Talk:Radiometric dating

On my rewrite

Major diffs include

• change of ref to printed text "Wile, Dr. Jay L. Exploring Creation With General Science. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 2000" to http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html
• removal of section on accelerated decay - pure conjecture without citation. Reference was link to another wiki.
• expanded assumptions
• Added C14 creation rate at flood and creation (probably still needs a reasonable citation that is more than conjecture)
• expanded outside influences, show where metamorphic rock is incorrect and RATE using this infomration to improperly date Grand Canyon. Included refutation of RATE data at answers in creation

If there are any questions, I spent some time back in college writing software for a radiocarbon laboratory and have more than passing knowledge of the material that is written about. Feel free to ask any questions here. --Mtur 00:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Philip's edits

Philip, I have to point this out to everyone. You are a rare person who has placed productive information in an article that you obviously disagree with and also removed information that would have supported you position on the topic, but you removed it anyway because you had identified it as a bigoted reference. I can not express the level of gratitude towards you for doing this. Thank you.--TimS 09:01, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Err, thanks. Maybe. The bit I removed claimed that the (YEC) RATE project got it wrong. There were two references, one to an ICR article about the RATE project, and the other to an anti-YEC site claiming that the RATE project got it wrong. It was this second reference that I was referring to as bigoted, because it's first criticism was that creationist peer-review is by other creationists. As evolutionist peer-review is by other evolutionists, the only rationale here must be that creationary scientists are invalidated as peer-reviewers simply because they are creationists.

I've probably just destroyed your reason for thinking that I've done good, but like you presumed, I do want the truth, and the truth is not what I think you were thinking.

Philip J. Rayment 09:27, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Principles

The whole bit about the candles and what not seems a bit pedestrian. I say remove it entirely. Readers understand how to measure time, they don't need to be spoon fed a quasi-example such as this one --Pastafarian

On the contrary, most people don't understand the basic principles of how radiometric dating works; this explains it with objects that are quite familiar. Philip J. Rayment 04:49, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Removal of calibration section points

I've just removed the bits about methods by which radiometric methods can be "cross-verified". The first example, which seemed a bit convenient anyway, seems at the very least to be disputed and at worst to be simply wrong. See here. The second is not a method of calibration with independently-known dates, but with other dates that have also not been calibrated. And this is mentioned further down in the article. Philip J. Rayment 03:41, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Reversion to earlier version

I just reverted two paragraphs to an earlier version. Feebasfactor had edited the two paragraphs, and in so doing incorrectly claimed that the problem that YECs have with radiometric dating is the size of the margin of error. This is not the issue. He also changed "Young-Earth creationists therefore claim ..." to "However, young earth creationists claim...". This was fair enough, as the sentence did not logically flow from the previous sentence. However, this was because of a previous edit[1] that changed the flow of the previous sentence, and which introduced a contrary thought which was unsupported by a valid reference. It had been there plenty long enough for a reference, but none was forthcoming, so I've reverted those paragraphs to prior to that edit, with the result that the "Young-Earth creationists therefore claim ..." is again valid, and the incorrect claim about the size of the margin of error is gone. Philip J. Rayment 04:59, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry about that, I was trying to resolve the flow - the previous version seemed a little conflicted. Modification to the sentence was perhaps overly drastic, though. Feebasfactor 19:38, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Uranium-Lead Dating

In your article, you do mention uranium-lead decay, and that lead in the sample originally would skew the resulting age. Zircon, which is often used in dating, has the the property that, when crystallizing, it will exclude all lead and will trap surrounding uranium. The lead that is found in zircon, then, can only have been the product of uranium decay.[2] [3] Also, one can calculate the amount of contamination. Any process that allows one isotope of will let in the others found on Earth. By measuring the amount of lead 204 (which is non-radiogenic and therefore could not have been produced by the decay of the uranium), we would know the amounts of the other isotopes (through the relative amounts on Earth, which are nearly uniform) that contaminated the sample.[4] (page 8 by the way). From this, the age could be calculated. --Phillipps 12:53, 8 March 2008 (EST)

This uses the same faulty circular reasoning the decay-based approaches. You're assuming something about aging to prove aging. It's like using a political poll today to predict the outcome of an election in a few months. For obvious reasons, that approach is often wrong.--Aschlafly 13:43, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Equating the decay of radioactive particles (which follow the laws of physics) to the behavior of voters is a false analogy. --DinsdaleP 21:10, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry, but the reasons aren't obvious. What am I assuming?--Phillipps 17:25, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

For clarification, I know why political polls can't be used to predict election results, but you still haven't responded to my question.--Phillipps 11:28, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Shall you be responding?--Phillipps 16:33, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Rate of decay

The reference to the beryllium experiment is misleading, in that the experiment referred to changes in rate in different conditions while it is used as a source for changes in rate over time. In other words, the experiment demonstrated changes from external (i.e. chemical) factors while this article claims heretofore unidentified internal factors over much longer periods of time- or at least it should identify what external factors may have caused this. Furthermore, the difference in decay rates was only 1.5%, which may be quite a lot from the perspective of a nuclear physicist, but dates are rarely if ever determined with that degree of accuracy due to such variation in external conditions. The citation is used to imply, for those who expect absolute precision certainty from dating techniques (which you won't get in any sort of measurement) and do not inspect it more closely, that the difference found was so massive as to render the entire methodology invalid. Is the reported 1.5% really significant in this context, then? Let's see- the oldest radiometric estimates for the age of the Earth are roughly 6 billion years, and if the Earth is only 6000 years old, that means that radiometric dating must have a margin of error of at least 6x10⁹ / 6x10³ = 1x10⁶, or 1,000,000. If radiometric dating is really off by a factor of one million (or 100,000,000%), the variation in rate of decay as presented in the experiment accounts for only 0.015 / 1,000,000 = 0.000000015 = 0.0000015% of the error. By contrast, a 1.5% error on a date of six billion years gives the range of 5.91-6.09 billion years- not nearly the massive variation that is implied. Kallium 19:30, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Estimates and disagreements

As I explained briefly in the edit summary before it was reverted, the statement that "laboratories are known to improve the likelihood of of getting a "correct" date by asking for the expected date of the item" does not follow from the document that was cited to support it. The form had an area to "estimate date", which was preceded by detailed descriptions and records of where the sample was found. This is basic, scientifically responsible bookkeeping, with the estimate then based upon the context of where the sample was found as described. Note that the estimate box also has a space for explaining the basis of that estimate. This would be the hypothesis, if you like to think of it that way. Thus the estimate is the expected date where expected = anticipated/hypothesized. It is not the expected date where expected = desired/required. They aren't asking to get a result that matches the estimate. Same with the range- "age limits" is actually a commonly used term much like "confidence limits" in statistics. They are not the limits imposed by the submitter- again, they are estimates not, as the article says, the "maximum and minimum acceptable ages".

I removed those sentences because the second grossly misrepresents the cited document on a factual level, and without it the first is unsupported assertion. (There are other instances like that elsewhere in the article, I might add.) Think: if scientists were that dishonest, why would they bother going through all the time and money to package samples, fill out paperwork, ship them off, process them, and pay people to run them through machines that require regular maintenance, just to throw out masses of expensive but "unacceptable" data in the end? Why not just make it all up?

I don't know why my other edit regarding scientific disagreements was reverted; it is misleading to suggest that the whole method is flawed because not everyone (or in the example, two people) agrees on a detail. There have been huge arguments in all areas of science, when seemingly contradictory results have been found by different people. Some historical examples include how brain cells connect (neuronists vs. reticularists), the identity of the genetic material (nucleic acids vs. proteins), and the phenomenon of plate tectonics, but this doesn't mean that their histology, biochemistry, or geological measurements (respectively), were poorly performed or fundamentally wrong- likewise with this subject. Kallium 22:48, 15 January 2009 (EST)

I reject the above analysis out-of-hand.

Those sentences are going right smack back in there, and if you so much as touch them again, I will block you. Let that suffice.

There is no reason at all for specifying an estimated date. That is an open invitation to the very sort of fudging that we allege.

Radiometric dating is suppposed to be absolute. How can any determination be absolute and yet at the same time depend upon context? This is classic bait-and-switch. It goes to the heart of the conclusion by the RATE Group that all radiometric dating should be re-examined.

Detail, you say? We are talking about how the scientific establishment dares regard radiometric dating as a gold standard, capable of rendering an absolute date and thereby actually acting as a fact check on recorded history. Radiometric dating has been represented to the public at large as the next best thing to time travel for fixing the date of a volcanic eruption, or the deaths of large numbers of anything from trilobites to dinosaurs. This is not a quibble here.

Lastly, I no more consider myself obliged to explain than if I had reverted an edit that tried to allege that two plus two was equal to five.--TerryH^Talk 23:06, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Kallium, you've been deleting factual information. It's poorly kept secret that radiometric yields often widely different estimates of age. The statements that you've repeated deleted are well supported. Let the reader decide.--Andy Schlafly 23:07, 15 January 2009 (EST)

TerryH, one wonders why you felt the need to open your overtly aggressive reply with a threat. "Because I can block and you can't" (argumentum ad baculum) isn't a productive response.

The estimate is the hypothesis- that's the reason. I said the estimate, not the measurement, "depends on context". In fact, my entire first paragraph was solely about the estimate. Don't change my meaning then accuse me of bait-and-switch.

When balancing your checkbook, you have an idea what total you expect to get (your hypothesis) based upon what the statement says and what your income/spending habits for the month were (the context). If you find a discrepancy with the bank, and then redo your math and find a different total that is in agreement, is that "fudging"?

I did say "detail", because the example was a disagreement over whether an item was 40,000 or 60,000 years old (internal argument), not a disagreement over the validity of the technique (external argument). Using the former to represent the latter is a misrepresentation. Besides, you ignored the actual point.

A "fact check on recorded history"? Show me written documents describing trilobites dying.

Radiometric dating ironically is the next best thing to time travel in terms of determining dates, only because there's isn't a better technique in between.

Your Parthion shot lacks substance and merely revisits your opening attempt at intimidation.

Andy, the cited document did not support the interpretation. Perhaps the information is factual, but it should either be adequately sourced or removed as per your own rules. Perhaps the statements really are well supported- in which case it should be easy to find a plethora of better examples- but they weren't so here, making them simply unsupported accusations.

By the way, isn't "poorly kept secret" an oxymoron? Kallium 08:43, 16 January 2009 (EST)