Correlation Among Various Radiometric Ages

Please, everyone, when JesusFighter returns, do your best to help him get the hang of how debate works at EvC Forum. Thanks.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

He is just another classic Liar For Christ. He has already registered and posted as Casey Powell.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes - because you don't know what you're talking about.Thanks for making it obvious, though. Although I'm amazed that you thought you could overturn a century of geology just by saying that it "sucked." Somebody call the USGS!

Now there is a substantiated position ... Try reading Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective, by Dr. Roger C. Wiens Take your time. Look up things you don't understand or ask questions, but the fact is that the dating methods also "belong" to the whole world whether you want it or not, including Christian scientists interested in the truth and who are not afraid of an old earth. Dr. Wiens will tell you just exactly how they do measure the age of rocks ... and other objects, by several different methods, and WHY it works.Denial of evidence does not make it go away, nor is it faith:

quote:

---

delusion” -noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

---

You have been deluded, mislead, lied to, whether you remain steadfast in your delusion is up to you.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

Now there is a substantiated position ... Try reading Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective, by Dr. Roger C. Wiens Take your time. Look up things you don't understand or ask questions, but the fact is that the dating methods also "belong" to the whole world whether you want it or not, including Christian scientists interested in the truth and who are not afraid of an old earth. They don't directly measure the ages of rocks.Dr. Wiens will tell you just exactly how they do measure the age of rocks ... and other objects, by several different methods, and WHY it works. Denial of evidence does not make it go away, nor is it faith: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
delusion” -noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You have been deluded, mislead, lied to, whether you remain steadfast in your delusion is up to you.Enjoy.

I have already stated that they do serve benefits (the USGS included!). Just no good in dating anything accurately and directly.

RAZD, well oh my goodness, you just broke my itty bitty heart.I've read both sides to those arguments...and YECS provides the more convincing arguments here. Sorry, but thats a big time no go (every single bit was covered from the Igneous rocks to the Thermoluminensce, etc.)

But you can't explain why. And the decades of reliable dates we've gained by these techniques proves you wrong.I mean, there you are saying the techniques don't date anything, and here we are with a big ol' pile of corroborated dates. And we're supposed to believe you over our lyin' eyes?

Telling you that you have been deluded is not an ad hominem, but an observation based on your posts. Now this is an ad hominem comment and an argument from authority as well that provides no information on what safarti's argument IS or HOW it refutes weins.Safarti is one of the ones who is deluding you. Why? Because he is intentionally misusing the science to measure things where he knows in advance he can get false results, NOT because the method is wrong but because the application of it is intentionally wrong.Now you could actually attempt to post what safarti says to substantiate your position - that would be the proper thing to do instead of making endless troll-like posts full of nothing.Saying things like Does not SHOW that they are no good at dating anything accurately and directly, yet you have repeated this many times with no further information behind this bald assertion than the first time.One conclusion I can reach from this is that you are a troll and not interested in actual debate, just in causing disruption.Another conclusion I can reach is that you do not understand the information enough to debate it, so all you can do is rely on the argument from authority, and hence don't want to substantiate it as you are not able to defend safarti's (or whoever's) argument when it is shown what the errors in those arguments are.Another conclusion I can reach is that you are just unknowledgable in the field of science involved in each case, having only absorbed one side of the argument while remaining clueless of the other side and the depth of knowledge there.We have already touched on being deluded.The question is whether you can demonstrate that you are not any of these categories.Enjoy.

---

Looks like my prediction of band-width wastage on the Age Correlation thread is validated, seeing as the thread is now closed due to your trolling behavior on it instead of addressing the issue of the thread. I'll address the points you raised there here. First, I did not "blame" it on anyone. All I said was that you could find evidence for it. Tryhttp://www.lhup.edu/%7Edsimanek/fe-scidi.htm
http://www.lhup.edu/%7Edsimanek/febible.htmMy implication is that we know this is a false position, even though you can find evidence FOR it, because there is TOO MUCH evidence that refutes it.I also notice you do not have any comments on the similar reference to the example for a geocentric earth. Are you going to make the same argument there or concede that it is the case that you can find evidence for a geocentric earth?I'll take further ignoring of this example on your part to be a concession of this fact. Just to help you along. The oldest living single tree is a Bristlecone Pine, the trees themselves are much older as a species and there is a continual tree-ring chronology back to 8,000 years and some floating pieces of data older than that.The problem is magnified when you know that samples are not taken from just one tree but from several, so that they can be compared to eliminate false rings. So the effect that "Dr" Batten is talking about has already been taken care of during the dendrochronology process.From your link by Don Batten

quote:

---

Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings. As a tree physiologist I would ...

---

.... be lying to you if he said that these were identical species with identical tree-ring behavior. Yep, you have been lied to again. By someone who should know better. Nor do they even look the same:
Monterey Pine, Pinus radiata versus Bristlecone pine, Pinus longaevaHe is comparing a coastal species with a high altitude species and saying they are the same? A species that grows in an entirely {different habitat\ecology}? One where he can intentionally take samples from ones living in an entirely different seasonal growth environment? Shame on you for being so gullible.Notice that the European Oak also arrives at the same dates for the same climates based on the ring data, and you have not addressed the issue of that correlation at all.Oh look. You've been suspended indefinitely for posting like a troll. My bad for taking you seriously.I'm done. I'll leave this post here for future readers to wonder at your inability to deal with the facts.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

Percy (IIRC) posted some jpegs of tables from a book showing dating correlations by several different methods.It seems to me that this would be a good thread for {presentation\recording} of that information.I found the post. Now all I need is readable copies (or on-line versions that can be linked) and reference.http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old EarthEdited by RAZD, : found post

They're at: They're just images of pages from Brent Dalrymple's book on the age of the earth. I've found them useful when addressing the argument that radiometric dating is unreliable and yields dates all over the map.--Percy

There are several correlations between radiometric dating methods, all showing broad consistency in results when properly applied:Radiometric Dating
Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective
by Dr. Roger C. Wiens:

quote:

---

There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.

All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some Christians make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!

---

Let's look at some of those numbers:Are Radioactive Dating Methods Consistent?
Are Radioactive Dating Methods Consistent With Each Other?
by Don Lindsay

quote:

---

To check, we need one single event which has been dated by several methods. A nice example is the Triassic multiple-impact event, which formed a 4500-kilometer-long chain of huge craters. (There must have been a train of big objects from space, which hit the spinning earth, one by one, across several hours. Much like the way comet Shoemaker-Levy hit Jupiter in 1994.)

​

Here are the five confirmed craters:

Crater           Country     Diameter    10^6yr ago   Dating Method
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Manicouagan      Canada      100 km      214  1      U-Pb on zircons
Saint Martin     Canada       40 km      219  32     Rb/Sr
Rochechouart     France       25 km      214  8      Ar/Ar laser spot fusion
Obolon           Ukraine      15 km      215  25     stratigraphic
Red Wing         USA           9 km      200  25     stratigraphic

​

"Stratigraphic" dating means that the crater itself has not been dated. Instead, the rock strata above and below the crater was dated. (By now, the Red Wing crater is under 1.5 kilometers of sediment.)

---

All of those ages overlap within the margins of error for each method - an actual age of 214x10^{^6} years ago is consistent with each one. www.ncseweb.org/.../vol20/RadiometericDatingDoesWork...
Radiometeric Dating Does Work!
by G. Brent Dalrymple:

quote:

---

One of the most exciting and important scientific findings in decades was the 1980 discovery that a large asteroid, about 10 kilometers diameter, struck the earth at the end of the Cretaceous Period. The collision threw many tons of debris into the atmosphere and possibly led to the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other life forms. The fallout from this enormous impact, including shocked quartz and high concentrations of the element iridium, has been found in sedimentary rocks at more than 100 locations worldwide at the precise stratigraphic location of the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary (Alvarez and Asaro 1990; Alvarez 1998). We now know that the impact site is located on the Yucatan Peninsula. Measuring the age of this impact event independently of the stratigraphic evidence is an obvious test for radiometric methods, and a number of scientists in laboratories around the world set to work.

​

In addition to shocked quartz grains and high concentrations of iridium, the K-T impact produced tektites, which are small glass spherules that form from rock that is instantaneously melted by a large impact. ... The results from all of the laboratories were remarkably consistent with the measured ages ranging only from 64.4 to 65.1 Ma (Table 2). Similar tektites were also found in Mexico, and the Berkeley lab found that they were the same age as the Haiti tektites. But the story doesn’t end there.

​

The K-T boundary is recorded in numerous sedimentary beds around the world. The Z-coal, the Ferris coal, and the Nevis coal in Montana and Saskatchewan all occur immediately above the K-T boundary. Numerous thin beds of volcanic ash occur within these coals just centimeters above the K-T boundary, and some of these ash beds contain minerals that can be dated radiometrically. Ash beds from each of these coals have been dated by 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb methods in several laboratories in the US and Canada. Since both the ash beds and the tektites occur either at or very near the K-T boundary, as determined by diagnostic fossils, the tektites and the ash beds should be very nearly the same age, and they are (Table 2).

There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating ” it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible.

---

(Note image used is originally from this website and was only copied to a mirror site to reduce bandwidth traffic on the original source).That's 187 results between minimum 63.1 million years ago and maximum 66.5 million years ago, from a number of different sources and techniques.But that is not all:Are Radioactive Dates Consistent?
Are Radioactive Dates Consistent With The Deeper-Is-Older Rule?
by Don Lindsay

quote:

---

However, there is an easier way to check if a method is reliable. We can see if it gives consistent answers against some other method.

​

For example, Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dating was tested against the Cenozoic-Era North American Land Mammal ordering. By ordering, I mean that rock layers were given numbers, with bigger numbers at greater depth. Each fossil was given the number of the rock layer it was found in. (Geologists call this stratigraphic order.) Here are the results:

Stratigraphic                           K-Ar Date       # Samples
Position        Name of Age             (millions)       Dated
========        ============            =========       ==========
1           Irvingtonian              1.36              1
2           Blancan                 1.5 - 3.5           7
3           Hemphillian             4.1 -10.0           8
4           Claredonian             8.9 -11.7          16
5           Barstovian              12.3-15.6           9
6           Hemingfordian             17.1              1
7           Arikareean              21.3-25.6           4
8           Orellian                   ---              0
9           Chadronian              31.6-37.5           9
10           Duchesnean                37.5              3
11           Uintan                  42.7-45.0           2
12           Bridgerian              45.4-49.0           2
13           Wasatchian                49.2              1
14           Puercan                   64.8              1

The standard geological idea is that "deeper is older". (It's called the Principle of Superposition, and was invented two centuries before Darwin.) In this table, Superposition and K-Ar dating are mutually consistent.

---

Layer by layer the stratigraphic measures older by radiometric dating, entirely consistent with the long term deposition of sedimentary layers (and not some jumbled debris of some fantasy flood scenario). None of the K-Ar Dates overlap into the wrong sedimentary layers.There is also one layer that is not measured - the Orellian - and here is dated by the "sandwich" method (layers above and below) to 25.6 to 31.6 million years ago (this essentially makes a prediction that dating will fill this gap within this range). This demonstrates how this type of dating of objects works. www.ncseweb.org/.../vol20/RadiometericDatingDoesWork...
Radiometeric Dating Does Work!
by G. Brent Dalrymple:

quote:

---

Some meteorites, because of their mineralogy, can be dated by more than one radiometric dating technique, which provides scientists with a powerful check of the validity of the results. The results from three meteorites are shown in Table 1. Many more, plus a discussion of the different types of meteorites and their origins, can be found in Dalrymple (1991).

​

​

There are 3 important things to know about the ages in Table 1. The first is that each meteorite was dated by more than one laboratory ” Allende by 2 laboratories, Guarena by 2 laboratories, and St Severin by four laboratories. This pretty much eliminates any significant laboratory biases or any major analytical mistakes. The second thing is that some of the results have been repeated using the same technique, which is another check against analytical errors. The third is that all three meteorites were dated by more than one method ” two methods each for Allende and Guarena, and four methods for St Severin. This is extremely powerful verification of the validity of both the theory and practice of radiometric dating.

​

In the case of St Severin, for example, we have 4 different natural clocks (actually 5, for the Pb-Pb method involves 2 different radioactive uranium isotopes), each running at a different rate and each using elements that respond to chemical and physical conditions in much different ways. And yet, they all give the same result to within a few percent. Is this a remarkable coincidence? Scientists have concluded that it is not; it is instead a consequence of the fact that radiometric dating actually works and works quite well. Creationists who wants to dispute the conclusion that primitive meteorites, and therefore the solar system, are about 4.5 Ga old certainly have their work cut out for them!

---

(Note image used is originally from this website and was only copied to a mirror site to reduce bandwidth traffic on the original source).Excluding the Sm-Nd isochron (4 points) dating of St. Severin meteor - which runs from 4.22 billion years ago to 4.88 billion years ago - that's 44 results between 4.34 billion years ago and 4.61 billion years ago (and also within the envelope of the St. Severin meteorNotice that these correlated dates all imply an age for the earth of ~4.5 billion years. This is one piece of evidence of the extreme old age of the earth.Radiometric Dating
Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective
by Dr. Roger C. Wiens:

quote:

---

Most of the rocks we have from the moon do not exceed 4.1 billion years. The samples thought to be the oldest are highly pulverized and difficult to date, though there are a few dates extending all the way to 4.4 to 4.5 billion years. Most scientists think that all the bodies in the solar system were created at about the same time. Evidence from the uranium, thorium, and lead isotopes links the Earth's age with that of the meteorites. This would make the Earth 4.5-4.6 billion years old.

---

Matching data on the earth, on the moon and from meteors.The essential element of measuring the age of the earth is NOT finding evidence that the earth is young - that is easy on an old earth - but in finding the oldest available evidence - evidence of age that just cannot be made compatible with any young earth creation model no matter how hard the creationists try.

Reasonable age of the earth = 4.5 billion years based on this data.

For comments related to common creationist arguments against radioactive dating techniques see Chris Stassen's comments at:
TalkOrigins Archive - Feedback for January 1999Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

I was doing some scanning and decided these might be useful, so here's a belated Christmas present: Radiometric Ages of Some Early Archean and Related Rocks of the North Atlantic Craton
Radiometric Ages of Some Mare Basalts Dated by Two or More MethodsLinks to PDF versions at those pages. I'm not guaranteeing how long they'll stay up; feel free to grab them and squirrel them away. I'll see if talkorigins.org has any interest in hosting them.

Thanks, that's what I thought but wasn't sure.

cool - hope they stay a while (maybe a few billion years?)