Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9159 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: K.Rose
Post Volume: Total: 915,011 Year: 2,268/9,624 Month: 113/1,588 Week: 42/267 Day: 2/40 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Assumptions involved in scientific dating
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 53 of 222 (799319)
02-09-2017 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by kbertsche
02-08-2017 11:00 PM


Re: Assumptions are not wild guesses
You mean ICANT, not NoNukes.
/quibble

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by kbertsche, posted 02-08-2017 11:00 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 63 of 222 (827240)
01-21-2018 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by DOCJ
01-21-2018 3:46 AM


Re: Questions
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:
Age Calculations
Conventional radiocarbon ages (BP)
A radiocarbon measurement, termed a conventional radiocarbon age (or CRA) is obtained using a set of parameters outlined by Stuiver and Polach (1977), in the journal Radiocarbon. A time-independent level of C14 activity for the past is assumed in the measurement of a CRA. The activity of this hypothetical level of C14 activity is equal to the activity of the absolute international radiocarbon standard.
The Conventional Radiocarbon Age BP is calculated using the radiocarbon decay equation:
t=-8033 ln(Asn/Aon)
Where -8033 represents the mean lifetime of 14C (Stuiver and Polach, 1977). Aon is the activity in counts per minute of the modern standard, Asn is the equivalent cpm for the sample. 'ln' represents the natural logarithm.
A CRA embraces the following recommended conventions:
  • a half-life of 5568 years;
  • the use of Oxalic acid I or II, or appropriate secondary radiocarbon standards (e.g. ANU sucrose) as the modern radiocarbon standard;
  • correction for sample isotopic fractionation (deltaC13) to a normalized or base value of -25.0 per mille relative to the ratio of C12/C13 in the carbonate standard VPDB (more on fractionation and deltaC13);
  • the use of 1950 AD as 0 BP, ie all C14 ages head back in time from 1950;
  • the assumption that all C14 reservoirs have remained constant through time.
Three further terms are sometimes given with reported radiocarbon dates. d14C, D14C and deltaC13.
All are expressed in per mille notation rather than per cent notation (%).
d14C represents the per mille depletion in sample carbon 14 prior to isotopic fractionation correction and is measured by:
d14C=((Asn/Aon) - 1)1000 per mille
D14C represents the 'normalized' value of d14C. 'Normalized' means that the activity is scaled in relation to fractionation of the sample, or its deltaC13 value. All D14C values are normalized to the base value of -25.0 per mille with respect to the standard carbonate (VPDB). D14C is calculated using:
D14C=d14C - 2(dC13 + 25)(1 + d14C/1000) per mille
This value can then be used to calculate the CRA using the equation given above.
Radiocarbon age=-8033 ln(1 + D14C/1000)

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.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by DOCJ, posted 01-21-2018 3:46 AM DOCJ has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Coyote, posted 01-21-2018 10:45 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 69 of 222 (827291)
01-22-2018 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by DOCJ
01-21-2018 8:36 PM


Re: Questions
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:
The law of superposition is an axiom that forms one of the bases of the sciences of geology, archaeology, and other fields dealing with geological stratigraphy. In its plainest form, it states that in undeformed stratigraphic sequences, the oldest strata will be at the bottom of the sequence. This is important to stratigraphic dating, which assumes that the law of superposition holds true and that an object cannot be older than the materials of which it is composed. The law was first proposed in the late 17th century by the Danish scientist Nicolas Steno.

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:
Radiometric Dating
A Christian Perspective
First edition 1994; revised version 2002.
Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.
This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.
This provides an excellent overview of all types of radiometric dating methods.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by DOCJ, posted 01-21-2018 8:36 PM DOCJ has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 87 of 222 (827349)
01-23-2018 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by JonF
01-22-2018 3:57 PM


Re: Questions
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)
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by JonF, posted 01-22-2018 3:57 PM JonF has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 88 of 222 (827351)
01-23-2018 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 6:07 AM


Re: Questions
3 links provided
This is a rule violation:
rules
quote:
5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references
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 ...
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 6:07 AM DOCJ has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 89 of 222 (827352)
01-23-2018 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by DOCJ
01-22-2018 10:29 PM


Re: Questions
... 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) Christians who are in seek mode are looking to conclude in truth not on bias with regards to dating. ...
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.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by DOCJ, posted 01-22-2018 10:29 PM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 8:52 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 144 of 222 (827422)
01-23-2018 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 8:52 AM


Re: Questions, no answers yet
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?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 8:52 AM DOCJ has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 148 of 222 (827433)
01-24-2018 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 8:52 AM


Re: Questions and challenges
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.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 8:52 AM DOCJ has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 180 of 222 (827591)
01-28-2018 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 8:52 AM


Re: Questions and still no answers
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.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 8:52 AM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by DOCJ, posted 01-29-2018 6:25 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 193 of 222 (827654)
01-29-2018 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by DOCJ
01-29-2018 6:25 AM


Re: Questions and still no answers
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:
The Conventional Radiocarbon Age BP is calculated using the radiocarbon decay equation:
t=-8033 ln(Asn/Aon)
Where -8033 represents the mean lifetime of 14C (Stuiver and Polach, 1977). Aon is the activity in counts per minute of the modern standard, Asn is the equivalent cpm for the sample. 'ln' represents the natural logarithm. A CRA embraces the following recommended conventions:
  • a half-life of 5568 years;
  • the use of Oxalic acid I or II, or appropriate secondary radiocarbon standards (e.g. ANU sucrose) as the modern radiocarbon standard;
  • correction for sample isotopic fractionation (deltaC13) to a normalized or base value of -25.0 per mille relative to the ratio of C12/C13 in the carbonate standard VPDB (more on fractionation and deltaC13);
  • the use of 1950 AD as 0 BP, ie all C14 ages head back in time from 1950;
  • the assumption that all C14 reservoirs have remained constant through time.

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?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by DOCJ, posted 01-29-2018 6:25 AM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by DOCJ, posted 01-29-2018 9:55 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 196 of 222 (827659)
01-29-2018 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by DOCJ
01-29-2018 9:55 AM


Re: Questions and still no answers
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.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by DOCJ, posted 01-29-2018 9:55 AM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by DOCJ, posted 01-29-2018 1:39 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 203 of 222 (827694)
01-29-2018 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by DOCJ
01-29-2018 1:39 PM


Re: Questions and still no answers
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:
Then there is consilience with Egyptian history and the dating of various finds (artifacts), for example:
Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt(4)
quote:
... Radiocarbon dating, which is a two-stage process involving isotope measurements and then calibration against similar measurements made on dendrochronologically dated wood, usually gives age ranges of 100 to 200 years for this period (95% probability range) and has previously been too imprecise to resolve these questions.
Here, we combine several classes of data to overcome these limitations in precision: measurements on archaeological samples that accurately reflect past fluctuations in radiocarbon activity, specific information on radiocarbon activity in the region of the Nile Valley, direct linkages between the dated samples and the historical chronology, and relative dating information from the historical chronology. Together, these enable us to match the patterns present in the radiocarbon dates with the details of the radiocarbon calibration record and, thus, to synchronize the scientific and historical dating methods. ...
... We have 128 dates from the NK, 43 from the MK, and 17 from the Old Kingdom (OK). The majority (~75%) of the measurements have calibrated age ranges that overlap with the conventional historical chronology, within the wide error limits that result from the calibration of individual dates.
The modeling of the data provides a chronology that extends from ~2650 to ~1100 B.C.E. ...
(red lines added)
The results for the OK, although lower in resolution, also agree with the consensus chronology of Shaw (18) but have the resolution to contradict some suggested interpretations of the evidence, such as the astronomical hypothesis of Spence (24), which is substantially later, or the reevaluation of this hypothesis (25), which leads to a date that is earlier. The absence of astronomical observations in the papyrological record for the OK means that this data set provides one of the few absolute references for the positioning of this important period of Egyptian history (Fig. 1A).

("OK" refers to the "Old Kingdom")
Note that there are several other sample dates with similar correlation of 14C measurement to dendrochronology correlations, here it is the earliest/oldest set that is of interest as a measure of accuracy and precision. The dendrochronology correlation is shown as two lines in Fig 2 (+1σ and -1σ ) -- I added the red lines in the image for discussion:
The earliest/oldest dates in Fig 2 are shown at ~2660 BCE, with 7 samples placed together (with two more placed nearby). There are several possible matches for each of these samples, running from 2580 BCE to 2860 BCE -- due to the wiggle of the 14C amounts in that portion of the graph -- I get 5 possible matches for the lowest point with an average age of 2693 BCE, 8 possible matches for the next point with an average of 2660 BCE, 6 possible matches for the third point for an average of 2702 BCE, 12 possible matches for the fourth point for an average of 2733 BCE, 9 possible matches for the fifth point for an average of 2754 BCE, 6 possible matches for the sixth point for an average of 2750 BCE, 8 possible matches for the seventh point for an average of 2771 BCE, 8 possible matches for the eight point for an average of 2787 BCE, and 6 possible matches for the highest point for an average of 2788 BCE. Assuming these points all represent the same age, the overall average age is ~2740 BCE with σ of +/-88 years (2827 BCE to 2651 BCE).
Shaw's date for the tomb is 2660 BCE, so this falls inside the margin of error and thus is in close agreement with that dating.
+/- 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, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by DOCJ, posted 01-29-2018 1:39 PM DOCJ has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 205 of 222 (827703)
01-30-2018 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Pressie
01-30-2018 4:31 AM


Re: his really stupid "Questions"
DOCJ writes:
How do geologists calculate the amount of the parent/and daughter chemicals in the Rock at creation?
Geologists don't. So, not even going to try and read the rest of your incoherent diatribe.
I think he meant the time of formation of the rock, and I think Jon covered that.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Pressie, posted 01-30-2018 4:31 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Pressie, posted 01-30-2018 7:31 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(5)
Message 209 of 222 (827719)
01-30-2018 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by DOCJ
01-29-2018 9:55 AM


Re: Questions and still no answers
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, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by DOCJ, posted 01-29-2018 9:55 AM DOCJ has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 216 of 222 (827751)
01-31-2018 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by DOCJ
01-31-2018 12:08 PM


rock formation
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:
Mineralogy
Most volcanic rocks share a number of common minerals. Differentiation of volcanic rocks tends to increase the silica (SiO2) content mainly by fractional crystallization. Thus, more evolved volcanic rocks tend to be richer in minerals with a higher amount of silica such as phyllo and tectosilicates including the feldspars, quartz polymorphs and muscovite. While still dominated by silicates, more primitive volcanic rocks have mineral assemblages with less silica, such as olivine and the pyroxenes. Bowen's reaction series correctly predicts the order of formation of the most common minerals in volcanic rocks.
Occasionally, a magma may pick up crystals that crystallized from another magma; these crystals are called xenocrysts. Diamonds found in kimberlites are rare but well-known xenocrysts; the kimberlites do not create the diamonds, but pick them up and transport them to the surface of the Earth.
... . 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,
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by DOCJ, posted 01-31-2018 12:08 PM DOCJ has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024