radiometric rubbish OR rock rubble :-)

Posted by anyman on Nov 15, 2002 at 18:05
(61.183.178.118)

bringing it to the top...from earth age

Of course, now we know (well, most of us) that radiometric dating permits the accurate determination of absolute dates.

i love this part...

this is pap, regurgitated pap, foul regurgitated pap

i'm glad "most of us" know, or think we know, "that radiometric dating permits the accurate determination of absolute dates :-)

the rest of us are still laboring under the illusion (apparently :-) that there are, oh, say, half a dozen or so assumptions involved...axioms, no less (axioms here meaning: assumptions that are unproven and unprovable

i will only deal with three of them here

#1 uniformitarianism (the present is the key to the past)...

this assumption is utterly essential to the cause (belief/faith system)...if one removes this peg, the whole shell game is exposed

i'm not going to go into all of the evidence (not the proverbial mountain, but MOUNTAINS :-) that indicate uniformitarianism is bankrupt and should have been a long dead and discarded philosophy, but i will cite a few examples that are especially relevant (there are many many many others across a host of disciplines and subdisciplines :-)

over the last several decades evidence surfaced that radiometric decay rates were not as constant ("absolute" or "uniform") as they were once thought to be...although the noted differences were minimal (~1-2%), it was a crack in the facade and meant that potentially larger discrepancies might be found (ie "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"...that sword cuts both ways and i have been using that phrase or another of the same meaning: "just because we don't know something now doesn't mean we won't in 50 or 500yrs," on this board for longer than you or dano or anyone else :-)

(cf huh, c-a dependence of the decay rate of 7Be on chemical forms, earth and planetary science letters 171:325–328, 1999; and kerr, r a tweaking the clock of radioactive decay, science 286(5441):882–883)

still, it wasn't much difference in the larger picture, or more accurately, depending on one's perspective it wasn't much and so it wasn't as powerfully persuasive as it should have been...after all, what are a few millions relative to hundreds of millions or even a hundred million relative to several billions of years, eh...well, what they aren't is "absolute" for starters :-)

then larger discrepancies were noted, like...

163 Dy (normally stable ) can, under certain conditions beta-decay into 163 Ho with a t 1/2 (halflife) of ~47days

(see jung, m et al first observation of bound-state b– decay, physical review letters 69(15)2164–2167, 1992)

here comes the whammer hammer :-)

the Re-Os system was experimentally, observably, repeatably revealed to, under certain conditions of b-decay, change its decay rate (usual t 1/2 = ~41-42ga..."ga" = billion(s) of years) being accelerated in excess of 1,000,000,000 times faster than normal

(bosch, f et al observation of bound-state b– decay of fully ionized 187Re physical review letters 77(26)5190–5193, 1996; see also kienle, p beta-decay experiments and astrophysical implications in: prantzos, n and harissopulus, s proceedings, nuclei in the cosmos pp181–186, 1999

there are other factors that could lead to even further acceleration of these processes

that's more than 1 BILLION times faster, baby...i hope you are keeping up :-)

the mechanisms are varied; aside from b b - decay, there is also huge decay rate fluctuation found under certain temperature conditions in the Lu-Hf system...the t 1/2 of 176 Lu can be accelerated from ~41ga to under 4hrs , something in the vicinity of ~14 orders of magnitude, dude :-)

(kappeler, f, beer, h, and k, wisshak s-process nucleosynthesis—nuclear physics and the classical model, reports on progress in physics 52:1006–1008, 1989; see also klay, n et al nuclear structure of 176Lu and its astrophysical consequences physical review c 44(6):2847–2848, 1991)

analyses indicate that there are at least 25 other elements whose nuclide decay rates are susceptible to considerable alteration and variance consequent to bound beta decay :-)

(takahashi, k et al bound-state beta decay of highly ionized atoms, physical review c 36(4)1522–1527, 1987)

accurate, absolute??? please give us a break :-)

i was glad to see you use two of my favorite words (accurate/absolute) in your comment...the one you left out, which also sticks in my craw, is "independent"...

most folks don't realize it but many widely differing dates are reported only in footnotes as "anomalous," and many others are thrown out altogether and never reported at all in the literature

many folks also don't realize that blind or double blind or triple blind dating tests are almost never conducted (those that are requested are almost invariably by creationary guyz)...so when you send in a sample for dating, you are expected to name the location, strata, depth, etc...what that tells the lab, is what "date" they are looking for (since they already have an a priori philosophy, world view that includes the evolutionary interpretation of the "geologic column")...the dates that do not "fit" are considered either wrong or anomalous and are discarded as "contaminated specimens" or somesuch

the point is...if the methods are accurate, absolute, and independent, then how can a date be considered "wrong" or "anomalous"...if the methodologies are accurate, absolute, and independent, then the age, whatever it might be, derived from testing would be the age...one would not be able to call it wrong or anomalous if they were truly independent...but the methodologies are not independent; they are HEAVILY reliant on a priori suppositions and assumptions regarding the geologic column and the age of the earth :-)

#2 original mother/daughter ratios...

it is almost invariably assumed that there were no daughter byproducts of the decay process when the system was either initially or most recently isolated (isolation being another inherent assumption to be considered below)

however, naturally occurring Pb (ie non-radiogenic) is a not an uncommon element...do we know what the original ratio of non-radiogenic and radiogenic lead was...nnoooooo, we don't...do we know what the original ratio of U-Pb was...nnooooo we don't

the initial presence of non-radiogenic lead would make these dates/rocks "appear" older than they actually are

#3 closed systems

first, there is no such thing as a truly closed/isolated system in reality...closed systems are thought constructs for theoretical purposes only...thought constructs derived from intelligent minds, no less...

second, uranium and lead salts et al are highly soluble in water and thus easily transported out of the system or into the system from external sources...

any rock system that has ever been exposed to water (ie most, if not all since about 75-85% of all crustal rocks are sedimentary, which are in turn formed in water) is highly susceptible to "contamination" or suggestive of dates other than actual even if one could safely assume a uniformitarian decay rate, which one cannot safely assume :-)

thus, while in reality we do not have closed/isolated systems, for the purposes of radiometric dating we assume that there are closed systems in reality, and further that they are quite common :-)

C'MON...give us a break :-)

and i am not even here going to delve into the subject of He (helium) that is a byproduct of radiodecay...we'll save that one for another time...if you already know where i am going with that, then you are welcome to address that problem too...no other evolutionary guy has, so far anyway, adequately addressed that issue...bring what you've got...be the first to give us a satisfactory evolutionary answer :-)

The first radiometric dating was done in 1905; it and subsequent measurements confirmed that the Earth was several billion years old.

confirmed???...depending on who interpreted the data and what their a priori world view was

it was confirmed only in the minds and imaginations of the faithful :-)

i wonder how many hundreds or thousands of "anomalous," "wrong," dates or "contaminated samples" were tossed in that process

Currently the best estimate of the age of the Earth is 4.55 billion years.

"estimate" ???...what happened to your "accurate" and "absolute"...oh yeah, while the earth was cooling and rocks were forming

well once again there is evidence suggesting that it doesn't take hundreds of millions or even millions of years for granites et al to form...that granites can form rapidly

It should be understood that estimating the ages of rocks using radiometric dating is an entirely separate technique from the radiocarbon (C-14) method for dating organic remains.

you sorta right...i wouldn't go so far as to say "entirely"...most of the principles are the same (ie determining ratios etc)...if you think that too picayune, so be it)...i understand the point that you are trying to make, and it is valid and needs to be made...you just didn't make it as clear as you should have

Radiometric dating of rocks is based on the decay of long lived isotopes of Potassium, Thorium, and Uranium.

what about rhenium, or lutetium...did you know about those

what about Rb (rubidium)...this one is great; the dispute over its halflife hasn't even been settled...ie we don't even know for sure what the halflife of rubidium is but it has been used as a radiometric geochronometer :-)

how about some of the others

give us a break :-)

Radiocarbon dating is based on the decay of the short lived C-14 isotope and is irrelevant to determining the age of the Earth.

you right...hey 1.7 outa 6 ain't bad :-)

your “accurate” and “absolute” [and independent] dating methodologies are radiometric rubbish in the rubble of the rocks :-)

but you welcome to try again :-)

ps -- much more to be said about this stuff but this post is already too long

Follow Ups:


Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:
Comments:

[ Forum ] [ New Message ]