|
Author
|
Topic: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
I've fixed the link (replaced it with the HowStuffWorks one) in the main article, thanks for letting me know.
... when I've heard so many accounts of things that were known to be younger or even still alive that came out old when they dated them. The main problem here is that when you know how 14C works and what the problems are (it is dependant on the original source using atmospheric carbon), it is easy to purposely find samples that seem to violate the dating method: Coal (or diamonds) near radioactive material (uranium is common) that converts nitrogen to 14C in the sample in the same way that it is converted in the atmosphere, with the "result" that the sample "tests" waaay too young. Proper sample technique tests for radioactive contamination to rule out this factor. Shellfish using archaic calcium carbonate are actually using very old carbon to make shells for currently living animals - what is known as the "resevoir effect" - and thus "test" waaay to old. Proper sample technique tests for this effect to rule out this factor. These are two of the more common and well known things that can affect the results. Creatortionistas also know about these factors, and they are not shy about intenionally misusing them to create a false impression that there are problems with the methodology itself rather than with their intentional and bogus misuse. So far every example I have seen (where a creatortionista claims that the dating of an object is false) have been items like these where there is a simple, valid and honest reason for the results not testing the actual age of the object. Proper testing protocol usually involves testing items for age by a number of different methods, and if one is way different from the others then source(s) of that difference {is\are} looked for to find out why there is an error. In early reports on fossil finds you will often see where they state something like "preliminary dates" because not all the backup testing has been completed. Hope that helps.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 243 by Christian, posted 10-25-2005 2:47 PM | | Christian has not replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
Message 257 of 306 (254824)
10-25-2005 9:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 254 by roxrkool
10-25-2005 8:53 PM
|
|
Re: C14 in diamonds
The AGU poster is at Error | The Institute for Creation Research. Supposedly there's mre detail in Baumgardner, J.R., S.A. Austin, D.R. Humphreys, and A.A. Snelling, Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: Confirming the young earth Creation-Flood model, Fifth International Conference on Creationism, Edited by Robert L. Ivey, Jr., Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, August, 2003, pp. 127-142, but that's not on the Web. Ther used to be a couple of semi-scientific papers on the Web but they've gone.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 254 by roxrkool, posted 10-25-2005 8:53 PM | | roxrkool has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 258 of 306 (254825)
10-25-2005 9:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 255 by roxrkool
10-25-2005 8:58 PM
|
|
Re: C14 in diamonds
Have not seen diamonds specifically, but I have seen a good one on coal: Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits
{abe}Apparently one of the new neutrino detectors, the Borexino detector in Italy, works by detecting tiny flashes of visible light produced by neutrinos passing through a huge subterranean vat of "scintillation fluid". Scintillation fluid is made from fossil fuels such as methane or oil (plus some other ingredients), and it sparkles when struck by beta particles or certain other events such as neutrinos.{/abe} So, the physicists want to find fossil fuels that have very little 14C. In the course of this work, they've discovered that fossil fuels vary widely in 14C content. Some have no detectable 14C; some have quite a lot of 14C. Apparently it correlates best with the content of the natural radioactivity of the rocks surrounding the fossil fuels, particularly the neutron- and alpha-particle-emitting isotopes of the uranium-thorium series. Dr. Gove and his colleagues told me they think the evidence so far demonstrates that 14C in coal and other fossil fuels is derived entirely from new production of 14C by local radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium series. Many studies verify that coals vary widely in uranium-thorium content, and that this can result in inflated content of certain isotopes relevant to radiometric dating (see abstracts below). I now understand why fossil fuels are not routinely used in radiometric dating! You can contact the author (Kathleen Hunt) as her e-mail is linked at the beginning of the article. I don't see any problem with it being the same mechanism (after the diamond has been formed) {abe}added paragraph above to show why they want to find 14C free fossil fuels - any radioactivity in the detector would produce a false signal.{/abe} This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*26*2005 07:26 AM
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 255 by roxrkool, posted 10-25-2005 8:58 PM | | roxrkool has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 265 by edge, posted 10-26-2005 8:20 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1010 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: 03-23-2003
|
|
|
Message 259 of 306 (254839)
10-26-2005 12:05 AM
|
Reply to: Message 257 by JonF
10-25-2005 9:37 PM
|
|
Re: C14 in diamonds
Ah, thank you. And thanks for the TO link, RAZD - very helpful and interesting. This message has been edited by roxrkool, 10-26-2005 12:06 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 257 by JonF, posted 10-25-2005 9:37 PM | | JonF has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 260 of 306 (254852)
10-26-2005 6:48 AM
|
Reply to: Message 257 by JonF
10-25-2005 9:37 PM
|
|
creatortionistas?
Baumgardner, Humphreys, Snelling ... the "usual suspects" ... not that familiar with Austin though. Presumably also an ICR "fellow"
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 257 by JonF, posted 10-25-2005 9:37 PM | | JonF has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 261 of 306 (254854)
10-26-2005 7:00 AM
|
Reply to: Message 260 by RAZD
10-26-2005 6:48 AM
|
|
Re: creatortionistas?
Steve Austin's another YEC geologist. He used to publish creationist material as "Stuart Nevins". He's no more trustworthy than Snelling - perhaps even less so.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 260 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2005 6:48 AM | | RAZD has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 262 of 306 (254898)
10-26-2005 12:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 260 by RAZD
10-26-2005 6:48 AM
|
|
Re: creatortionistas?
Steve Austin was the fellow who sent 10-year-old samples from Mt. St. Helens to be K-Ar dated. I had a year-long email battle with a creationist, trying to convince him that Austin was wrong in sending the samples to a lab that advertised "We can not date anything less than two million years old." 
People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 260 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2005 6:48 AM | | RAZD has not replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
|
Message 263 of 306 (254912)
10-26-2005 2:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 260 by RAZD
10-26-2005 6:48 AM
|
|
Re: creatortionistas?
Austin also managed to fudge a false isochron for the Grand Canyon Plateau lava flows. See A Criticism of the ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 260 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2005 6:48 AM | | RAZD has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 264 of 306 (254935)
10-26-2005 7:06 PM
|
|
|
Backslide to topic
Thanks all for your inputs on the creatortionistas, but let's leave that for another topic and let this one be for those like {christian} who have questions and curiosity about the actual age dating mechanisms. I realize it is partly my fault. Thanks.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
|
|
Message 265 of 306 (254946)
10-26-2005 8:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 258 by RAZD
10-25-2005 9:39 PM
|
|
Re: C14 in diamonds
It appears that there is some enrichment of radioactive elements associated with kimberlites: http://emg.geoscienceworld.org/...content/abstract/8/1-2/137
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 258 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2005 9:39 PM | | RAZD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 266 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2005 8:40 PM | | edge has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 266 of 306 (254949)
10-26-2005 8:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 265 by edge
10-26-2005 8:20 PM
|
|
Re: C14 in diamonds
The identification of different phases and/or stratigraphic facies of kimberlite on the basis of radioelement distributions means that gamma-ray spectrometry can assist exploration, particularly in regard to diamond grade distribution. Fascinating. Would you like some Roentgens with those Carats? Thanks
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 265 by edge, posted 10-26-2005 8:20 PM | | edge has not replied |
|
Christian
Member (Idle past 6276 days) Posts: 157 Joined: 10-16-2005
|
Re: I know what he meant.
Maybe I should've said C14, I obviously don't know a whole lot about this stuff.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 245 by Chiroptera, posted 10-25-2005 2:55 PM | | Chiroptera has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 276 by RAZD, posted 11-03-2005 8:33 PM | | Christian has not replied |
|
Christian
Member (Idle past 6276 days) Posts: 157 Joined: 10-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 268 of 306 (256071)
11-01-2005 5:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 247 by roxrkool
10-25-2005 3:16 PM
|
|
It was just something I heard on the Christian radio station. I probably should've done more research before posting about it. They did say though, that since diamonds are so hard, they shouldn't be subject to contamination.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 247 by roxrkool, posted 10-25-2005 3:16 PM | | roxrkool has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 274 by RAZD, posted 11-03-2005 8:13 PM | | Christian has not replied |
|
Christian
Member (Idle past 6276 days) Posts: 157 Joined: 10-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 269 of 306 (256076)
11-01-2005 6:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 246 by NosyNed
10-25-2005 2:56 PM
|
|
Re: Not a climate issue
Oh man!! I've been avoiding this topic, not because I think you guys are right about the age of the Earth, but because it's so hard for me to understand this stuff. I have to read each sentence over and over before I have a foggy idea of what is being said. I think I'll just make a commitment to spending some time here. I'll take turns between this thread and the one I started about the evolutionary chain. Hopefully, my knowledge will build and it will get easier for me. I'm still failing to see what the relationship is between the lake varves and the C14. This paragraph makes absolutely no sense to me:
The lake varves offer a measure of the degree of error caused by the non-constant creation of C14 and a correction for it. The degree of error is less than 10 %. The corrections vary from very much less than that up to about that much.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 246 by NosyNed, posted 10-25-2005 2:56 PM | | NosyNed has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 272 by Coragyps, posted 11-01-2005 6:58 PM | | Christian has replied |
|
Christian
Member (Idle past 6276 days) Posts: 157 Joined: 10-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 270 of 306 (256081)
11-01-2005 6:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-05-2004 3:42 PM
|
|
The calibration of the C-14 by the diatom varves is not to correct the method of doing the tests or the basis of the testing (whether underwater or not), but to adjust for variations in the amount of solar radiation that causes C-14 to occur (and then start decaying)
Can you tell, based on the varves, what the amount of solar radiation was?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2004 3:42 PM | | RAZD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 275 by RAZD, posted 11-03-2005 8:18 PM | | Christian has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2