Radioactive dating

Pointless Posts, Raves n Rants, Obscure Opinions

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
dad1
Under Suspension
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri May 14, 2021 3:40 am
Been thanked: 12 times

Radioactive dating

Post #1

Post by dad1 »

The basis for dating using ratios of isotopes is faith based. One example is that if we see an existing amount of parent and daughter material together, it is assumed that the present processes at work today are wholly responsible for all the material.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Radioactive dating

Post #2

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to dad1 in post #1]
The basis for dating using ratios of isotopes is faith based.
No it isn't. It is based on a constant rate of radioactive decay which is what is observed. Isochron dating helps to improve the results (eg. uranium 238 decays to lead 206, uranium 235 decays to lead 207, but lead 204 does not arise from the radioactive decay of uranium so can be used to confirm the parent levels of lead independent of the uranium products).

The "faith" you refer to I assume means the constant decay rate over time. Do you have any examples of any legitimate studies that show that this is not correct, or that there are deviations of any consequence? This is an observation, not faith (belief without evidence).
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: Radioactive dating

Post #3

Post by Jose Fly »

"Dad" has been making the same argument (and he really only has one) in various forums for years. He believes that God magically made everything different in the past, so no one can say what the speed of light or radioactive decay rates were, and therefore all age calculations are based in "faith".

That's it.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Radioactive dating

Post #4

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #3]
He believes that God magically made everything different in the past, so no one can say what the speed of light or radioactive decay rates were, and therefore all age calculations are based in "faith".
This comes up here periodically as you'd expect, and it is always the same old "primordial material" argument. I like to point out the AIG series on meteorite dating, like these two examples:

https://answersresearchjournal.org/radi ... ndrites-2/

https://answersresearchjournal.org/radi ... eorites-5/

where they do a decent job of summarizing many measurements that all show roughly 4.6 billion year ages, then at the end they delve into the primordial material argument and wonder if that can explain the "wrong" dating results given that the true real-time age is about 6000 years. Only about 6 orders of magnitude out! From the second link above:

"Thus today’s measured radioisotope compositions of these groups of meteorites may reflect a geochemical signature of that “primordial material,” which included atoms of all elemental isotopes created by God. Therefore some, or perhaps most, of the daughter isotopes measured today in these groups of meteorites were thus “inherited” by them when they were formed from that “primordial material,” and the parent isotopes in these meteorites have only been subjected to some subsequent radioisotope decay (and none at accelerated rates). Thus the 4.55–4.57 Ga Pb-Pb, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb calibrated isochron “age” for these groups of meteorites, and their supporting Rb-Sr, Lu-Hf, Re-Os, and Sm-Nd isochron “ages,” cannot be their true real-time age, which according to the biblical paradigm is only about 6000 real-time years."
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Radioactive dating

Post #5

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

dad1 wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 11:53 am The basis for dating using ratios of isotopes is faith based. One example is that if we see an existing amount of parent and daughter material together, it is assumed that the present processes at work today are wholly responsible for all the material.
This is strictly speaking - true, I agree, it is based on assumptions. Take carbon dating for example, this assumes that rate of C14 production in the atmosphere (as a result of cosmic ray activity) was the same in the past as it is today and also assumes that the half-life of C14 was the same in the past as it is today. But we have no data from thousands of years ago about either of these parameters - hence we assume.

This comes up a lot with carbon dating, here's an article about that.

I quote:
But this basic calculation assumes that the amount of carbon-14 in the environment has been constant in time and space — which it hasn’t. In recent decades, the burning of fossil fuel and tests of nuclear bombs have radically altered the amount of carbon-14 in the air, and there are non-anthropogenic wobbles going much further back. During planetary magnetic-field reversals, for example, more solar radiation enters the atmosphere, producing more carbon-14. The oceans also suck up carbon — a little more so in the Southern Hemisphere, where there is more ocean — and circulate it for centuries, further complicating things.
There it is, "assumes" the OP is correct, it is based on assumptions, faith, trust etc.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: Radioactive dating

Post #6

Post by Jose Fly »

DrNoGods wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 1:01 pm [Replying to Jose Fly in post #3]
He believes that God magically made everything different in the past, so no one can say what the speed of light or radioactive decay rates were, and therefore all age calculations are based in "faith".
This comes up here periodically as you'd expect, and it is always the same old "primordial material" argument. I like to point out the AIG series on meteorite dating, like these two examples:

https://answersresearchjournal.org/radi ... ndrites-2/

https://answersresearchjournal.org/radi ... eorites-5/

where they do a decent job of summarizing many measurements that all show roughly 4.6 billion year ages, then at the end they delve into the primordial material argument and wonder if that can explain the "wrong" dating results given that the true real-time age is about 6000 years. Only about 6 orders of magnitude out! From the second link above:

"Thus today’s measured radioisotope compositions of these groups of meteorites may reflect a geochemical signature of that “primordial material,” which included atoms of all elemental isotopes created by God. Therefore some, or perhaps most, of the daughter isotopes measured today in these groups of meteorites were thus “inherited” by them when they were formed from that “primordial material,” and the parent isotopes in these meteorites have only been subjected to some subsequent radioisotope decay (and none at accelerated rates). Thus the 4.55–4.57 Ga Pb-Pb, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb calibrated isochron “age” for these groups of meteorites, and their supporting Rb-Sr, Lu-Hf, Re-Os, and Sm-Nd isochron “ages,” cannot be their true real-time age, which according to the biblical paradigm is only about 6000 real-time years."
Good stuff, thanks for posting.

I've never been all that interested "maybe the gods just made it that way" arguments, because they're completely pointless. Once magic is introduced into the equation, it becomes an "anything goes" exercise with no standards or means of verification. Anything and everything imaginable is possible because "maybe the gods just made it that way", which if applied consistently is basically solipsism.

Maybe you and I aren't really posting back and forth to each other, and it only seems so because "the gods just made it look that way"? Maybe everything only came about 30 seconds ago and everything we think we've experienced are just "the gods making it look that way"?

Utterly pointless to debate something like that...IMO.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: Radioactive dating

Post #7

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 1:03 pm
dad1 wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 11:53 am The basis for dating using ratios of isotopes is faith based. One example is that if we see an existing amount of parent and daughter material together, it is assumed that the present processes at work today are wholly responsible for all the material.
This is strictly speaking - true, I agree, it is based on assumptions. Take carbon dating for example, this assumes that rate of C14 production in the atmosphere (as a result of cosmic ray activity) was the same in the past as it is today and also assumes that the half-life of C14 was the same in the past as it is today. But we have no data from thousands of years ago about either of these parameters - hence we assume.

This comes up a lot with carbon dating, here's an article about that.

I quote:
But this basic calculation assumes that the amount of carbon-14 in the environment has been constant in time and space — which it hasn’t. In recent decades, the burning of fossil fuel and tests of nuclear bombs have radically altered the amount of carbon-14 in the air, and there are non-anthropogenic wobbles going much further back. During planetary magnetic-field reversals, for example, more solar radiation enters the atmosphere, producing more carbon-14. The oceans also suck up carbon — a little more so in the Southern Hemisphere, where there is more ocean — and circulate it for centuries, further complicating things.
There it is, "assumes" the OP is correct, it is based on assumptions, faith, trust etc.
Yeah, that's why there's a process called "calibration". Ever heard of it?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Radioactive dating

Post #8

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 12:14 pm [Replying to dad1 in post #1]
The basis for dating using ratios of isotopes is faith based.
No it isn't. It is based on a constant rate of radioactive decay which is what is observed. Isochron dating helps to improve the results (eg. uranium 238 decays to lead 206, uranium 235 decays to lead 207, but lead 204 does not arise from the radioactive decay of uranium so can be used to confirm the parent levels of lead independent of the uranium products).

The "faith" you refer to I assume means the constant decay rate over time. Do you have any examples of any legitimate studies that show that this is not correct, or that there are deviations of any consequence? This is an observation, not faith (belief without evidence).
I must correct you Dr, It is based on an assumed constant rate of radioactive decay (aka half-life).

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Radioactive dating

Post #9

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #5]
There it is, "assumes" the OP is correct, it is based on assumptions, faith, trust etc.
As Jose points out, 14-C systems are calibrated and any known effects taken into account. But none of the things mentioned change the RATE of 14-C decay, only the initial isotopic distribution (which, again, are taken into account when known).

There are things like the reservoir effect in certain marine organism shell carbonates that make it impossible to use 14-C dating in those cases, and when possible cross checks are done using other independent dating methods. Also, like any measurement of anything, the specimen can't be contaminated and its condition and history have to be taken into account (eg. you can't carbon date dinosaur fossiles covered with varnish as one critic tried to do). Multiple methods exist today for dating and cross checking the results ... not just radiometric dating.

Radiocarbon
1 - 70,000 years
Organic material such as bones, wood, charcoal, shells
Radioactive decay of 14C in organic matter after removal from bioshpere

K-Ar dating
1,000 - billion of years
Potassium-bearing minerals and glasses
Radioactive decay of 40K in rocks and minerals

Uranium-Lead
10,000 - billion of years
Uranium-bearing minerals
Radioactive decay of uranium to lead via two separate decay chains

Uranium series
1,000 - 500,000 years
Uranium-bearing minerals, corals, shells, teeth, CaCO3
Radioactive decay of 234U to 230Th

Fission track
1,000 - billion of years
Uranium-bearing minerals and glasses
Measurement of damage tracks in glass and minerals from the radioactive decay of 238U

Luminescence (optically or thermally stimulated)
1,000 - 1,000,000 years
Quartz, feldspar, stone tools, pottery
Burial or heating age based on the accumulation of radiation-induced damage to electron sitting in mineral lattices

Electron Spin Resonance (ESR)
1,000 - 3,000,000 years
Uranium-bearing materials in which uranium has been absorbed from outside sources
Burial age based on abundance of radiation-induced paramagnetic centers in mineral lattices

Cosmogenic Nuclides
1,000 - 5,000,000 years
Typically quartz or olivine from volcanic or sedimentary rocks
Radioactive decay of cosmic-ray generated nuclides in surficial environments

Magnetostratigraphy
20,000 - billion of years
Sedimentary and volcanic rocks
Measurement of ancient polarity of the earth's magnetic field recorded in a stratigraphic succession

Tephrochronology
100 - billions of years
Volcanic ejecta
Uses chemistry and age of volcanic deposits to establish links between distant stratigraphic successions
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Radioactive dating

Post #10

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 1:34 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #5]
There it is, "assumes" the OP is correct, it is based on assumptions, faith, trust etc.
As Jose points out, 14-C systems are calibrated and any known effects taken into account. But none of the things mentioned change the RATE of 14-C decay, only the initial isotopic distribution (which, again, are taken into account when known).
Please note, I never said any of the things mentioned change the half-life. I did say the rate of production of C14 is known to vary (as the article discusses). The half-life is assumed to be constant, in physics the time at which any atom will decay seems to be completely unpredictable, random.

The statistically computed half-life might be constant but we do not know, nobody was around to measure the half-life tens of thousands of years ago, for all we know it changes slowly according to some as-yet undiscovered law, we don't know so we assume. It's reasonable to assume but whether it be reasonable or unreasonable isn't the question, in either case it is an assumption not an objective verifiable fact.

Take the Hubble "constant" that is now no longer regarded as constant, it was assumed (reasonably so too) for years but that assumption now looks wrong, in science we must always be aware of what we've assumed because we may have to revise such assumptions as we learn more.

An Inconstant Hubble Constant?
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Tue May 24, 2022 1:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply