|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Correlation Among Various Radiometric Ages | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheLiteralist Inactive Member |
In the last several threads about radiometric dating, I have seen one or two references to correlations among various radiometric ages (for the same sample I presume).
A common claim among creationists' material is that, in order to be radiometrically dated, a rock sample must include information such as what stratigraphic position was the rock, what fossils were near it, what age does the one submitting the sample expect it be, etc. Of course, this implies that there is NO true correlation among radiometric data and that correlations are merely forced somehow...not necessarily on a conscious level...but rather the product of deeply ingrained and systemic circular reasoning. I would like see not only this creationist argument discussed but also the issue of correlation among radiometric dates in general. Thanks,--TheLit This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 03-26-2005 02:58 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminSylas Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
A common claim among creationists' material is that, in order to be radiometrically dated, a rock sample must include information such as what stratigraphic position was the rock, what fossils were near it, what age does the one submitting the sample expect it be, etc. I actually haven't seen those claims. But the ones about stratigraphic position and fossils are just plain wrong. Stratigraphic position is, of course, recorded for the overall report of results. Fossils nearby are often not even recorded. The lab that does the dating doesn't want to hear about stratigraphic position, nor do they want to hear about fossils. They just don't care; it won't have any effect on their measurements or the results of those measurements. The dating lab would usually like a rough estimate of what age is expected, to optimize their equipment setup. For example, in K-Ar dating, they have to clean the argon from the equipment between runs. If they have no information about the age of the sample, or if the sample is expected to be old as suitable samples for K-Ar dating go, then they can do a normal cleaning (because a little stray argon won't make any difference unless the sample is very young). If the sample is expected to be young (i.e. not much argon), they have to do a super (and expensive) cleaning to avoid contamination. Of course, if a sample for which they don't do a supercleaning turns out to be somewhat young and the investigator wants an accurate date, they have to do a supercleaning and re-run the test. The typical creationist measurement of recent lavas should be done with a supercleaning, either because the creationsist tells the lab it shold be young or because the results come out young and another run should be made after supercleaning. But for some reason this never happens. Perhaps the creationists aren't interested in the best that the method can do.
(for the same sample I presume) Depends on exactly what you mean. It is pretty rare for different tests to be run on the same physical chunk of matter. A sample suitable for one kind of test is often unsuitable for another kind of test, and the preparation and testing of samples is often destructive, leaving you afterwards with nothing to measure by another method. It is not unusual for different tests to be run on samples from one rock, and it is downright common for different tests to be run on samples from the same outcrop or stratum or rock. Different tests involve very different sample preparation and measurement equipment, and involve two or three wildly different mechanisms of radioactive decay. Agreement between methods is a very strong evidence of the correctness of the measurements. It is not unusual for the results of such tests to differ slightly. Technically, what is measured as the age of a rock is the age of closure, at which the rock was cool enough to "freeze" the relevant elements in place in the crystal lattice. The temperature at which this happens is different for different elements and minerals. So if a rock cooled slowly (and plutons can take millions of years to cool) you can get different ages from different methods. Other factors can affect the agreement between methods, but overall the agrement is very good. One thing is worth mentioning; U-Pb concordia-discordia methods are applied only to minerals that strongly reject lead at solidification. When we find such a mineral with a significant amount of lead, that lead is the result of radioactive decay. Period. That's basic physics. This is accepted by some well-known creationists. In HELIUM DIFFUSION RATES SUPPORT ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY (PDF document), Humphreys, Austin, Baumgardner and Snelling write on page 3:
quote:{emphasis added - JonF} Unfortunately for Humphreys et al, their hypothesis of variable decay rates is a non-starter for all sorts of reasons. All that said, here are some pointers to consistent results on the Web:
Consistent Radiometric datesRadiometric Dating (ABE: fixed link to PDF file) This message has been edited by JonF, 05-10-2006 09:26 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Try post 220 in this thread:
http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth Percy has a table there with more than a little bit of what you're asking about. And it's only the old stuff - Mark24 has posted a more recent (K-T boundary) set of examples here as well. There are too many possibilities to search through for me to find it, but Mark, if you're around...?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The K-T stuff is here (the table is at the end, there's discussion in the body): Radiometeric Dating Does Work!. There's also discussion of the Manson meteorite and the Pierre Shale; unfortunately, figure 1 (showing the results) is omitted. (ABE May 10 2006: the URL now works and points to a different version which includes Figure 1 and places the tables in their proper places relative to the text.)
There's a very good page on a Triassic multiple-impact event (like Shoemaker-Levy) at Are Radioactive Dating Methods Consistent With Each Other?; this one correlates with measured continental drift rates! When we extrapolate the continental motions back by the amount of time measured by radioisotope dating, the craters all line up! At Are Radioactive Dates Consistent With The Deeper-Is-Older Rule? there's a table of K-Ar dates compared to stratigraphic dates. This message has been edited by JonF, 05-10-2006 09:07 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
While doing some research for another thread, I stumbled across another table of consistent radioisotope dates: TalkOrigins Archive - Feedback for January 1999, the fourth response down from the top (search for "stassen").
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Of course, this implies that there is NO true correlation among radiometric data and that correlations are merely forced somehow...not necessarily on a conscious level...but rather the product of deeply ingrained and systemic circular reasoning. How would that work, exactly? Like they wouldn't notice their hands "correcting" the calculations in the spreadsheet?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Of course, this implies that there is NO true correlation among radiometric data and that correlations are merely forced somehow...not necessarily on a conscious level...but rather the product of deeply ingrained and systemic circular reasoning. If any creationist organizations really believed this they would invest some time and money in showing that it is the case. All they need to do is arrange for carefully controlled samples to be taken using all the correct geological procedures. These samples can be labeled in a way which would not allow the testing labs to know the source of them but would be trackable by an independent organization. The correlations would then not be present if this idea is correct. Since these organizations would claim to have a huge interest in proving dating wrong (it would stop the teaching of moral destroying science and save America from the heather, etc) the effort would be well worth while. However, what can we infer from the lack of such controlled testing? I think you should consider that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
some links here need to be updated. I get a couple of 404 errors.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 05*09*2006 09:34 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Fixed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
See Message 4 and Message 5 for links to correlations with the various radiometric means for dating rocks.
Note: post 220 refered to in message 4 is in Part I of the Age Correlations thread, which is closed. The direct link is Message 220or EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
Neither was an answer to my response.
That they do not work effectively in DATING ROCKS! They do have benefits, and I'm not doubting that in regards to the methods. But they are not capable of giving accurate results in dating rocks! And thats what is at issue here. The examples that the articles give fail to demonstrate how the methods are effective in dating rocks. Another prime example of begging the question, nothing more or less here. A definition is not an explanation. The articles successfully define the terms, then create a strawman of the purpose of the article against Radiometric dating. The purpose is not to provide evidence for YECS. The purpose is to state that the whole dating method insofar as it can be used to measure millions or billions of years is entirely useless and ineffective. Edited by JesusFighter, : No reason given. Edited by JesusFighter, : No reason given. Edited by JesusFighter, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But they are not capable of giving accurate results in dating rocks! And thats what is at issue here. They are capable, and the correlation between different, unrelated methods proves it. That's what you have to response to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
we don't even need to! Thats the sad part. Its a waste of time or money to proceed with the argument any further than that its useless as an aging tool.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
Correlation? Do you realize how ambiguous that claim is?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024