/erroneous/subject to error? The thread is not so much about measuring ages, but about validating the methods used by showing the correlations and consilience between the various methods, continually coming up with similar if not identical dates (within scientific accuracy). In Message 192 you say:
I don't believe you can have certainty [absolute knowledge] to any belief whether it be because of a body of knowledge, a spec of evidence or a revelation. We are all just trying to figure things out. So are we now in agreement on what "truth" can be known? This sure sounds a lot like my argument. "Truth" is tentative and subject to change. Enjoy So will you take the challenge or dodge it? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I read the entire thread. I didn't find any issues that I can undermine persay. ... Great. (ps -- per se, usually in italics as it is latin)
... However arguably radiocarbon dating MAY be correct but that doesn't mean all radiometric dating is correct. ... But it sets a foundation, and now you need to explain how one radioactive isotope can decay in a predictable manner, but a different radioactive isotope would decay in a different manner.
... Further using tree rings may be incorrect due to multiplicity ... The multiplicity of different dendrochronologies reaching the same dates for the same 14C levels with 99% accuracy?
... and carbon dating maybe incorrect due to the various points I've already pointed out, i.e., the assumptions, so in that case you don't have congruence. Which doesn't explain the image
It seems to me that the multiple system congruence is a FACT (truth?) -- it's data, objective empirical data -- and that this FACT actually validates the assumptions. Anyway, please continue with The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 2), Physical/Chemical Counting Systems, you can jump in at Message 2, Basics of Ice Layer Counting. Note that ice cores contain Berillium-10, another cosmogenic isotope created in the atmosphere similar to 14C, 10Be has a longer half-life but the variations match those of the 14C variations:
That's another correlation that ties back to tree rings and 14C, and the ice cores extend the annual layer counting to over 800,000 years. With multiplicity of ice cores agreeing where they overlap, within the limits of scientific accuracy. Again this is data, objective empirical data, and it also validates the congruence seen in the 14C diagram. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The theory actually would need direct evidence to have confidence in it. ... What theory? All I have provided is facts, data that is used to then calibrate the 14C curve. But the curve is irrelevant when you can put all the data in a table with age and the level of 14C in samples found for those ages. The to date an object you look up the equivalent level of 14C in your artifact to the table and it gives you a date or a range of dates. This can also be shown graphically. For example, from The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1). Message 14:
quote: +/- 88 years means 88/(2787+2017-1 (no year 0)) = +/- 1.8% accuracy. This tabulation of 14C levels for ages from 1950 to 50,000 years ago has been compiled by scientiest working on the INTCAL project, shown graphically here:
Note the right side where I have converted the Conventional 14C Age to % of the 1950 level. This represents the level of 14C measured. No theory involved.
... I disagree that if radiocarbon dating is correct, that it does mean the same method is correct with metals. Metals??? While I agree that the 14C calibration data does not show strong support for exponential decay, due to the variation in initial 14C levels in the atmosphere for different ages, the congruence and consilience of all the data from all the different sources shows that the general pattern for exponential decay is observed from the data. Stronger evidence for the validity of exponential decay is in The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 2), which lays down further foundational data, and The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 3), which discusses radiometric dating. The ice layers provide the annual layer data that is then used to validate the radiometric methods. With direct evidence. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
DOCJ writes: Geologists don't. So, not even going to try and read the rest of your incoherent diatribe. How do geologists calculate the amount of the parent/and daughter chemicals in the Rock at creation? I think he meant the time of formation of the rock, and I think Jon covered that. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I'm going to pursue this a little further:
... Further using tree rings may be incorrect due to multiplicity and carbon dating maybe incorrect due to the various points I've already pointed out, i.e., the assumptions, so in that case you don't have congruence. The congruence is there because the data matches from different systems. If there were problems they should not result in this congruence. If the tree rings are incorrect why do the 2 oak chronologies agree within 99% of their common record -- if mistakes were common how does this accuracy happen? If the tree rings are incorrect why do the combined oak chronologies agree with the Bristlecone Pine chronologies within 98% over their common record? Why do the tree dendrochronologies match with the varve chronologies within 95% over their common record? If the carbon-14 dating is incorrect why do we consistently find the same levels of 14-C at the same ages? If one or the other or both are wrong, why such a straight line correlation> Just asking. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Geologist actually DO attempt to date the creation date of the Rock. I'll be honest with you. I disagree that I need to use words like formation vs Creation in order to appease your sense of intelligence. ... But the rock was rock (magma) before, it wasn't created, formation is more correct in geological terminology:
quote: ... . What I find more interesting is how big of a response my posts are generating. ... No different that the response of other creationists (even "creation" is getting similar level of response ... or more). When anyone posts questionable information, curiously it gets questioned. What should be interesting is the level and scientific information in the responses.
... I am currently looking at the question raised by RAZD, and related arguments on both sides of the tree rings and the region they grew. I'll respond when I have time.. Honestly if you are going to be insulting don't respond. No hurry, Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024