How accurate is radiometric dating?

@Blue Grass 6,

Quote:

If you're worried about extraneous C14 being reported in specimens over 65K, shouldn't you also be worried about extraneous C14 in specimens under 65K too? Either way, the specimen is going to report younger than it actually is,

There are all kinds of lab methods to control random and systematic errors as well as purposeful added error by messing with the techniqiues. As I said above, C14 is a method in which we compare the
radioactive decay of a parent isotope to a daughter isotope based on the half life and the decay constant where these two values are related by a simple reciprocal. Since daughter products increase and parent isotope decreases in the method, we must handle the sample with a number of QA methods and accuracy analyses. Introduction of contaminant "young" carbon, like shellacs or even CO2 in wah waters, can skew the analyses. The labs are sophisticated enought to take controls they normally do, but sample collection and preservation during transfer (Called "Chain of Custody") MUST hndle the samples with enough concern that recognizes field introductio n of young C.
Its easy for a fraudulent team to collect and "doctor" a sample or give false field records to the lABS. Then, by ignoring possible contamination, and if the lab is not made aware, their sample results in (calculated years) will always be younger and sometimes millions of years younger. It takes a cooperative effort between the field and the lab to recognize and eliminate potential errors.
All the things you worry about are actual occurrences but not fatal flaws in the method. After all, if you know anything about chemistry or quantitative analyses , you recognize that all methods are fraught with possible errors. So, our methods and protocols have been carefully developed over the years so that introduced errors dont really occur that often. We actually have more errors from purposefully introduced errors than accidental ones.Lab methods still rely upon multile samples and splits and field duplicates to alert the lab if anything is potentially awry.

When the Creationists reported that they found stegosaurian fossils that dated out to 40000 K tears, some grad students took the methods and tracked the lab samples and found out that the samples were "fumed with an organic glue vapor". It was just enough to be the contamination that added spurious C14 into the sample matrix.

Actually, its by KNOWING the limitations of any isotope methods that we are able to track down and find by good old forensics , where the error actually happened.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how science works. Part of a scientific education is mathematical modelling and error analysis. And, scientists use the tools to express, explain and test theories.

Yeah modelling is great in science. But only if it's tested to be accurate with reality.

Quote:

What you are saying about how "questionable these dates are" is simply wrong. We actually know how accurate these dates are, and can express the accuracy mathematically.

Ok then, show me how you know the dates are accurate. What tests have been done to prove they're accurate?

Quote:

I am going to guess that you haven't taken any university level classes on error analysis.

How do you know? I've done exercises in checking accuracy and precision of scientific balances using standardised weights. I've done titrations where we had to get the results concordant to 0.1mL. Is that what you mean?

1 Reply

@Blue Grass 6,

What I think you are trying to do, although you are being awfully squirrelly about it, is to poke holes in science without having understanding of how science is done. I really wish you were more honest about your agenda here (although I don't think you are tricking anyone).

Real scientists analyze data to check on their models. They are generally working with large datasets taken from different sources. There are well defined mathematical tools to calculate not only the concordance with a model, but also the accuracy (error rates). And, you check these datasets by comparing the results of your model with different models. If your radiometric dating technique are consistent with Physics and match other models and match ice core samples and can be correlated with geological events... unless you believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster playing tricks on scientists by screwing around with the data... you can be sure it is valid.

My main complaint is with people who don't understand the science then criticizing the science. That is simply ridiculous. Granted... modern science is complex, and gaining even a basic understanding takes years os study. But if you are going to reject modern science in favor of some other belief system, then be honest about what you are doing.

Quote:

I've done exercises in checking accuracy and precision of scientific balances using standardised weights. I've done titrations where we had to get the results concordant to 0.1mL. Is that what you mean?

No.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I'm only seeing speculations going around as to why C14 is showing up in dinosaur bones. If we're going to be definitive about the source of contamination, shouldn't we be seeing subsequent test runs where the contaminant is identified or eliminated, rather than just guessing?

Science is not about guessing.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

What I think you are trying to do, although you are being awfully squirrelly about it, is to poke holes in science without having understanding of how science is done. I really wish you were more honest about your agenda here (although I don't think you are tricking anyone).

The holes were always there. Your forebears just never gave them proper attention. So far nobody here has been able to fully explain how contamination in young rocks becomes mitigated as rocks get older and suddenly becomes reliable. That's a serious shortcoming.

Quote:

Real scientists analyze data to check on their models. They are generally working with large datasets taken from different sources. There are well defined mathematical tools to calculate not only the concordance with a model, but also the accuracy (error rates). And, you check these datasets by comparing the results of your model with different models. If your radiometric dating technique are consistent with Physics and match other models and match ice core samples and can be correlated with geological events... unless you believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster playing tricks on scientists by screwing around with the data... you can be sure it is valid.

Sales blurbs are nice, but in science, what we really need are actual results showing reliability. You can make as much fuss as you like about correlating with other dating systems, but if the system can't reliably give accurate dates (within the error limits) for rocks of known age, there's no reason to be confident about it at all.

All along, I've been criticising the science, based on science, not belief systems.

2 Replies

@Blue Grass 6,

Quote:

All along, I've been criticising the science, based on science, not belief systems

Actually youre full of it. Youve failed to read (or understnd) what the conditions of sampling, analyses, and methods selection are based upon. Wvereything you try to tak credit for has been understood from quite early in the methods development. When contaminants are INTRODUCED via fraudulent means, I hve no doubt that you wish to ignore those facts.

If youre so damn full of science know-how, why then, would someone choose to run C14 on fossils (most of which do not even contain any carbon) that were taken from a matrix that had already been carefully cross dated by at least 4 other techniques. In other words, weve dated the sediments and the stratigraphy of the matrix in which the fossils were collected and found it to be 75 + MILLION years old. NOW we know the limits pf C14 , and we knew the ages of the fossil matrix, would you expect the fossils to be 20 000 times younger than the rock in which they were fossilized ??
Thats the thinking that went into the Ceationist sampling and analyses.

A big ole DUUUUH for wasting money on analyses that e already knew were stupid and incorrectly selected.(Not to mention the fraud perpetrated by contaminating the fossil by dosing them with 1 lb cuts of shellac (These will soak into the rock and allow some young carbon to remain in the sampls even after major cleanups.

Youre being entirely too supportive of Creation "science" while not understanding how easily they were discovered to be a fraud.(sorta like Piltdown)

1 Reply

@Blue Grass 6,

Quote:

All along, I've been criticising the science, based on science, not belief systems.

No. I believe you are criticizing the science based on your religious beliefs. Tell me I am wrong that you believe that the Bible is the Word of God. The reason I know this is because I was saying the same crap... but then I went and actually studied science (and earned a Physics degree).

You are ignorant of the science.... that is where the holes are from.

At least be honest. Your faith in God is more important than science. And, that is why you are attacking science.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I want to point out that there are thoughtful Christians who don't attack science, including some who actually have taken the time to study science. This takes humility.

My disrespect is for those whose religion causes them to attack science, dishonestly, without even making the attempt to understand what the science actually says.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Roger Wiens is a geochronologist who has taught radiometric age dating and has written copiously about the methods "From a Christian PErspective". Hes quite critical of Fundamentalist thinking and YEC beliefs.

Sadly youre right about folks not taking the time to learn the methods and bases of the entire arena of geochronology.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I want to point out that there are thoughtful Christians who don't attack science, including some who actually have taken the time to study science. This takes humility.

First you say that you were a Bible believing Christian until you got a science degree. Now you say it's ok to be a Christian whilst studying science. Well what is it? If it's ok to be a Christian and study science, then why did you decide to leave it?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

If youre so damn full of science know-how, why then, would someone choose to run C14 on fossils (most of which do not even contain any carbon) that were taken from a matrix that had already been carefully cross dated by at least 4 other techniques. In other words, weve dated the sediments and the stratigraphy of the matrix in which the fossils were collected and found it to be 75 + MILLION years old. NOW we know the limits pf C14 , and we knew the ages of the fossil matrix, would you expect the fossils to be 20 000 times younger than the rock in which they were fossilized ??
Thats the thinking that went into the Ceationist sampling and analyses.

Maybe the dinosaur fossils are not 75+Mil years old. If young rocks can radio date as millions of years old, then it's also possible for young dinosaur bones to also be misdated as millions of years old.

Quote:

A big ole DUUUUH for wasting money on analyses that e already knew were stupid and incorrectly selected.(Not to mention the fraud perpetrated by contaminating the fossil by dosing them with 1 lb cuts of shellac (These will soak into the rock and allow some young carbon to remain in the sampls even after major cleanups.

The story keeps changing. You say that the Creationists dosed the samples with shellac. Others say that the fossils were already heavily covered in shellac at the museum. Who are we supposed to believe?
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.518.919&rep=rep1&type=pdf

1 Reply

@Blue Grass 6,

Quote:

Maybe the dinosaur fossils are not 75+Mil years old

thats circular and fraudulent reasoning. If you suspect that those dinosaurs are less than 75 MY old why select a method that is known to all to be misaplied?
You know that you will get an answer that is within a limit of quantitation BUT, you also know that the value is suspect because of spurious carbon.

Thats the fraud involved Why not age date everything around the fossil too. ??? Paleontologists already did, but sounds like the Creationists dont want to be told the facts. They abjure fact

Quote:

You say that the Creationists dosed the samples with shellac. Others say that the fossils were already heavily covered in shellac at the museum. Who are we supposed to believe?

Does it really matter WHO doesed m with hellac?? The shellac contains NEW carbon with a known ratio of C14 no?
So the sample will test out at something at the fringe of quantitation for C14 (NOT TO MENTION --that the entire method is invalidated because of the new carbon)

Who shot john is less important than knowing that john was, indeed, shot

1 Reply

@Blue Grass 6,

There is no contradiction there. I made the personal decision to leave the Christian faith once I reached a point in my life where it no longer made sense to me. Actually science wasn't the only factor in that decision. It was a decision I made about what I thought was best for me.

That doesn't mean that other people need to make the same decision. As I pointed out there are intelligent educated people who accept science and yet remain in the Christian faith because that is the best choice for them.

We all make personal choices about the life that is meaningful for us. That is what makes humanity so interesting.

0 Replies

Some of us (me for example) rejected the notion of gods before they knew there was such a thing as science.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Don't be so smug Edgar. You reject science too.

Faith in colloidal silver isn't that much different than faith in prayer.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

You are no true scientist to make such a dumb statement. You only accept what the establishment tells you to accept.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

I was more interested in art before I became a scienc gek. I remember asking the nuns "what's that little ring over Jesus head??". I then noticed that there were all kinds of contradictory follow-up stories about every damn thing that guy did. Then we were told that the BIBLE pUS TRADITION is what makes the Catholic Church the one true faith.

When it began to sound more like an ad for cars I started asking my Dd (and even thiugh he went to church every Sunday and was atop pool shooter for the Kof C--he said'I dont much believe this **** kid, just dont tell MOM she believes anything as long as the Pope or a priest says it"

The rest of my fall from the lord was easy.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I was a bit disappointed when my son told me he was ordained as some sort of priest of something. When he was a teen, he told me he didn't accept religion because of evolution. But it's his right to be that way and I haven't tried to talk him out of it. If anything comes up I always answer honestly, but without offering judgement on him or his friends. Of my four, just one thinks as I do. I can accept it.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

If you reject the scientific establishment then you can make up anything you want and call it science. Colloidal silver is no different than Creationism... believers believe what they want in spite of the established science.

I am only pointing this out because I found your dismissive tone toward the OP's beliefs a little hypocritical

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

More proof you are no true scientist. Silver has been accepted through the ages, by medicine and the establishment. It's still in use in some applications. They just want the average person to abandon it now because it is cheaper and more effective than many of their drugs. It's a shyster's trick to equate my use of silver with any lunacy that comes to mind in an attempt to belittle me and what I do.

1 Reply

How accurate is radiometric dating?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know