Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

1949. Actually this 'phenomenon' is quite interesting. When you are to verify error of your opponent you can easily find the number, but when you have to confess that freshly formed rock is measured to be at the age of several million years you cannot name any number. How does that happen?

I'm guessing you missed the recent papers on the age of the Grand Canyon.

Here is one source that points out errors in your source

http://www.oldearth.org/ratedeception.htm

You cited "icr" as your source on science....

LOL!!!!! You crack me up, man.

It is 300 ... +/- 235, however a statistical error of +/- 235 is absolutely negligible in comparison to a standard deviation of +/- 2.35 billion.

Herald is a young-Earther LOL!!!!!! Wow this is fantastic.

Now don't try to sneak away from ownership of your own statements. YOU asked me to give you C14 dates from lava and specifically HAWAIIAN lava. I stated that its technical impossibility because the lava is devoid of C14 and its not a carbootite and it will give dumb dates .
You however, seem to be so ignorant of radionuclide dating that it wasn't until this response that your desire for 300 year old numbers couldn't be supplied since the concept of ISOTOPES wasn't even developed till 1920 and Martin Kamen et al didn't discover the natural isotopes of Carbon till 1940. What you posted, (At least I got you to visit the internet library) was the agreed upon date for Willard libby's C14 experiment.

I know of no such "errors". The GSA and USGS tables of radioisotope dates do not show ANY errors or disagreements beyond about +/- 0.15% that I am aware of.
For the ICR to even be considered a valued series of dates you would have to change the mathematics for the LAMBDA value (decay constant) for each isotope. WHY does the ICR feel that their lambda values ARE EVEN marginally close to being correct? The DECAY CONSTANT values have been agreed upon and are published by an INTERNATIONAL ;subcomission of geochronology (These numbers are those used to also develop the fuel and weapons grade constants by the US and ALL other nuclear powers)

cf Steiger,R H, and E Jager.,1977, Subcommission on Geochronology; Convention on the use of decay constants-in geo and cosmochronology.Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Amsterdam. v36. p 358-363.
You have to accept what parados clipped above, (something published by OLD EARTH CREATIONISTS). Basically they are sying that the ICR is quite incorrect.
Yanking my crank to comment on a technology that is obviously gonna be incorrect (we don't use Sr/Rb) dating on multi layrd rocks because the presence of non radiogenic 87Sr is all over the place. Its ubiquitous in all rocks. They apparently didn't want to use a correct isochron methos or ,(As I would , were it me)
Id date it using 2X[K/Ar-K/Ar]. I know Id be taking a chance if my sampling were hammy because Ar is "reset" by degassing.

THERE IS SOOOO MUCH of which you are unware. don't have to spend any more time deousing the ICR data report, cause prados found a paper by another camp of Christins that did a good job. (AND these are guys ostensibly from the same . belief camp. It just appears that you guys have an argument about the age of the earth). If I were you, Id switch camps. Theirs actually makes some sense scientifically .

I cannot cite any 'serious' source, for the so called serious sources are concealing any standard deviation in the metrics.
What sources do you need? Just take a piece of any rock and mesure it with different techniques and tell us what is the age of the rock.

And you know this how? You didn't even know that C14 was first discovered in 1940 , and you had quickly tried to study up in the space of one evening.
Youre a fraud .

No, I asked you to tell us how much is the age of fresh lava ... according to the carbon dating and you started developing philosophy thesis that the lava may not contain carbon because you have to confess that freshly formed lava is not at the age of 0 (zero) ... by any method.


Obviously. If you continue cherry picking the rocks and the methods you may never find out how far the standard deviation between the various methods may go.


Absolutely ... like for example how can somebody write novels in an answer to the question: What is the number?
The valid answer to such a question contains digits, only digits, and nothing else. Neither upper case, nor lower case subject-centered philosophical reasoning ... and stories of the unexpected.

I am reading the books that you avoid recommending.

WE NEVER DO C14 of fresh anything, let alone carbon-free lava

The only sampling with significant variances are those the ICR and guys like Steve Austen had taken. These wre debunked several times and were severly criticized in the literature as FRAUDULENT BULLSHIT data. Its too bad that theres no one on the ICR staff that is not trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Spnd a little more time ith SCIENCE and NATURE than with ICR or Discovery Institute. They have no interest in science otherwise their methods would have to change the LAMBDA (Decay Constants) of isotopes. Are you suggesting that the values in the lit are wrong?

I guess you were trying to make a point here. I hope you realize that there are over 1500 active volcanoes on earth. Which one were you NOW interested in (Since you've denied that you first asked me for one of the Hawaiian volcano data.)

I suggest that you keep reading your ICR crap. It doesn't require any deeper knowledge than the Bible's inerrant views.

You've gotta understand that, in my days as a teacher of geology, I couldn't abide mediocrity. Here on A2K, I cant ask you to fill out a
"drop/ add" form. You are free to post ignorance all you wish. I hope others can see through your tripe

I read your ICR links . C14 DOES NOT DECAY into C13 or C12 as they say. (ITs beta decay and decays into N14). How cn you place any beliefs in a bunch of yahoos that don't even get the chemistry correct?

If you can't measure the zero age of the rocks, how do you calibrate and validate the methods that you are using ... as a basis for constructing various mind-blowing theories?
FM, obviously you always need some material doer (opponent in a discussion, author of an article, organization, etc.) in order to destroy him/it.
Can't you simply comment on the theme: do you have any deviations in the readings of the age of the rocks by the different methods ... and how much is the greatest deviation that you have observed?
How do you determine that you are measuring the age of the solid rock ... and not the age of the magma from the kernel of the Earth, for example ... and when do you take into consideration (in the method) when the magma has become solid rock?

You are quite incorrect again Herald. ALL radioisotope techniques have several "Calibration techniques". For example,using C14 for archeological dates and such natural things as corals,charcoal, plant material found in paleoresidences etc, we have a "close in calibration" using tree ring analyses and a newer calibration technique developd by Fairbanks et al in 2004.
Hers a cc of his paper and its a road map of C14 calibration. and a track of std dev. o the results (as derived from same labs, methods etc)

http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/pubs/2005Fairbanks+table.pdf<br />

The techniques that I use are about a dozen (each with a special application, sampling requirements, calibration, and quality control for duplicates, field blanks, "lab travel calibration' etc. I used to do U/Th?Pb techniques but I now use several COMMERCIAL LABS that do the analyses for me (the techniques are so uniform and data so routine, we don't even do our own analyses any more)
Im not criticizing any method. Im just annoyed that you don't understand that each method has a prescribed reuirement for materials that are commonly dated using that method.
In other words. We don't use C14 for geological and archeological material greater than 45K years (some say 50 but those dates are usually all funky). If I were sampling really young stuff Id use a backass method that relies upon the disequilibrium of U /Th. (One of the methods we use for oldest rocks can be used for some of the youngest). (87Rb/ 87Sr) is used for determining ages of metamorphic crystallization. But calibration involves correction for ubiquitous 87Rb in just about "everything"

(187Re/187Os) Rhenium/Osmium dating is very important to me because we use it in detecting ages and tracking SULFIDE ORES .
These are but a few of the 13 overlapping isotopic tricks beside C14.

There are many non radiogenic geochronological techniques . Many of these are relative age determination techniques and not all are specific calendar dates.
Fission tracking
Cosmogenic Details and "counts"exposure to 3He ,36Cl,10Be, 16Al

Thermoluminescence (This is especially good for archeological samples between 50K nd 800K years old)

Optical Luminescence -similar ages as bove

Flourine accretion. Bone will accept Flourine fom the environment s it converts from a Calcium Apatite to a Calcium FlouroApatite. Bones in the 500 to 25000 year intervals are pretty accurately dated using this reltive technique

Spin Resonance- This is good for samples 1.5 Million years or younger. Ive only seen data using spin resonance I have never taken part in any work using the technique. SO Im only recalling things from literature .

Tree rings and pottery hydrolysis re-crystallization,

Stratigraphy -Still, one of the best techniques to "Bracket" unknown dates.

Also, whenever something is just going on (like Hawaiian volcanoes) we do use CAMERAS to record n event rather than spend good money to do some radiological dating technique that we can just as well see happening right before our yes. That's why Ive always suspected the ICR techniques as fraudulent because they don't seem to apply any of the "common sense" field techniques.
1.When someone does a series of radiological sampling techniques at a single site, AND then doesn't let anyone of the science world review the techniques .
2.AND when they use different labs for totally different techniques but don't share the sampling data with the labs. (as ICR once did with samples they just sent to Georgia Tech Radioisotope lab).

3AND when they report out data with it being totally unreviewed or QA'd it kinda perks up my "honesty antennae".

I SUSPECT THEY ARE JUST PLYING GAMES because Creationists don't have any research they can do. They are functionally bound by their religious convictions and they NEED to find fault with science so they can destroy the science behind evolution. When you understand that, all else becomes clear.
Lots of non radiogenic

It must be very difficult to live in that state.

FM, you said that you don't measure the newly formed lava ... at all ... with any method. So, you don't have any calibration at the zero point. I don't know what you are measuring and what you are doing, but one cannot calibrate anything by intermediate points only.
The standard calibration of any scale is by the zero point and the max possible reading ... in both directions.

[. Youre trying to make a generality out of one statement. I WOULD NOT, because I don't have any interest in DATING successive lava , tephra, or ash layers at a volcano. Someone who dates successive layers MAY, or MAY NOT . Because the "calibration" is entirely methods based. (Im not sure where you got this concept of hunting for a "Zero" point) In many specimens, a "Baseline" for that specimen is developed by using MS counting of each isotope, atom by atom to determine its actual concentration . Each daughter isotope (except for K/Ar) can be directly compared and used as a "calibration curve". Standards are a five point calibration curve or a three point for really high
concentrations

Most of the time we don't have anything like a "zero" layer due to the rock species or metamorphism.

Ash flows are usually measured using K/Ar which has its own unique calibration gymnastics. In each method (and this is also true for U/Th methods).In these isotopes we have a whole family of methods based on measuring multi ratios of several intermediate daughter products down their decay series.
I, PERSONALLY would use a camera to record the age of a recent lava flow(especially if I were standing on a pile of ash that everyone knew the date of eruption, like Mt ST Helens last one). Then Id go and seek historical data and even newspapers. That would actually be more accurate than any isotopic method which all have a +/- 1% or so error.
For anyone who is actually dating multiple ash flows that overlie each other (like they did at Mt St Helens and nearby volcanoes like Lassen, Ranier,Shasta, Hood ) they would actually select their methods based upon detecting specific minerals and would count the concentrations of isotopes and determine the ratios of as many intermediate daughters as are availble .They would use standard curve calibration if using MS/MS methods and would also determine whether K40 had been "reset" by degassing (Theres where the ICR also made another error, they reported degassed K/ Ar feldspars and got older ages than a camera picture would have concluded.)
Yet, deeper (older) samples from older ash layers had their K/Ar correctly determined by neutron irradiation in a reactor. This overcomes the limitations of "degassing"

That's why many techniques cost a lot of project funds and unless dating itself is an end point in itself , we most often use stratigraphy and those other non-isotopic methods I talked about.

Says who? some ICR dude? "One" does it in rare earth and nuclear chemistry every day. Thats why We use the term "unknown samples". Multiple samples and calibration "curves " enables us to get along very nicely.

I don't know much about this but I understood that lava carbon 14 has all gone due to the time it has been away from organic life on the surface and is thus useful to check that tests on ex-organic material which is young enough to retain measurable amounts of C 14 are not contaminated in the test environment.

How about a peer-reviewed scientific journal????

Have you ever read one? Clearly not. Please, go back to your rock and get back under it. You're making us homo sapiens look stupid.