Assumptions involved in scientific dating

I completely agree. However, creationists think that it is assumption. It isn’t.
The size of the Pb 2+ ions ensure that they can’t be incorporated into the tetrahedral crystal lattice of zircon (or the polymorphs of zircon). They are simply too big.However, U2+ fit in nicely. So, at the formation of tetrahedric zircon crystals, we know that the Pb incorporated into the crystal lattice will essentially be zero.Another Pb isotope, Pb6+, is not found in tetrahedral crystals for obvious reasons. They can't do tetrahedral crystals for the same obvious reasons. In chemistry the words "tetra" and "hexa" mean something...It’s not an assumption. It’s basic chemistry.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

That is an ionic state and not an isotopic state. Any isotope of lead might be in that state.

"Assumptions involved in scientific dating"Hmmm. After >200 posts I think its fair to say that any assumptions (or claims) made by YEC creationists regarding scientific dating will be just plain wrong.

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.. And you are not the first to defer to a "lack of" on my part in this thread. What I find more interesting is how big of a response my posts are generating. If I was so lacking, you and the others wouldn't be having this discussion (and there would be no need to be insulting, and really no reason to post so others can view your post as you do realize others can think for themselves). However, you guys seem to have more time to spend in these threads than I have available as well (this entire discussion is being viewed and discussed over my cell in my case. I rarely have time to jump on my computer). I am currently looking into many evolutionist/creationist issues regarding age, dinosaur tissue discoveries, c14 in dinosaur tissue, the desparity issue in evolution with respect to the diversity of life in the fossil record, pre cambrian and cambrian explosions of life (and related assumptions which if you want to call them conclusions THAN they are based on a current theory which they do change. And mutations have never been shown to produce diversity outside of the species (exception to plants as is also permitted in Genesis) is also theoretical in evolution with natural selection and millions of years), and rather it is a lot of information on both sides. And if you are not thinking with a paradigm or a presupposition, it does seem that there are many issues on both sides that both sides are trying to explain or argue. The thinking that it must be resolved every time by natural processes and that just because it can that it did happen by natural processes doesn't mean it did or didn't. I also think that it is a terrible practice to say, that just because a person has faith in God that that does mean his or her Scientific explanation is lacking such as finding c14 in dinosaur tissue. This if it did happen would turn naturalist claims upside down even if "containing a lot of iron" somehow was the way the tissue lasted especially if c14 didn't decay in a "65 million year old fossil". I also disagree that everything, most of the time that if the Science is done by a creationist that they are lying or just ignorant.. In this particular thread the dating methods are being disputed and it is assumed to be a closed system. I'm also looking at the open system ideas and the implications. 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.Edited by DOCJ, : EditEdited by DOCJ, : EditEdited by DOCJ, : EditEdited by DOCJ, : EditEdited by DOCJ, : No reason given.Edited by DOCJ, : EditEdited by DOCJ, : EditEdited by DOCJ, : EditEdited by DOCJ, : Edit

Every single one of these has been refuted many, many times. Perhaps instead of putting misplaced weight on a few non-scientific ideas that have been shown to be wrong you should question your motives for doing this?The ONLY reason those sites exist is to push religious propaganda. Their concern with such things as carbon dating is not scientific, it's religious. It's always wrong and mostly they know it.Why are you wasting your time reading lies on creationist web sites? Why don't you just follow the science? It's all publicly available. All arguments are not equal you know; for every claim from the creationist there's thousands of real scientific papers and tens or hundreds of years of work by thousands of real scientists backing it up.Why are you picking at the entrails of long dead arguments?Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

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.

---

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. No hurry,Enjoy

We're not investing much time. Everything you've brought up is a PRATT: Point Refuted A Thousand Times. We've seen it all so many, many times. We could respond in our sleep.14C in fossils is contamination. Name a specific instance and we'll address it.

No, that is absolutely false and quite ridiculous. Why would you think such a thing?Instead, geologists try to date when that particular rock had last solidified from having been completely molten -- obviously, only igneous rock would qualify for that particular set of dating methods.It would really help to consider the actual processes involved.Similarly, since you seem to be interested in the presence of c14 where you think that it should not be, then you should consider all the ways in which C14 can be produced. Radiocarbon dating is based on just one method of C14 production and incorporation (ie, cosmic ray bombardment in the upper atmosphere after which C14 is incorporated into plants which are then eaten, etc) while it ignores sources of trace amounts of C14 (eg, bombardment from the decay of radioactive sources in the strata). Not when they are actually doing science. The problem is when they are doing "creation science".If a creationist knowingly crafts a false claim, especially when it involves misrepresenting his sources and the actual science (eg, the living fresh water mollusc claim, inter-species comparison of proteins such as cytochrome c as in Brown's rattlesnake protein claim or of some fictional protein as in Gish's Bullfrog Affair, then he is indeed lying. If a creationist misrepresents his sources and the actual science because he simply does not understand it, then he is indeed ignorant -- far too many examples to pick from. And, the vast majority of the time, if a creationist simply repeats other creationists' claims without making any attempt to test or verify them, then he is either lying (if he already knows those claims to be false) or is ignorant or both.Sadly, almost all the time creationists either are lying or are ignorant or are both lying and being ignorant. While there are very rare occasions where a creationist is actually doing science, compared with what all the other creationists are doing such occasions are so rare as to be virtually non-existent. Plus, there is a form of natural selection of creationist claims in which the creationist community favors and demands the sensational lies and deceptions while ignoring any actual science -- thus nobody hears about actual science being performed by creationists but we only hear of the lies.That situation really has to change, but, since change can only come from within the creationist community, then it will never happen. I have encountered this creationist attitude many times before and I get the impression that you subscribe to it as well: you seem to believe that if we find that something is caused by natural processes when that eliminates God. I would think that an actual creationist (as opposed to what we keep hearing from YECs) would consider such an idea as being blasphemous. Could you please clarify that?

[insult-alert]Dude, paragraphs! This isn't 4^th grade. Sheesh! [/insult-alert] I agree that Pressie's response to you in Message 204 wasn't helpful, but his Message 152 gave a good (though brief) description of why amphibolites can yield a wide variety of dates, and I think he's finding the way you're ignoring his points frustrating. "Appease your sense of intelligence"? And you're complaining about insults?I think several people have already made this point, but I'll try making it again in my own way, maybe having multiple explanations of the same thing will help. Igneous or metamorphic rock has a date of creation that coincides with its date of formation. This means that when an igneous or metamorphic rock solidifies and begins the radiometric clock ticking, that represents both the date of formation and the date of creation.But the situation is completely different for sedimentary rock, which are often the rock layers that interest us most. Sedimentary rock is made up of tiny particles or fragments of rock that came from somewhere else through the processes of erosion and weathering and through the transport mechanisms of wind, rain, and water flow in glaciers, runoff, streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, seas and oceans. When a sedimentary layer consolidates into rock, that is the date of formation. But it is not the date of creation, not radiometrically, because the tiny particles of rock were created elsewhere a long time before. Layers of sedimentary rock often cannot be dated directly, because their date of formation is completely unrelated to the different radiometric clocks of all the different particles of which it is composed. Sedimentary rocks are often dated indirectly by dating nearby layers of igneous rock or volcanic rock or ash. Well, kind of hard to refrain from commenting when someone is both outspoken and ignorant on the same subject. We're only human. You should find it embarrassing rather than interesting. Typical discussion board behavior is that the greatest ignorance draws the most responses, probably because substantial error is easier to point out than subtle error. But we're not really having a discussion. You're posting links and making ignorant claims. People are trying to provide you correct scientific information and you either ignore it, dismiss it, or misunderstand it. This is somewhat garbled, but I think you're saying that there's no reason to be insulting in posts because people can form their own opinions of how knowledgeable or ignorant you are. I sort of agree, but on the other hand in addition to being both outspoken and ignorant, you're also working very hard at maintaining your ignorance. It would be fine if you were merely not accepting what people are telling you as long as you provided counterarguments that reflected an understanding of the arguments you're attempting to counter. But that is not the case. You haven't provided any evidence for your own position, you've demonstrated a fairly thorough ignorance of radiometric dating, you haven't engaged with the scientific information that's been provided, and you for some reason think you're getting quality scientific information from religious and pseudoscientific websites (you're not).Providing you accurate scientific information isn't working because you're not engaging with it, and once that approach fails there really aren't any other effective approaches available, so people are resorting to just trying ways to somehow get your attention, such as by showing disdain for the ignorant things you say, sometimes by being insulting. There's no hurry. Respond when you have time. Obviously you don't have time right now, as this monolith of a rambling paragraph clearly indicates. I'm in awe that anyone could do so much typing on a cell phone, but maybe that explains why your posts are so short and why you quote so little. You should only be responding when you "have time to jump on [your] computer." The quality of your posts will likely go way up, especially since the larger screen (hopefully your computer is not some 13" laptop but is a real desktop with a large monitor) allows display of a lot of information simultaneously in multiple windows, and you can much more easily and quickly bounce around a thread checking the information people have posted to you on this thread. Dude, if you come across a webpage telling you that low level concentrations of ¹⁴C in dinosaur tissue invalidates radiocarbon dating, delete the tab immediately. This issue doesn't sound familiar. Is this from some creationist website? This is definitely from a creationist website. Delete the tab, move on. Oh, God, you're going religious on us again. You're going to have to decide whether you're doing science or religion. Your position is that the EU calls the validity of dating methods into question. The EU stuff claims to be science, not religion, but you keep introducing creationist nonsense. Make up your mind whether you're doing science or religion. Everything in science is theoretical in the sense that it's tentative. Why are you talking about mutations and natural selection within evolution in a thread about dating methods? So far there's been no information coming from your side. That's straight out of the creationist handbook. Do you have any scientific evidence for unnatural processes? You're going creationist again - you're putting your faith is some extremely fallacious information. The EU people may be doing pseudoscience, but at least in their own way they believe in science. They wouldn't endorse your excursions into creationist territory. And ICR does not endorse the EU, see The Plasma Universe, which cautions creationists against being tempted by new ideas just because they oppose some of the same things as creationism. What is your objection to science confining itself to the natural. Do you have evidence for anything that isn't part of the natural universe? I think creationists are very sincere and truly believe what they say, but as a group they are very ignorant when it comes to science. Those creationists who actively participate in the construction of misleading narratives that they claim are scientific are difficult to characterize. I think that the leaders of creationist thought like Behe and Dembski and Gish and Morris and Snelling and Austin also truly believe what they say, and I don't think anyone can explain why, because it is certainly possible for people dedicated to science to escape the indoctrination of creationism, as Glenn Morton exemplifies (see The Transformation of a Young-Earth Creationist). As I said in another message (to which you haven't yet replied, Message 208, nor the previous one, Message 146): Please, respond when you're on your computer. I think discussion would be more productive if you began engaging with the evidence that's being presented, and began presenting some evidence of your own.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Clarify comment about ¹⁴C in dinosaur tissue.

No, they don't. They measure the time since the closure of the rock at which point the rock will no longer lose daughter product. By the sounds of it, you are looking at creationist websites. This goes against your previous claim that you are looking for the truth. You should find 14C in dinosaur bones even if they are millions of years old. It is nearly impossible to prevent low level contamination of any sample. There can even be in situ 14C production within the fossil itself due to background radiation. The carbonization process used to prepare the samples also introduces low levels of 14C. The instruments that measure 14C content will have noise and carryover which results in spurious detection low levels of 14C. If creationists are telling you that low levels of 14C in dinosaur bones somehow calls 14C dating into question, then they are lying to you.Added in edit:It is also worth noting that the dinosaur fossils didn't contain any collagen or bone, much less organic material.

quote:

---

Hugh Miller generously provided me with a copy of the elemental analysis of one of their dinosaur fossils. Daniel Fisher of the University of Michigan’s Museum of Paleontology examined these results and concludes that there is nothing whatsoever extraordinary about them. The predominant suite of elements present and their relative percentages (including the 3.4% carbon!) are about what one would expect to find in hydroxyapatite and calcite, two of the commonest minerals present in ordinary dinosaur fossils. There is absolutely nothing unusual about these fossils and no reason to think the carbon contained in them is organic carbon derived from the original dinosaur bone.

​

Robert Kalin senior research specialist at the University of Arizona’s radiocarbon dating laboratory, performed a standard independent analysis of the specimens submitted by Hugh Miller and concluded that the samples identified as bones did not contain any collagen. They were, in fact, not bone.
Forbidden - Stack Exchange

---

The fossil was also contaminated with modern carbon from shellac. Needless to say, this is just another example of creationists lying.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Those sources of contamination are all very present!And considering that the C14 level in the atmosphere is on the close order of 1 part per trillion to start with, and that level declines per the half life, it doesn't take much to introduce some contamination. This is particularly true with a sample, such as dinosaur "bone" that has no C14 left.Creationist "scientists" are pretty good at getting "accidental" contamination it seems and then making grand claims. But then, that's creation "science" for you.

Actually, creationists found some samples with no measurable C14 at all, too. In their own "research". Point that out to Baumgardner and ask him to explain those zero-readings and then he vanishes in a poof of The Fluddy!Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.