mardi 20 mars 2018

Matthew Hunt Defending Carbon and Radiometric, Me Defending Carbon in Relative But Not Absolute Dates when Old

Main thread in Roman Numerals, subthreads headed as subthread to n.

Matthew Hunt
18 mars, 08:46
Information on radiometric dating. Feel free to try and point out any errors.

Radioactivity and Radiometric Dating
Mat Hunt | April 14, 2013

Andre Nienaber
So, just a question, when the force of gravity is calculated at 9.8m.s2, we can drop something in a vacuum to test and measure the result. What is the final test for any dating mechanism?

Matthew Hunt
We test the individual pieces. We check the lengths of half lives, check if anything could change the half-life, understand what effects of adding or subtracting radioactive elements and then we're good to go for accepting the results of the dating process.

Subthread to III
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"We check the lengths of half lives,"

For carbon 14, no problem. Half a halflife should leave square root of a half, aka 70.7 % and quarter of a halflife should leave square root of that, which would be 81 % or sth.

My bad, 84.1 %.

Now, quarter of a halflife for carbon 14 is 1432 years and we can check by history what objects from 1432 years ago there are and which ones can be carbon dated and we can confirm that carbon 14 has a halflife of 5730 years, because an object from 1432 years ago has, as predicted, 84.1 % modern carbon.

You are less likely to find that kind of check for U-Pb, Th-Pb or K-Ar.

"check if anything could change the half-life"

For U, we know there is. Radioactivity. Check Chernobyl.

For heat, pressure, chemical additions, yes I know, these do not change the halflife.

Setterfield's theory, which, as said, I don't share, involves half life being related to velocity of light, and he considers this was faster and therefore halflives were so too. Not checkable as per heat and pressure, since we don't know how to produce conditions that change c.

Andre Nienaber
Sorry Matthew Hunt, you misunderstand my question. Since you are talking of millions of years, how do you ultimately proof the dating system?

Subthread to IV
Hans-Georg Lundahl
" Sorry Matthew Hunt, you misunderstand my question. Since you are talking of millions of years, how do you ultimately proof the dating system?"

Here you are talking of long half lives.

I agree there is a problem in proving the exact halflife of uranium.

For carbon 14, it is easier.

Even 100 years will make a noticeable difference, less than 1 % but still detectable, in the carbon ratio.

Andre Nienaber
Carbon 14 dating is a bad joke. The trunk and shoulder of the same woolly mammoth came back tens of thousands of years apart.

The range of possible dates is so far apart that you must determine the position found to pick a range of dates Hans-Georg

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"The trunk and shoulder of the same woolly mammoth came back tens of thousands of years apart."

In a certain range of "datings" that is not very many percent of the carbon 14 content.

"ten thousand years" = nearly two halflives = one sample has a quarter as much or a bit more of carbon 14 than the other.

If one sample has 2 pmc and another 0.5 pmc, they date as 32,300 vs 43,800 years old. And similar for other contents in sample in the ratio 4:1.

If just after Flood carbon 14 was rising, there are chances the pmc was fluctuating both in atmosphere and in food. Which would explain why one sample of same being has 4 times as much carbon 14 as the other.

Matthew Hunt
I understood your question. I answered accordingly. There are other dating methods which also corroborate radiometric dating.

Andre Nienaber
Great stuff now we are getting closer to a real answer Matthew, radiometric dating is collaborated by other dating systems. Can you be so kind as to name a few?

Matthew Hunt
So Andre, why do you think that one well understood dating method is not enough?

Andre Nienaber
Because if your definition of a metre is wrong and you make a tape holding to your definition then the whole tape is wrong Matthew.

Matthew Hunt
Poor analogy.

Subthread to IX
Andre Nienaber
The analogy might be poor according to you, but it does not take the truth out of it

Matthew Hunt
There wasn't any to begin with.

Andre Nienaber
So you say that standardisation of lengths all over the world were unnecessary? We can thus take any lenght and call it a mile and it would be accepted, is that your truth?

Matthew Hunt
The standardisation of units has nothing to do with dating methods.

Andre Nienaber
Wow. Just wow.

Matthew Hunt
I thought that when you brought up that particular red herring.

Mike'n Tabea Warrak
Matthew Hunt, we call BS. The dating methods are NOT well understood, and are highly suspect due to the wild 'assumptions' that are required to make the calculations work. The people who are willing to accept millions of years simply believe anything that supports their beliefs. Remember when countless scientists predicted the moon was covered in several feet (or yards) of space dust? Those predictions were based on'educated guess assumptions'. Many scientists feared the Eagle might land on the moon and disappear into thick dust. THAT is why they put such huge landing pads on the Eagle. But instead of finding 2 or 3 billions of years worth us space dust, they found only a few THOUSAND years worth (according to original assumptions). So what did they do? They changed their assumptions so the calculations would match the results of their observations. This problem in making 'assumptions' to fill in the blanks of formulas is quite common, and corrections can be made with testing and observation. Which is something you can't do with the dating methods we have been using. We can't test or observe the results of dating methods, but yet you trust your 'educated assumptions' and try to lead us into believing the calculated results are FACTS? But thanks for playing. Next contestant please.

Matthew Hunt
Unfortunately, your blustering won't convince me of anything. You forget that I'm actually trained in science.

The radioactive decay equation is based on two very well tested experimental facts:

  • 1) The decay of a given atom at a given time is purely random.
  • 2) The decay of one atom will not affect the decay of another atom.

From this the decay equation follows and from that you can see how radiometric dating is possible.

It's clear you didn't read the notes.

Subthread to XI
Brian Bailey
So when they perform a dating process why do they ask how old it should be?

Matthew Hunt
Do they ask that???

Brian Bailey

Matthew Hunt
I don't think so somehow. When a creationist comes and says that in science they do X, I always question that as it's always the case that creationists don't understand science or lie about what is done in science.

Brian Bailey
So you ASSUME things that you have not knowledge of! Doesn't seem scientific does it?

Matthew Hunt
I assume little. Creationists not wanting to understand science is a safe bet.

Brian Bailey
But I love science...My first stint in university was in the faculty of science.

Matthew Hunt
Creationists always claim to "love science" but the science which disproves their religious beliefs they despise it.

Brian Bailey
Well I've spent enough time on trolls.

Matthew Hunt
I'm not a troll. I'm just not willing to play up to your questions.

Mike'n Tabea Warrak
Matthew Hunt... Not a troll? You fooled me. Anyway, YOU are the one who didn't read the notes. Current dating methods are not only unproven but they're out of synch with so many other scientific observations. The reason atheist scientists love the dating methods is because they can easily manipulate the end results by playing with the assumptions in their formulas. Normally, people who play with and juggle numbers... well, they often go to jail. But atheist scientists who can figure out ways to keep God out of science... well, they get the most lucrative government grants. But scientists who voice doubts about evolution are more likely to be fired than anything else. So much for scientific objectivity.

Matthew Hunt
I wrote the notes...

None of what you say is correct.

Mike'n Tabea Warrak
You copied them, but didn't read them. Nor did you comprehend them well enough to actually think through them see if they make sense. You are incredibly uninformed and sheltered from the truth. Oh, and by the way, what I posted earlier is indeed correct. Just because you don't like it, didn't mean it's wrong. Your theories were dug up under 3 billion years worth space dust in the moon. Dohhhh! No, THAT didn't happen either!

Matthew Hunt
So many assertions.

I can see you're a die hard conspiracy theorist.

Mike'n Tabea Warrak
Evolution is the biggest conspiracy theory yet, with more assertions that anyone can count. No proof, just assertions, assumptions, and interpretations that are twisted and manipulated to support pre-determined conclusions. Any evidence that refutes evolution is automatically dismissed. Professors who doubt evolution are dismissed as not credible it simply or fired. Or both. Awesome scientific objectivity.

Matthew Hunt
As someone who has bought into YEC wholeheartedly. I really don't think I can have a rational conversation with you. I think we had best stop here.

Antoine Bret
Mike'n Tabea Warrak did you take issue with the way Matthew Hunt solve the différential equations? Or you think his notes apply to alpha decay, but not beta+? Or you feel there's a problem with Lorentz invariance?

Mike'n Tabea Warrak
Antoine Bret, your question indicates you're just now joining the conversation. You might want to go back and try to comprehend what I've said, rather than just 'skimming' over everything and 'thinking' you understand, followed by focusing on things I never said or even insinuated. I never said I had a problem with 'solving' the equations, rather with assumptions required for the formulation. In industrial applications, when my engineers would submit future operating plans, using assumptions that were based on historical data. While that's not the same as dating methods, the principle is the same. There are equations formulated to help us arrive at some sort of answer or conclusion, but the equations and formulas are full of holes. In order to solve anything, we need to make some assumptions. Sometimes WILD assumptions. Here's the kicker; when the spreadsheets were submitted to me, I could 'play' with the assumptions and eventually make the spreadsheet say whatever I wanted. This resulted in my creating 3 different "reports". The first report was for me, and was what I "thought" was a doable operating budget/business plan. The second report was a "tight ship" budget/business plan that I required my to my team of managers use for operations. The third report went to my boss, which was more of a "sandbag" budget that left a lot of flexibility and 'room for mistakes' for hitting operating goals (from the viewpoint of my boss), which prevented me from over-promising and under delivering. If you've never run a production facility, you'll have no idea what I'm talking about; but the point is, I could make the stupid reports say anything I wanted (or needed) simply by changing the "ASSUMPTIONS". The reports, when viewed individually, all looked legitimate when subjected to "peer" or even "boss" review. NEWS FLASH: Congress does the exact same thing with government budgets. That's half of what they argue about! The assumptions required for good forecasting! (whether they admit it or not). That's why there's is so much debate over the budgeting process AND why we're 21 trillion in crazy debt. Stupid assumptions that are determined (not derived) by politics, desires, and beliefs. The scientific community is also wedged in between all of this, since government money/grants come with plenty of strings attached. If you guys even hinted at the possibility of an intelligent designer (or simply, God), you would quickly lose your funding. That's my point. Matthew Hunt states that he can't debate me as a YEC, but you guys have three fingers pointing right back at you when it comes to calling out bias in others. You have chosen to ignore or dismiss everything that's obvious, and justify it by formulating complex equations with wild assumptions. You can only 'assume' what the conditions were at 'time zero'. You're also assuming what the decay rates have been since 'time zero'. Don't even get me started on contamination! While your 'assumptions' eventually lead us to believe that uranium to lead might be 1 or 2 billion years (leaving a lot of tolerance), the fact that only a few thousand years worth of helium has escaped from various granite crystals is ignored or disregarded by your camp. Your problem is that you'll only accept interpretations that support your view that "there is no God" because you don't like his laws that cover things like lying, stealing, fornication, adultery, all form of sexual immorality, idolatry, envy, etc. etc. THAT is what the discussion is all about -- Driving God out of our lives.

Antoine Bret
Here are but a few light curves of SN Type 1A powered by the decay of Ni to Co, then to Iron. Million years away. The rates are the same than today.

Mike'n Tabea Warrak
We call BS on your cut and paste trash. Think: Not enough space dust on the moon.

Antoine Bret
Mike'n Tabea Warrak Haaaa... I once thought it could be different, but no. Completely ignorant. Just recycling AiG's ridiculous arguments, wilfully ignoring the rest.
Luke 6.39

Mike'n Tabea Warrak
Antoine Bret,... Nice try. We are ALL recycling information from other sources, so you can get down from your high horse now. We all examine evidence and sources, and then decide what to believe. Even if you are a full blown research scientist, with a state of the art research facility, and a huge staff of experienced scientists working around the clock under your command, you still have extremely limited knowledge that you gathered on your own. If you deny that, then you're simply a puffed liar hoping everyone thinks more of you than you really are. So, yes... I call BS on you.

Antoine Bret
Except that looking at a telescope is not like looking at AiG -:)

Mike'n Tabea Warrak
Telescope? That's the best you've got? Seriously? That explains a lot.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Antoine Bret Doing an experiment is not a substitute for analysing it correctly.

On AiG or CMI you get some logic tools for analysing dating assumptions behind supposedly pure maths and experiments.

While you usually do not get very many experiments conducted by the staff and associates, like carbon dating dino bones, c/o Armitage, of whom here

University settles lawsuit with scientist fired after he found soft tissue in dinosaur bones
August 11, 2017, By Chad Dou —

you do get references to the experiments that are done by your side, by evolution believing scientists.

Antoine Bret
Here's about soft tissues, by it's very discoverer. A Christians, bullied by YECs

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If Mary Schweitzer has backed off from soft issue claim, I don't quite think it is bullying on our side to consider she can have been caving in to bullying on your side.

I most definitely think Mark Armitage has done sufficient work to show it is not the kind of fluke one has tried to pretend.

Your link list would be more impressive to me if I could actually read abstracts (and possibly also free articles if any), so would you mind sharing where this screen shot is from?

Andre Nienaber
I did read the notes, I am still waiting for the collaborating dating methods you spoke of

Matthew Hunt
I asked why you thought they were relevant. You didn't give an answer.

Subthread to XIII
George Zornes
Do you have to know why the question was asked in order to answer it?

Andre Nienaber
You said it was collaborated by other dating methods. I asked you to name them

Aaron Purple Morph Wain
How old the subject you’re trying to date will dictate which elemental clock is most suitable to give you an accurate estimation, be that the carbon clock or potassium/argon clock for example.

Subthread to XV
Andre Nienaber
How do you know how old the subject is before you date it?

Aaron Purple Morph Wain
Ok so let’s take a fossil found in a certain geological strata of rock as we go down through the layers. Each layer will represent an specific window of time let’s say Jurassic or Cretaceous for example. Those windows are huge yes but they give us an upper and lower limit so we can use an element clock that fits in that window. If it’s a greatly later window then we may have to choose a different clock to fit that particular window

Andre Nienaber
Lovely so you date the fossil by the rock layer it is found in.

Now here is the haha funny part.

Rocklayer ages is determined by the fossils found in it.

So, you date the fossil by the rock, you date the rock by the fossil and you use this to not only to collaborate your dating system but also to choose your dating method.

Wow, just wow.

And you believe this system work....

Aaron Purple Morph Wain
Faunal succession is only one characteristic used to date rocks. Superposition, cross cutting and inclusions don’t rely on fossils at all

Andre Nienaber
What is the definition for a jurassic rocklayer? Is it not a layer of rock containing jurassic era fossils?

Aaron Purple Morph Wain
Simply put it is a strata of rock laid down in the Jurassic era. Sure it may contain Jurassic era fossils but rock of that time period that doesn’t contain fossils isn’t suddenly a different age because of their absense

Andre Nienaber
The strata layer is identified by the fossils found in that layer. Whether fossils are present in the sample or not.

When you date a fossil you date it from the layer you found it in

Aaron Purple Morph Wain
As I’ve said previously, the strata only gives you the window, after that an element clock can be used to narrow down an age within that window. Radiometric dating can be used to age rock samples without ever requiring fossils to be present

Andre Nienaber
You are missing my point. But, I suspect it is deliberately.

Aaron Purple Morph Wain
Alas no, I don’t go out of my way to misunderstand anyone, it stands in the way of progressive discussion to be intentionally obtuse

Andre Nienaber
The original point that I made is the following.

  • 1. Any dating mechanism has to be tested against a known date.
  • 2. In the end all dating systems is measured against the geological coulomb.
  • 3. To determine the age of a rock layer you must determine which fossils is in that rock layer.
  • 4. To determine the age of a fossil, you need to see in which rock layer it is deposited.

Apart from the fact that the last two points shows circular reasoning, every determination of age is based on the assumption that the earth is 4.5billion years old.

So, in essence, if the original assumption is wrong it become a case of the blind leading the blind.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Andre Nienaber "In the end all dating systems is measured against the geological coulomb."

Fortunately not correct about C14.

You can carbon date boots from Gettysburg, and the corroborating dating method is of course historiography of what has happened in how many years after Gettysburg.

Andre Nienaber
Hans-Georg Lundahl, Carbon dating is a sad joke. Diamonds and dinosaur fossils have yielded results on C14. The shroud of Turin was dated to be an 15th century artifact, yet it has a matching face cloth that has a recorded history since the 4th century. The only reason the more recent dating is more accurate is because the tester know which date to pick.

That is why I do not even consider Carbon dating in my statement

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If the boot is from leather of an animal killed in 1863, it should have 98.142 % of a recent sample. Because 98.142 % is like 155/5730 power of 50%.

Since most boots worn by men in that battle are perhaps from 1862 or 1861, a boot worn in that battle should have 98.142 pmc or a little less.

98.131 or 98.119 pmc are valid options or even less if boots were made of old leather or if boots were unused for some years before being worn in Gettysburg.

"Diamonds and dinosaur fossils have yielded results on C14."

If we are right, that is not a surprise.

"The shroud of Turin was dated to be an 15th century artifact"

The results came on a Cal-Tech computer which can have been hacked by KGB.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Aaron Purple Morph Wain "Simply put it is a strata of rock laid down in the Jurassic era. Sure it may contain Jurassic era fossils but rock of that time period that doesn’t contain fossils isn’t suddenly a different age because of their absense"

There are three major methods by which a rock is assigned to for instance Jurassic:

  • 1) it contains Jurassic fossil
  • 2) it lies over a layer containing Triassic fossil or under one containing Cretaceous
  • 3) or it is dated by radiometric dating.

Now, superposition as far as I can tell for land fauna never coincides with fossils on both levels.

This means, criterium 2 is a totally moot criterium.

If criterium 3 conflicts, the dating is thrown out.

Andre Nienaber
Aaron Purple Morph Wain and Matthew Hunt, both of you are avoiding the question. Name the collaborating dating systems.

Subthread to XVI
Aaron Purple Morph Wain
I can’t avoid a question that was never aimed at me to begin with

Matthew Hunt
It doesn't matter what other dating methods there are. However dendrochronology has corroborated radiometric dating for the past 6000 years.

Subthread to XVII
Andre Nienaber
Once again you do not reply to my question on your own statement.

Please see Daniel Quinones' post just below on inaccuracy of radiocarbon dating. So that corroboration just flew out the window

Matthew Hunt
Then I have no idea what you're asking. I said that dating methods agree and I provided you with an example. I am talking about radiometric dating, not just radiocarbon.

What if they're wrong about the problems with radiocarbon dating as creationists usually are.

Andre Nienaber
Good luck. You can radiocarbon date diamonds and you will get a result. The trunk and a shoulder of the same woolly mammoth carcass was dated tens of thousands of years apart. You have to discard half the dates results.

All dating systems accuracy is determined by testing it against the geological coulomb.

The age of the geological coulomb is determined by an assumption based on evolutionary timescale.

In short to date something you have to determine its age before you date it.

Mike'n Tabea Warrak
Matthew Hunt, you're still far short of space/moon dust. Your ability to ignore the obvious is amazing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
For one thing, radiometric dating for last 6000 years means essentially carbon dating. Plus some trapped electron methods.

For another, dendro like written history is great for recent centuries and their chronology.

Both lignine based methods are less great for earlier times when documents are scarcer.

Daniel Quinones *
"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted…. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.”
~Dr. Robert Lee, he wrote this in an article for the Anthropological Journal of Canada.

Subthread to XVIII
Matthew Hunt
Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
HomeCreation/Evolution JournalIssue 8 (Spring 1982)

[National Council for Science Education = Pro-Evolutionist]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew Hunt I skimmed through that one and it has not answered my theory.

I propose that from Flood to c. 500 BC carbon levels rose drastically, and that the earlier stages of this rise involve carbon 14 having formed faster than at present.

My latest calculations involve a carbon rise from Flood to Babel at 8 times as fast and during Babel event ("thousand years of Göbekli Tepe" = 40 years of Babel) 11 times as fast as at present.

The objections you could theoretically pose are:

  • limits on how much cosmic rays can come in;
  • limits on how much cosmic rays we can survive when it comes in (we obviusly did survive those times).

Matthew Hunt
Or that the flood actually happened.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
That is a historic objection to my overall scenario, not a theoretic objection to my carbon 14 model within it.

Matthew Hunt
No. It's a scientific objection.

You can't make stuff up and apply science to it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Then state the scientific objections to the Flood.

I have not "made the Flood up", I have taken this from historic sources I rely on.

And of course you can make stuff up and apply science to it, that is how you write sci fi.

Matthew Hunt
No you haven't. You've taken it from a religious text which needs confirmation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The religious text is the main historic source.

Most historic sources are religious texts either of the true or of some false religion. Some recent historic sources of WW-II are also religious texts of Marxism.

(Oh, by the way, I am a Latinist. Undergraduate, but even so.)

By the way, I detected a statement which would very well pass for a religious statement of Marxism: "You've taken it from a religious text which needs confirmation."

That is at least not a scientific statement.

Matthew Hunt
So straight off the bat you are inserting religious bias into your "scientific calculations". This isn't done in proper science.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
In proper science you take history into account. Hydrology is a proper science, and histories of how high this or that river have flooded in past century is relevant for it.

AND what histories you rely on ultimately comes from your religion.

Matthew Hunt
If you wanted to be scientific, then you would go to the latest research on this area.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Also, you have shown yourself somewhat disingenious.

If someone makes up Superman or Antman for fun, there are scientists who are perfectly willing to analyse the science which would really be involved.

If we take our religious texts seriously as real history, suddenly only real science is the proper context for scientific analysis.

I am very clearly among the latest research on how to combine C14 with Biblical chronology and I am trying to get in touch with latest research about how fast carbon 14 forms in atmosphere.

Here is my try:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Other Check on Carbon Buildup

Matthew Hunt
If I wanted to know about geology, I would pick up a textbook on the topic and then more specialised books on the aspects I am interested in then finally research articles on the topic I am interested in.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Fine, and how do you know I am not doing so?

Oh, note well, by Geology, I do not mean deep time.

I do very much mean Palaeontology and how vertebrate land palaeontology fits in the geography.

Or the experiments on instant stratification by Guy Berthaud.

You were content with 1982:

HomeCreation/Evolution JournalIssue 8 (Spring 1982)Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
(From your link)

Does it answer my research? No. RATE project? No.

Matthew Hunt
Why should we take religion as a basis for scientific research?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Because we should take history as one.

If you do hydrology of Paris region, you need to know how high Seine has flooded in the past, and you do that by history.

You need to know how frequent high floods are, you also know that by history.

So, no one is pretending Genesis is a science text book, but we do think it is correct history, which makes it relevant.

Matthew Hunt
We don't even think of genesis as correct history.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You don't, we do. By we, I meant we Creationists.

If you differ on us on what is history it is natural you won't agree with us on what is science.

Matthew Hunt
No. We don't.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I know you Evolutionists don't, you don't have to tell me that.

Since religions differ, it is no surprise some religions reject historicity of Genesis.

Including, obviously, the Marxist one.

Matthew Hunt
The theory of evolution makes complete sense to me. We develop computer simulations using it. It works incredibly well.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, but history is not determined by one computer simulation.

Also, that theory A can make a basis for a computer simulation which works incredibly well doesn't prove theory B can't make such a basis.

Try a computer simulation on this one:

I propose that from Flood (2957 BC) to c. 500 BC carbon levels rose drastically, and that the earlier stages of this rise involve carbon 14 having formed faster than at present.

My latest calculations involve a carbon rise from Flood to Babel at 8 times as fast and during Babel event ("thousand years of Göbekli Tepe" = 40 years of Babel, 406-446 after Flood) 11 times as fast as at present.

The objections you could theoretically pose are:

  • limits on how much cosmic rays can come in;
  • limits on how much cosmic rays we can survive when it comes in (we obviusly did survive those times).

I tried to get a computer simulation from Usoskin on this last one, he refused - because Creationism is not his religion.

I think if you tried, this would work incredibly well too.

Have a nice evening, looking forward tomorrow to answers both here and on Michelson Morley front.

Matthew Hunt
The computer simulation can show if a particular idea is any good.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, but not computer simulating another idea cannot show it is bad.

Matthew Hunt
I spoke about radiometric dating not simply radiocarbon dating. So straight off the bat you made a strawman.

Subthread to XIX
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I recall one streamlining all YEC into Barry Setterfield's theory of a changing halflife.

Daniel Quinones

The assumptions in radiometric dating in general apply to radio carbon dating specifically.

Matthew Hunt
There ARE no assumptions. They are the mathematical consequences of experimental facts.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
[on content of paper]
Much of this is over my head, as I am not of the Barry Setterfield school, I have no objections so far.

I think half lives are constant (by that probability, as you said, not absolutely).

Carbon 14 decayed at a rate of one halving every 5730 years as soon as there was any and decays at same rate now.

If nuke wars have occurred, this might have hastened decay for the time when it was exposed to nuke radiation, otherwise not.

Daniel Quinones
Matthew Hunt...until you know what the INITIAL ratio of a particular sample is at its formation you have no accurate means to date rocks by radiometric dating...that is the primary operating assumption envolved in attempting to estimate the age of any particular sample, by analogy, trying to tell how long a mechanical clock has been operating assumes you know what the initial state of the mainspring was when it was first assembled or started, without that knowledge you have no accurate estimate as to how long it has been running.

Matthew Hunt
"until you know what the INITIAL ratio of a particular sample is at its formation you have no accurate means to date rocks by radiometric dating"

This is a complete and utter lie. My notes actually explain why this isn't necessary.

Daniel Quinones
Matthew Hunt...if you have a sample that contains 50% parent material and 50% daughter material and you also know the rate of decay of the parent material in the sample, can you always determine accurately the age of the sample?

Matthew Hunt
Don't deflect. The key thing you claimed was that you needed to know the initial ratio of parent to daughter. My notes(if you had bothered to read them and you didn't it seems) went over this example.

Daniel Quinones
Just answer the question I example is stated the way it is for a reason.

Matthew Hunt
I pointed out where your initial statement was wrong. You have to deal with the explanation in my note BEFORE I answer any of your questions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"My notes actually explain why this isn't necessary."

Which exact line, I actually went through the note and missed that part?

Daniel Quinones
Matthew Hunt...No I do NOT....My question may or may not have anything to do with your previous comments or explanation....consider it a SEPARATE question for the purpose determining a FUTURE topic of discussion.

Matthew Hunt
Until you acknowledge your statement was false, that's what we're talking about...

Daniel Quinones
You may consider it however you like...I just want an answer to a simple question.

Matthew Hunt
Not until you acknowledge you were wrong. I can go over my notes with you if you want.

Daniel Quinones
Then show me in your notes where you answer that PARTICULAR question.

Matthew Hunt
The explanation of the method starts with equation 8 and ends with equation 11.

Daniel Quinones
Repost it here please.

Matthew Hunt
I can't post equations here.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Let us extend the analysis slightly. Suppose we allow the presence of daughter nuclei at time t0, then we have:" (an equation which is over my head, at least for now) "Because we have another unknown, it is no longer possible to solve directlyfor the age of the sample."

This is exactly what we are saying about the matter.

If we allow the presence of daughter nuclei at time t0, then it is no longer possible to solve directly for the age of the sample.

(Note, this does not quite concern carbon 14, since for carbon 14 the relative stability of atmospheric content gives at least a relative and for recent times a historically checked and verified indication of original content of radioactive nucleus type.)

"However if there is also present a different isotope of the daughter D′ which is neither radioactive nor formed from the decay of a long live parent then it is possible to find the age of the sample."

I suppose you mean, if you find lead of a different isotope than the one by Uranium decay, you can be sure that ...

  • a) a habitual ratio between types of lead will mark any deviation as lead formed by Uranium (or, other isotope, by Thorium) decaying;
  • b) the fact that there is a lead isotope not derived from U or Th means that any lead of the isotope where U goes is from U or any lead of the isotope where Th goes is from Th

    This, I consider as guesswork.

Daniel Quinones
"Because we have another unknown, it is no longer possible to solve directly for the age of the sample. However if there is also present a different isotope of the daughter D′ which is neither radioactive nor formed from the decay of a long live parent then it is possible to find the age of the sample."
Matthew Hunt...

This AGAIN assumes that you know for a FACT that the QUANTITY of the different daughter isotope was not any part of the initial ratios within the have just exchanged one assumption and added another.

Matthew Hunt
No I haven't This comes from the actual analysis of samples in the lab. Plus conservation of mass.

Daniel Quinones
I am not question the measurement...I am questioning your claim that you KNOW that the different daughter isotope was not present in the original ratio when the sample was formed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew Hunt we presume mass is conserved and we presume you can get the present ratio of isotopes parent element as well as "daughter isotope" and "non-daughter" isotope of the "dughter element".

We also agree "non-daughter" isotopes doesn't come from parent element.

The question is whether all atomic nuclei of "daughter isotope" are daughter nuclei or whether some atomic nuclei of "daughter isotope" may have been there from the start.

Matthew Hunt
See equation 8 for that.

Daniel Quinones
Equation 8 cannot tell me how a uranium atom is formed or any of its isotopes....without that knowledge you cannot claim you know what conditions or factors cause one isotope to form over or above another....that is an asumption not a fact.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Here is equation 8:

ND(t1) + NP (t1) = ND(t0) + NP (t0)

I consider this faulty.


ND(t1) + ND'(t1) + NP(t1) = ND(t0) + ND'(t0) + NP(t0)

With D' as non-daughter isotope of daughter element.

Of course, since ND'(t1) = ND'(t0), the rest will per accidens also be true, but, the problem is, you don't provide for how you exclude presence of daughter type isotope of daughter element at t0.

Daniel Quinones
Don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain...the wizard of OZ has spoken.

Matthew Hunt
"cannot tell me how a uranium atom is formed or any of its isotopes"

This is irrelevant. It is just a matter that it is formed. Which daughter elements are obtained from a given parent atom can be determined experimentally.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You can determine by experiment that Uranium 238 will decay to Lead 205.

That is not my problem. My point is, can you prove that Lead 205 always comes from Uranium 238 and is never there on its own?

Or, normal Argon is Argon 39. From Potassium 40 you get Argon 40. Can you prove that all Argon 40 is ex-Potassium?

(Not to mention, the direct method of K-Ar per se doesn't differentiate between Argon 39 and Argon 40, you have a separate Argon40/Argon 39 test for that one, if at all done).

* Footnote
* Daniel and 2 others manage the membership and moderators, settings and posts for The Biblical Worldview Defended!

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire