The hottest period in history

farmerman wrote:

Actually GEOLOGY uses what ever robust means available to help determine ages of portions of the earth. From simple correlation to more complex tools, like radioisotoies, stable isotopes, magnetostratigraphy, palinspastic geometry,basin analyses, which includes sediment transport, metamorphic reconstruction and fossils. Big bucks are waged on whether were right or not. SO a "belief" that we cant decipher ages of strata and igneous or metamorphic provinces is as ridiculous as not believing in radio.

What frosts my ass is that seemingly smart and educated people fall for crap like thisDR DINO, the idot that is KEnt Hovind

A short while ago I ran across a website (not a creationist website) that pointed out how radiocarbon testing has to be done under strictly controlled conditions since things like temperature and atmospheric pressure can alter the results. If the results in the lab are not constant, what chance is there that radiocarbon can accurately date anything?

If we cannot document what past conditions in nature have been, how can we know how radiocarbon decay has been sped up or slowed down throughout history?

BTW: When I went back to the link the site was no longer available and I haven't found the information anywhere else.

0 Replies

radiocarbon has always been done by counting the decays of the ion . Newer techniques in all radioisotope methods use ion accelerations rather than decays. This increases the sensitivity by several orders of mag and that lets us use really small samples from precious artifacts. SInce radiocarbon accelearation texhniques require correction factors for recent increases in C14 the technique under ASTM standards requires certain QA procedures to assure consistency. Its no real big problem since an error of a couple of percent is just an error of the Time (plus or minus window of accuracy).
We only use C14 for water in waters that contain some organics from deep springs and conduits.

The Creationists have always stated that all radioactive decays have actually changed through time, since we werent around to see it. The change they want us to bellieve often does occur but only under special conditions. However, when we change the decay rates by " critical mass Speeding it all up" , we have what we call an "Atomic Bomb".
If the world were really 6000 years old rather than the 4.5 Billion that evidence shows, wed have
4500000000/6000 or 4500000/6 ,which would mean that radioactive decay rate would increase what? 750000 TIMES FASTER. JEEZUS, wed be fried by just living here with their logic. It wouldnt quite be bomb territory but its be super rad dosage country. Maybe some extremophilic bacteria could survive but not much else.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

radiocarbon has always been done by counting the decays of the ion . Newer techniques in all radioisotope methods use ion accelerations rather than decays. This increases the sensitivity by several orders of mag and that lets us use really small samples from precious artifacts.

The problems with radiocarbon were apparently known to Libby and others among the scientists that did the initial research. Did they have the same apparatus and techniques that scientists today have? We didn't used to be able to carbon date small samples of anything.

Quote:

SInce radiocarbon accelearation texhniques require correction factors for recent increases in C14 the technique under ASTM standards requires certain QA procedures to assure consistency. Its no real big problem since an error of a couple of percent is just an error of the Time (plus or minus window of accuracy).

I don't think recent increases in C14 are what the first scientists were accounting for. They were worried about things like temperature and atmospheric pressure.

Quote:

We only use C14 for water in waters that contain some organics from deep springs and conduits.

According to the History Channel Carbon 14 is used to verify year dates for layers in oceanic core drilling samples that are used to study the earth's climate history.

Quote:

The Creationists have always stated that all radioactive decays have actually changed through time, since we werent around to see it.

Since we weren't around for all time to observe radioactive decay, and we know that decay rates (at least for C14) are not constant in nature, why should we assume that decay rates have always been constant?

Quote:

If the world were really 6000 years old rather than the 4.5 Billion that evidence shows, wed have
4500000000/6000 or 4500000/6 ,which would mean that radioactive decay rate would increase what? 750000 TIMES FASTER.

Isn't the amount of radioactive material that we assume existed in the past based on radiometric dating, i.e., we assume that the parent-daughter nucleotide ratio has been constant and the amount that is assumed to have once existed is based on today's observed decay rates? If these decay rates have not been constant, then we have no way of knowing how much of any given radioactive material the earth originally had.

0 Replies

where to begin

Quote:

The problems with radiocarbon were apparently known to Libby and others among the scientists that did the initial research. Did they have the same apparatus and techniques that scientists today have? We didn't used to be able to carbon date small samples of anything.

Science and apparatus moves ahead by leaps. We still use the same decay formulae and Beers Law, but we use different and better equipment based upon Quantum chemistry not" coulter counter and scintillometers". Wealso can sample carbon sources from mollusc shells and cavern limestones and oceanic methane deposits and carbonaceous artifacts

Quote:

I don't think recent increases in C14 are what the first scientists were accounting for. They were worried about things like temperature and atmospheric pressure

You probably missed a point in the lecture. We insert a "finnegan factor" that accounts for the artificially increased C14 during the period 1953 to 1985 (nuclear testing). Correction for T and P is within an American Society of TEsting and MAterials Standard ASTM

Quote:

According to the History Channel Carbon 14 is used to verify year dates for layers in oceanic core drilling samples that are used to study the earth's climate history.

You are correct, when I said "We" I meant my group (my company) only uses C14 for water sampling and sourcing. We measure ratios of C12/C13/C14 to compare where the water originated underground. (Its important when one mines for dissolved stuff like OSmium and Platinum at 50 ppm.

Ocean cores C14 are only good for the Holocene and late Pleistocene

Quote:

Isn't the amount of radioactive material that we assume existed in the past based on radiometric dating, i.e., we assume that the parent-daughter nucleotide ratio has been constant and the amount that is assumed to have once existed is based on today's observed decay rates? If these decay rates have not been constant, then we have no way of knowing how much of any given radioactive material the earth originally had.

Well, we have plenty of data on the relative abundance of elements over an atomic number of , say 40. These were of approximate equal abundance, that suggests that, whatever the formation process was, atomic nuclei fo the same complexity were formed in roughly equal amounts. Since U238 with a half life of 4.5 billion years is about the same as that of say bismuth, then these elements couldnt have formed at more than a few thousand million years ago, otherwise U238 would have largely disappeared through disintegration by now. However K40 , with a shorter half life has disintegrated and decayed to a karge extent.
A number of nuclei such as Pu 239 are gone because their half lives are much shorter

Another way of looking at it is to consider U235 NS u238. iF THEY FORMED AT ROUGHLY THE SAME amounts , their present ratios are about 1:140, this is due to the shorter half life of U235, which causes it to disappear much more quickly. U235 has a half life of 700 million years, so , inorder to get it to 1/140 ratio to that of U238, would take about 5 Billion years.

There are other ways to get at this, such as estimation of when the earths crust became stable, or the existence of non radiogenic lead v radiogenic lead from meteorites. Its really an interesting area of inquiry and its fairly, but not completely accurate because , as the Creationists say, we werent there each day, were doing a vast forensic inquiry.

My simple ass calculation was merely to divide the age of the earth according to Creationists into the age of the earth as defined by science and wed come up with a "speed up" of atomic decay of about 270000 times. WE know that this cant be true just as logic and evidence show us that there wasnt a universal flood. If the rad decay that Creationist would want you to believe were true, this planet would be uninhabitable.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Science and apparatus moves ahead by leaps. We still use the same decay formulae and Beers Law, but we use different and better equipment based upon Quantum chemistry not" coulter counter and scintillometers".

This doesn't explain how and why observed decay rates for C14 are not constant in nature.

Quote:

Well, we have plenty of data on the relative abundance of elements over an atomic number of , say 40. These were of approximate equal abundance, that suggests that, whatever the formation process was, atomic nuclei fo the same complexity were formed in roughly equal amounts.

And these data are what?

Quote:

Since U238 with a half life of 4.5 billion years [/qutoe]

And what tells you that the half life of U238 has always been 4.5 billion years? Are you certain that the decay rate for U238 is not affected by temperature and pressure the way the decay rate for C14 is?

Quote:
My simple ass calculation was merely to divide the age of the earth according to Creationists into the age of the earth as defined by science and wed come up with a "speed up" of atomic decay of about 270000 times.

And isn't your sped up rate based on the rates that you accept as universal based on the age of the earth that you already wanted to believe?

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

Are you certain that the decay rate for U238 is not affected by temperature and pressure the way the decay rate for C14 is?

Find me a source that documents that the half life of C14 varies from 5700 years (and change) with temperature and temperature. The reasons that C14 is no longer accurate for any living matter post say 1850 is because of the burning of fossil fuels and post say 1945 because of atmospheric nuclear testing. As for the strawman on the lack of consistency of the decay rates of any radionuclide that is to rationalize young earth creation, there is no evidence that it occurs.

Now even discounting nuclear dating the physical problem with young earth creation is not new. In the 1860s using many simplifying and accelerating assumptions the deeply religious and antieviolutionist Lord Kelvin used Newton's laws of cooling to determine that the orb upon which we stand is much older than that required by young earth creationists. He determined it was at least 24 million years.

Rap

0 Replies

raprap wrote:

Find me a source that documents that the half life of C14 varies from 5700 years (and change) with temperature and temperature.

I said the decay rate, not the half-life, changes with things like temperature and pressure. I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on how an inconstant decay rate affects the half-life, but I would venture that the half-life would be inconstant as well.

Quote:

As for the strawman on the lack of consistency of the decay rates of any radionuclide that is to rationalize young earth creation, there is no evidence that it occurs.

Have I said on this board that I am a young earth creationists?

http://www.cq.rm.cnr.it/c-14.html

"Some assumptions implied in radiocarbon dating are to considered. The initial 14C level in the biomass (A*), was first assumed to be constant through the whole time reach of radiocarbon dating and quite unconstrained by species effects and geographical location. Later it was recognized that significant and systematic fluctuations in the 14CO2 content of the atmosphere occurred in the past and these are responsible of biasing to a variable extent the accuracy of radiocarbon dating."

Meaning radiocarbon dating does not work because we cannot possibly anticipate all of the possible variations in radiocarbon-dioxide that have occurred throughout the earth's history.

And you also have to consider the fact that since C14 is made when cosmic radiation bombards nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere, any variation in the rate at which cosmic radiation reaches the earth will mean variations in the amount of C14 that is made. So the C14 to C12 ratio hasn't been constant on earth throughout the earth's history.

0 Replies

The rate of nuclear decay is directly related only to the half life.

Half life is the time it takes half of any radioactive material to decay, I'll call it the usual variable t1/2

Elementary Differential Calculus demonstrates that decay is of the form

N=N0*exp(-lmbda*t)

where N is the amount of material you have now, N0 is the amount you started with, t is the time between now and then, and lmbda is the decay rate (your so called variable decay constant) and exp() is the natural exponential function.

So if half life (t1/2) is used for the time then the amount of material you have now is N0/2, and the decay expression becomes

N0/2=N0*exp(-lmbda*t1/2)

since N0 is now on both sides and N0<>0 you can divide it out and

1/2=exp(-lmbda*t1/2)

taking the natural logarithm

ln(1/2)=-lmbda*t1/2

since Ln(1/2)=-ln(2)

then Lmbda=ln(2)/t1/2

or the decay constant is equal to the logarithm of 2 (about 0.69) divided by the half life.

Now I don't know about you, but to me the decay constant is only a function of half life and I don't see pressure or temperature anywhere in this relationship.

Rap

0 Replies

Oh! C14 decay is only accurate for about 10 half lives, so if a formerly living sample is older than 50,000 years or so it isn't accurate and C14 analysis is not considered credible.

Rap

0 Replies

Quote:

This doesn't explain how and why observed decay rates for C14 are not constant in nature.

Ive explained by appealing to a logical construct why deacy is constant. Your statement is false. I really dont know where youve gotten it. The only comment Ive made is that C14 has been super saturated in its occurence during bomb testing years .

Quote:

said the decay rate, not the half-life, changes with things like temperature and pressure. I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on how an inconstant decay rate affects the half-life, but I would venture that the half-life would be inconstant as well.

Decay and half life are related mathematically as rap showed. The techniques which use one of about 3 different kinds of mass specs keep P/T constant not because theres a variable rate of disintegration but to keep all variables constant within the sample (especially in the case of whats called a "parentless radionuclide". As rap mentioned the decayphenom is iINDEPENDENT of PT . Im getting a strange feeling that youve seen some of the Morris/Snelling/Austen Creationist junk which make totally incorrect assumptions in their methodologies where they use a relationship that is independent of decay rates, constants and the half lives of individual elements.. They also state that ENvironmental radiation can change the rate of decay, this is also incorrect. They also state that environmental radiation would "spontaneously" manifest itself anf then, just as quickly "spontaneously disappear", another incorrect statement(with the notable exception of atmospheric testing and N14). Also, by a mathematical relationship of varying radiation levels at the erths surface and the interior vary by a relationship that always produces an apparent age that is greater than the actual age (THis mathematical relationship is also incorrect)
LAwrence Berkely has an excellent page that explains and develops the case for radioisotope decay determination involving XRF detectors rather than more complex systems

experiments in the chem lab to work with radioactive decay

Perdue has an exce;lent resource page to allow students to fully follow the "various order " rate equations for rad decay and half life determinationintro to C14 determination
I direct students there to take time and review a well presented series of pages on the techniques underpinning.

Then , the USGS(godblessem) has a basic resource page on Rad Time Scales based upon decay constantsUSGS on Radiometric dating

Quote:

I said the decay rate, not the half-life, changes with things like temperature and pressure. I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on how an inconstant decay rate affects the half-life, but I would venture that the half-life would be inconstant as well

The rates of rad decay are all first order as rap has developed. Uisng our savvy of the kinetics, we can determine rate constants (KEY WORD IS CONSTANTS), the original amounts the reamaining amounts, half lives and apply that to dating. The rate constants and the half lives are related mathematically by an equation, so Im not sure whose been selling you the bridge.

There's a really good popular explanation of rad dating and its accuracy done from a CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE by Roger Wiens. I dont have it here, its in my handout pile at school. Google up Roger Wiens or "RAdiometric Dating, A christian PErspective" (keep the phrase in quotes do it doesnt get broken up and youll get ten bazillion hits with each word.

Quote:

"Some assumptions implied in radiocarbon dating are to considered. The initial 14C level in the biomass (A*), was first assumed to be constant through the whole time reach of radiocarbon dating and quite unconstrained by species effects and geographical location. Later it was recognized that significant and systematic fluctuations in the 14CO2 content of the atmosphere occurred in the past and these are responsible of biasing to a variable extent the accuracy of radiocarbon dating

Since C14 isnt accurate much past 35 K years or about 7-10 half lives (WHichever comes first, results may vary). Its not a technique that is a choice for deep time .ALSO, you have fallen into the Creationist math trap by that quaote
Lemme see if I can make it simple without blowing our minds. Austen and Moriss's techniques for C14 (also Snelling) assume that "environmental radiation" affects all rad elements the same way but without affecting living things. Austen says that
1the quantity of an element no 1 is=A+R(To)+k(R)(T*)
and the quantity of a second element is=cA+cR(To)+k(cR)(T1)+cR(T*) HE then calcs age for the first element by dividing its weight mass by its decay rate (R) and an age for the second element by dividing its amount by its decay rate (cR) From the above, the result will show that the its the same age for both elements, or A/R+To+k(T')+T*. SInce the real age is To+T'=1+T*, Austen concludes that the age determined is actually greater than the real age. Of course its crap

The above was rearranged by an individual after taking Henry Morris's

originalThe GENESIS FLOOD where Morris (later Austen) stated that the original amounts of the two elements were of te same proportions , say A, and cA (c is the ratio of the two elements at time of "creation") now, heres where he gets tricky, he states that "AT some time the environmental radiation increases, both decay rates will be increased. (remember I calced by a simple ratio how the increase in rad rates would leave this planet a lifeless hunk of rock). These increses(he says) will be proportional and he multiplies eacxh by a factor (k) and that the increased decay rates continue through time T'. Bfore this, the normal rates persisted for a time To and following they applied again for a time T*

The discussion wont get very far when you begin with the misunderstanding that decay rates are variable and differ with P/T. The uncertainties of half life determinations are quite tiny. All rad element half lives are known within 2% except for Samnarium , Leutetium and Rhenium, because their half lives are very long , our methods of detremination have an error of about 3-5% (rhenium only). The rteal,fact is that these half lives do NOT vary for hundreds of thousands of years (This is made from crystals from very recent melts where weve got good age control by magnetics and pole declenation ageing)

Theres a lot of chicanery out there. Austen and Snelling have "dated" zircons from Mt ST HElens using K/Ar and got results of 1 million years for a magma that was clearly 25 years old. This was because the Ar was being bubbled up from a deeper older source and was added to the overall mix. Thus, the technique was fooled, but, instead of looking at the calibration and potential reasons (since they knew the actual date of the Mt ST Helens eruption), thee guys merely went and reported the data without discussing the phenomenon of "parentless ARgon" and "deep source AR-40". Instead of showing how a system is inaccurate, this data actually helped quantitate the amount of parentless Ar that can be expected in lava melts in continental and oceanic crusts

0 Replies

flaja-CAn you point out where you got this information about the effects of P/T on decay constants? Maybe rap or I can get some handle on what was the context and so, maybe discover the error.

0 Replies

raprap wrote:

The rate of nuclear decay is directly related only to the half life.

Half life is the time it takes half of any radioactive material to decay, I'll call it the usual variable t1/2

Elementary Differential Calculus demonstrates that decay is of the form

N=N0*exp(-lmbda*t)

where N is the amount of material you have now, N0 is the amount you started with, t is the time between now and then, and lmbda is the decay rate (your so called variable decay constant) and exp() is the natural exponential function.

So if half life (t1/2) is used for the time then the amount of material you have now is N0/2, and the decay expression becomes

N0/2=N0*exp(-lmbda*t1/2)

since N0 is now on both sides and N0<>0 you can divide it out and

1/2=exp(-lmbda*t1/2)

taking the natural logarithm

ln(1/2)=-lmbda*t1/2

since Ln(1/2)=-ln(2)

then Lmbda=ln(2)/t1/2

or the decay constant is equal to the logarithm of 2 (about 0.69) divided by the half life.

Now I don't know about you, but to me the decay constant is only a function of half life and I don't see pressure or temperature anywhere in this relationship.

Rap

Only if you assume that the parent : daughter ratio has been constant for all time, i.e., no new radioactive parent is ever made or if it is the decay rate is sufficient to keep the ratio the same. If the amount of cosmic radiation reaching the earth has varied over time, then the amount of C14 that is produced has varied over time as well. So you cannot use the ratio that we observe today to indicate something's age because you don't what the ratio was when the material was formed.

And you have to assume as well that neither the parent nor the daughter materials migrate into or out of the sample of material that is being dated. This isn't a reasonable assumption for all situations.

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

Only if you assume that the parent : daughter ratio has been constant for all time, i.e., no new radioactive parent is ever made or if it is the decay rate is sufficient to keep the ratio the same. .

Don't you guys know that Flajaidioticum is produced by the decay of all other atoms and has a varying number of protons, nuetrons and electrons and can decay into any other atoms simply by flaja asking for such decay?

0 Replies

That would only have occurred if 1) the cosmic/gamma ray incidence suddenly increases greatly 2) a fission or fusion reaction occurred in the atmosphere; 3) the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increased as the result of burning carbon sources devoid of C14 (e.g. fossil fuels) any time in the last 50,000 years or so. 2 and 3 have occurred, but those are documented and the result will be to screw up any dating from these dates forward---that is our progeny in the 45th century will not be able to date formerly living materials from the 1940s. So that leaves us with 1.

Now a sudden increase in cosmic/gamma rays could occur if there was a cosmological event, say a nova from a small nearby star or a major solar flash from good old sol---but the problem with this occurrence is that there would also be a mass die off of any inhabitants in the wake, and since we're restricting ourselves to the past 50,000 year there would be a pretty significant fossil record of such an event. And that record isn't there. So 1 is unlikely.

The consequence C14 dating is pretty good for any formerly living matter in the last 50,000 years or so (no more than ten half lives of C-14). Consequently carbon dating is limited to the near prehistoric and the historic.

Rap

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Ive explained by appealing to a logical construct why deacy is constant.

Logic? How about actually observed facts? The information I had was from a news service website. It was not a creationist website so get off your high horse. Darwinists themselves admit that there are major problems with carbon dating because the assumptions that radiocarbon dating is based on cannot be verified.

When a radiocarbon testing lab determines a date, is the procedure conducted under standard conditions of temperature and pressure? If so, why?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

flaja-CAn you point out where you got this information about the effects of P/T on decay constants? Maybe rap or I can get some handle on what was the context and so, maybe discover the error.

Like I said before the website that had it no longer works. But it was not a creationist website.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

flaja-CAn you point out where you got this information about the effects of P/T on decay constants? Maybe rap or I can get some handle on what was the context and so, maybe discover the error.

Possibly a sudden dramatic increase in atmospheric pressure, say if a few thousand years ago atmospheric pressure was 10 or 12 times what it is today---then by application of the ideal gas law the concentration of nitrogen in the upper atmosphere would be 10 to 12 as great and the generation of C14 would be 10 to 12 times as great. My only problem with this scenario is that the sudden decrease in pressure would be accompanied with adiabatic atmospheric cooling.

Rap

0 Replies

raprap wrote:

farmerman wrote:
flaja-CAn you point out where you got this information about the effects of P/T on decay constants? Maybe rap or I can get some handle on what was the context and so, maybe discover the error.

Possibly a sudden dramatic increase in atmospheric pressure, say if a few thousand years ago atmospheric pressure was 10 or 12 times what it is today---then by application of the ideal gas law the concentration of nitrogen in the upper atmosphere would be 10 to 12 as great and the generation of C14 would be 10 to 12 times as great. My only problem with this scenario is that the sudden decrease in pressure would be accompanied with adiabatic atmospheric cooling.

Rap

Some creationists propose that the waters above the firmament (Genesis 1:7) were a vapor canopy that gave the earth a warm climate while also blocking cosmic radiation and a few creationists say the water canopy did increase atmospheric pressure and this extra availability of oxygen aided metabolism and this in turn allowed things like dinosaurs and giant ferns to reach the size we see in the fossil record.

The water canopy is also claimed to have contributed to Noah's Flood and its loss not only opened the earth up to cosmic radiation but also allowed enough of the earth's heat to escape that it lead to an ice age.

I've only researched the water canopy issue in passing, so I cannot comment much on the science involved. I am not completely convinced that the waters above the firmament mean what these creationists say they mean.

0 Replies

Quote:

Darwinists themselves admit that there are major problems with carbon dating because the assumptions that radiocarbon dating is based on cannot be verified.

Your full of it. There are about 40 different radioisotope measurement techniques and C14 is but one and one of the techniques that can only be used for relatively brief time durations. Youre now beginning to make **** up and I think weve been patient .

Quote:

When a radiocarbon testing lab determines a date, is the procedure conducted under standard conditions of temperature and pressure? If so, why?

Did you read anything posted earlier or are you just waiting to post adlib. Yes, I mentioned an ASTM standard for C14 and the use of Quality Control procedures which require Standard procedures for QA reasons. The biggest factors are surrogate analyses and multiple runs and calibration of the detectors by substitution of known samples.

Quote:

The water canopy is also claimed to have contributed to Noah's Flood and its loss not only opened the earth up to cosmic radiation but also allowed enough of the earth's heat to escape that it lead to an ice age.

If you "believe " That there even was a "Noahs Flood" then I submit that questioning details about radicarbon or any radiometric dating is not your major problem, reality is.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Your full of it. There are about 40 different radioisotope measurement techniques

And they are all based on the same assumptions while the last thing any scientist should do is assume anything.

0 Replies

The hottest period in history

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know