forastero
Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011
|
| Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,15:44) | | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,15:42) | | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:14) | | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:36) | | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 04 2011,19:52) | | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 04 2011,19:25) | There's no evidence that either can produce the effects you want , but let's suppose you can pin your hopes on cosmic rays and/or distance to the Sun affecting decay rates in the way you'd like:
How much life would survive if the cosmic-ray flux at the Earth's surface was 100,000 times higher?
How much life would survive if the Earth was 100,000 times, or even 100 times, closer to the sun?
Why did the radioisotope power plants on the Galileo and Cassini probes work as expected? |
I wonder if the nitwit knows that a manned mission to Mars is not feasible because the cosmic rays in space are extremely likely to cause cancer, down here not so much. |
Cancer Rates Rise and Fall with Cosmic Rays
http://www.universetoday.com/12253......ic-rays
...and its also common knowledge that cosmogenic radioisotope accumulate at at different rates in terrestrial time and space |
All irrelevant to radiometric dating.
Still waiting for some evidence that contamination is a problem. |
Do you ever wonder why mummies are hardly ever dated with 14C? They are worried about contamination.
Funny how you shout contamination when similar amounts of 14C is found in all the coal, uranium and dinosaur bones, etc.. which btw suggests that all eras formed quickly and the organisms found within them all lived at the same time. |
The various creationist claims about 14C in coal and dinosaur fossils and diamonds have been solidly refuted. (e.g. RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination? and Radiocarbon Dates for Dinosaur Bones.) But I'm talking about geologic dating methods, Ar-Ar and U-Pb and Rb-Sr and the like. So let's see some evidence for contamination being a problem in those methods.
Although I'm mostly interested in geologic dating, I'll take a few moments to correct some of your many errors.
| Quote | | Of course its relevant because in carbon dating, more cosmic rays mean more c14 production, which should mean more C14 entering the bodies of living things. |
Gosh, you got something right! Now you need to figure out why this is not a problem.
{snip}
| Quote | | The 12C to 14C ratio is trillion (some documents say two trillionths) to one is not constant today and rates are changing due to various sources of production as we speak. Nuclear weapons and the burning of fossil fuels have also altered this ratio. |
Yup, that's why we avoid anything after 1944 in 14C dating.
| Quote | | Thus, do we really know if prehistoric animals consumed the same ratio of 14C? |
Why, yes, we do.
| Quote | | Different plants and animals ingest, absorb, and excrete 12C and 14C differently as do different body parts. |
Ther's a small effect. Not very much.
| Quote | | Plus, many animals go days without food and gorge themselves so there is no way to know how much radioactive daughter elements are actually in the sample at death. |
Since 14C dating works with ratios, not quantities, this is irrelevant.
| Quote | | Moreover, carbon dating often allows only a small sample to be estimated taken so there is no way to know if the ratio correlates with the quantities of the whole sample. |
Dating multiple samples avoids that problem. |
Hmm lots of arrogant double standards, especially in light of all the fresh dinosaur flesh but the guy does seem to agree that these radioisotopes often contaminate everything? And if huge reserves of oil are similarly contaminated by radioactive isotopes of the uranium-thorium decay, then surely whole isochron samples are also uniformly contaminated and/or leached. Same with all the excess Argon.
| Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:14) | | Yup, that's why we avoid anything after 1944 in 14C dating. |
Fossil fuels have been burnt by humans for thousands of years, as has wood, which according to recent findings actually emits more carbon than coal.
Secondly, carbon dating is measured using ratios after 1944 and Carbon-14 dating doesn’t directly measure a ratio in the body but rather assumes that the amount of 14C to 12C in organic samples is the same ratio as that assumed for the atmospheric ratio. Plus, 12C and 14C are independently derived and 12C is also produced from a number of different sources, some of which spew large volumes at a time.
Thirdly, I want to see these so called studies that measure those so called part per trillion ratio in the atmosphere, especially since these kinds of measurements were not even possible until recently. I mean the reason that 14C isnt used on all of the unmineralized dinosaur bones is supposedly due difficulties in measuring isotope ppt.
| Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:14) |
Ther's a small effect. Not very much.
Since 14C dating works with ratios, not quantities, this is irrelevant.
Why, yes we do.
|
That seems a contradiction based on more of the same dogmatic radiomagic assumptions. If its not, then show me some studies that give the ratios of 14C to 12C sequestered in plants. Not only are there different metabolic absorptions and excretions among individual animals, its common knowledge that different trees sequester carbon at highly different rates and different animals consume different plants and different predators consume different plant eaters, etc...Plus, plant nutrition and biomass has been greatly reduced over time so metabolisms have surely correlated
| Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:14) | | Dating multiple samples avoids that problem. |
Not only is carbon dating expensive and time consuming, its destructive so I doubt many samples are used. And based all the grandiose assumptions concerning the ratios of 14c to 12c in the atmosphere, plants, and animals, evolutionism probably tends not to bother much with sample size or rigorous repeats.
|
