Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::forastero's thread

JonF

Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

Posted: Dec. 08 2011,08:37

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,05:26)

The same goes for other isotopes like potassium, which often makes modern lava flows are often dated as very ancient

Oh, and the only sources I know of for "modern lava flows are often dated as very ancient" are creationists obviously picking invalid samples (which is why I referred to "rational sample selection" above). And I don't mean picking samples from known-modern lava flows, I mean picking samples that are known-invalid for any flow. Such as Snelling's Ngauruhoe fraud in which he purposefully picked samples containing xenoliths.

JonF

Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: Dec. 08 2011,08:49

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,09:24)

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,05:26)

� �

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:13)

� �

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28)

� � � �

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33)

� � � �

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42)

Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance.

I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.

How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"?

Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds

No, I'm not that fellow. I don't know how isochrons correlate with Milankovitch cycles, but that correlation has nothing to do with contamination. And isochrons certainly aren't calibrated with Milankovitch cycles.

�

Quote

As for contamination here is a good but I will look for some more
Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29
Abstract: The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. .

Still not contamination. Note that "Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron." Note also that almost all isochron dating is consilient with other methods such as U-Pb concordia-discordia, by far the most widely used method, and with Ar-Ar, probably the second most widely used method.

If you had any idea of how isochron dating works, you would know that errors due to initial isotope ratio mismatches are rare and why that is so.

You are wasting your time with isochrons. They have their uses, but if you want to discredit radiometric dating you need to be talking U-Pb and Ar-Ar.

I don't have a subscription to Geology, and they don't offer the option of purchasing a single article. Will you send me the PDF of the whole thing? I assume you're not just blindly copying what some creo website has to say ... hee hee hee.

Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson

http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf

Goodness me, there is an actual mention of calibration of Ar-Ar from Milankovitch cycles! I suspect that they really meant correlation. But how about the vice-versa?

And on further investigation I was right, they did really mean correlation. From the full paper at Cyclostratigraphy � concepts, definitions, and applications:

"Despite these caveats, the cyclostratigraphic method has great potential. Major advantages and applications are: ... {long snip} ...

Intercalibration with radiometric dating methods. Comparison and intercalibration with independent radio-isotopic dating methods is fundamentally important. For example, new radiometric age dating recently challenged the up to then widely accepted cyclostratigraphical interpretation of the Middle Triassic Latemar platform in Italy (e. g., Goldhammer et al. 1987, Hinnov & Goldhammer 1991, Brack et al. 1996, Egenhoff et al. 1999, Z�hlke 2004). At the Tortonian GSSP at Monte dei Corvi (Italy), however, new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating (Kuiper et al. 2005). Nevertheless, a detailed comparison of the astronomical and 40Ar/39Ar ages reveals a rather consistent offset of ~ 0.8%, the astronomical ages being older (Kuiper 2003). This study provides an astronomical age for mineral dating standards and opens the possibility for the introduction of an astronomically dated standard in 40Ar/39Ar dating. An accurate and precise intercalibration is especially important by providing tight constraints for the astronomical tuning when it is extended into the Mesozoic."

(bold added). So it's obvious that they cleared up a discrepancy and think that cyclostratigraphy could possible be used to calibrate Ar-Ar dates someday. We're back to no evidence of calibration of one by the other.

JonF

Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: Dec. 08 2011,09:25

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,05:26)

the lead isotopes were originally uranium but there is no way to know if some of the lead was already in the rock when it was formed--making it appear much older than it really is.

To expand a little on this usual creo idiocy:

The vast majority of U-Pb dates are not isochrons, they are concordia-discordia. And the vast, vast majority of concordia-discordia analyses are performed on zircons. There's several reasons for this, one of which is the fact that zircon easily takes up uranium and strongly rejects lead at solidification. It's almost impossible to get a significant amount of lead into a zircon at solidification. Even those few YECs who understand radiometric dating acknowledge this:

"Samples 1 through 3 had He retentions of 58, 42, 27, and 17%. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [Humphreys, 2000, pp. 335�337]. We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that �old� radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of Pb physically present in the zircons, about 1.5 billion years worth�at today�s rates� of nuclear decay occurred. Supporting that, sample 1 still retains 58% of all the a-particles (the He) that would have been deposited in the zircon during this decay of U and Th to Pb. "

(Humphreys, Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay. Emphasis in original.)

Finally, not all lead isotopes are radiogenic. This is significant in U-Pb dating.

Erasmus, FCD

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Dec. 08 2011,09:49

fourass is THIS bullshit what you think you are going to take to the Evolution meeting and use to change the world?

LMFAO

you better look for some antipodean aboriginal journal of medieval english poetry to bury this latest steampile of refuse and offal

"darwin was wrong the sonnets prove it, so"

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.�Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Tracy P. Hamilton

Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Dec. 08 2011,10:53

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,03:51)

�

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 05 2011,18:29)

� �

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 05 2011,18:03)

� �

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,15:36)

� � � �

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

Ah, more cut and paste with no understanding.

First forastero uncritically quotes someone who claims to correlate cosmic ray intensity with mortality with impossible precision. �Yet another example of where a single person puts out a few articles, it draws little attention, so forastero thinks there must be something to it.

As far as differences between terrestrial and space - Duh! �That is why a quantitative argument (formula waving) needs to be done. Not so common (i.e. never) on your part.

Mechanism - that is what is needed to be present in an argument of IF radioactive decay rates change and by how much

That's a really good question.

Forastero, why do you ignore thousands of papers that disprove your points and only accept those few papers (that are flawed) that support your point of view?

Cherry picking much?

Oh wait, that's right you believe all those scientists who make in excess of $32,000 per year are all in a conspiracy to keep home boy down.

Actually that study was done by Dr. David A. Juckett from the Barros Research Institute at Michigan State University.

We knew that, IDiot. �That is why I said "First forastero uncritically quotes someone who claims to correlate cosmic ray intensity with mortality with impossible precision. �Yet another example of where a single person puts out a few articles, it draws little attention, so forastero thinks there must be something to it. "

Quote

Here is another one

Implications for C-14 Dating of the Jenkins-Fischbach Effect and Possible Fluctuation of the Solar Fusion Rate
(Submitted on 28 Aug 2008 (v1), last revised 29 Aug 2008 (this version, v2))
It has long been known that the C-14 calibration curve, which relates the known age of tree rings to their apparent C-14 ages, includes a number of "wiggles" which clearly are not experimental errors or other random effects. A reasonable interpretation of these wiggles is that they indicate that the Sun's fusion "furnace" is pulsating, perhaps for reasons similar to that of the Cepheid variables, albeit under a very different regime of pressure and temperature. If this speculation is correct, we are seeing the heartbeat of the Sun-the C-14 calibration curve is the Sun's "neutrino-cardiogram." Elevated neutrino flux during a relatively brief period would have two effects: (1) a surge in C-14 fraction in the atmosphere, which would make biological samples that were alive during the surge appear to be "too young" (2) depletion of C-14 in the biotic matter already dead at the time of the surge; this is a consequence of the recently discovered Jenkins-Fischbach effect, which is an observed correlation between nuclear decay rates and solar activity or Earth-Sun distance. In addition, the precise value at any given time of the "half-life" of any unstable isotope-including C-14-must now be considered in doubt, since the Jenkins-Fischbach effect implies that we may no longer view the decay rate of an isotope as intrinsically governed and therefore a constant of Nature.

In other words, more cosmic rays mean more c14 production, which should mean more C14 entering the bodies of living things. �More c14 at the time of death could in turn make them look make samples appear younger but then surges are known to deplete C14 from biotic matter after death; thus making them appear older.

Neutrinos don't affect c-14 production. �This is an unpublished crank paper. Neutrinos are not cosmic rays, that is your IDiotic mistake.

C-14 production in the upper atmosphere varies with changes in cosmic ray intensity and the magnetic field around the earth since cosmic rays are charged particles (neutrino comes from neutral). We all know that, have known it for decades. C-14 levels from the past atmospheres are calibrated from multiple other methods, not just the most commonly known one (tree rings).

Imagining that this is support for cosmogenetic influences on radiodating in general without specifics of mechanism and quantification (formula waving - I love it so!) is what we expect from IDiots. As well as fundamental mistakes and errors of judgement (can't tell well established science from speculative) which you deliver on a regular basis.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you�re taking refuge in what we see in the world." �PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

forastero

Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink)

Posted: Dec. 08 2011,14:26

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 08 2011,10:53)

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,03:51)

�

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 05 2011,18:29)

� �

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 05 2011,18:03)

� � �

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,15:36)

� � � �

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

Ah, more cut and paste with no understanding.

First forastero uncritically quotes someone who claims to correlate cosmic ray intensity with mortality with impossible precision. �Yet another example of where a single person puts out a few articles, it draws little attention, so forastero thinks there must be something to it.

As far as differences between terrestrial and space - Duh! �That is why a quantitative argument (formula waving) needs to be done. Not so common (i.e. never) on your part.

Mechanism - that is what is needed to be present in an argument of IF radioactive decay rates change and by how much

That's a really good question.

Forastero, why do you ignore thousands of papers that disprove your points and only accept those few papers (that are flawed) that support your point of view?

Cherry picking much?

Oh wait, that's right you believe all those scientists who make in excess of $32,000 per year are all in a conspiracy to keep home boy down.

Actually that study was done by Dr. David A. Juckett from the Barros Research Institute at Michigan State University.

We knew that, IDiot. �That is why I said "First forastero uncritically quotes someone who claims to correlate cosmic ray intensity with mortality with impossible precision. �Yet another example of where a single person puts out a few articles, it draws little attention, so forastero thinks there must be something to it. "

�

Quote

Here is another one

Implications for C-14 Dating of the Jenkins-Fischbach Effect and Possible Fluctuation of the Solar Fusion Rate
(Submitted on 28 Aug 2008 (v1), last revised 29 Aug 2008 (this version, v2))
It has long been known that the C-14 calibration curve, which relates the known age of tree rings to their apparent C-14 ages, includes a number of "wiggles" which clearly are not experimental errors or other random effects. A reasonable interpretation of these wiggles is that they indicate that the Sun's fusion "furnace" is pulsating, perhaps for reasons similar to that of the Cepheid variables, albeit under a very different regime of pressure and temperature. If this speculation is correct, we are seeing the heartbeat of the Sun-the C-14 calibration curve is the Sun's "neutrino-cardiogram." Elevated neutrino flux during a relatively brief period would have two effects: (1) a surge in C-14 fraction in the atmosphere, which would make biological samples that were alive during the surge appear to be "too young" (2) depletion of C-14 in the biotic matter already dead at the time of the surge; this is a consequence of the recently discovered Jenkins-Fischbach effect, which is an observed correlation between nuclear decay rates and solar activity or Earth-Sun distance. In addition, the precise value at any given time of the "half-life" of any unstable isotope-including C-14-must now be considered in doubt, since the Jenkins-Fischbach effect implies that we may no longer view the decay rate of an isotope as intrinsically governed and therefore a constant of Nature.

In other words, more cosmic rays mean more c14 production, which should mean more C14 entering the bodies of living things. �More c14 at the time of death could in turn make them look make samples appear younger but then surges are known to deplete C14 from biotic matter after death; thus making them appear older.

Neutrinos don't affect c-14 production. �This is an unpublished crank paper. Neutrinos are not cosmic rays, that is your IDiotic mistake. �

C-14 production in the upper atmosphere varies with changes in cosmic ray intensity and the magnetic field around the earth since cosmic rays are charged particles (neutrino comes from neutral). � We all know that, have known it for decades. �C-14 levels from the past atmospheres are calibrated from multiple other methods, not just the most commonly known one (tree rings).

Imagining that this is support for cosmogenetic influences on radiodating in general without specifics of mechanism and quantification (formula waving - I love it so!) is what we expect from IDiots. �As well as fundamental mistakes and errors of judgement (can't tell well established science from speculative) which you deliver on a regular basis.

No one said that neutrinos effect c14 production but neutrinos are generated by cosmic rays
http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false

�neutrinos generated in the Earth's atmosphere by cosmic rays will increase in number during these times.� http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~lms....no.html

And there is lots of evidence of solar influences including neutrinos on decay rates

http://redshift.vif.com/Journal....FAL.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs....06.5732
http://arxiv.org/abs....07.3318
http://arxiv.org/abs....05.1335
http://arxiv.org/abs....06.2374
http://arxiv.org/abs....08.3156
http://arxiv.org/abs....06.2295
http://arxiv.org/abs....10.3265

In December of 2006 a major solar flare occurred. While studying manganese-54, Jere Jenkins, another Perdue University physicist, noticed a sudden drop in decay rate. What's more, the drop began the evening before the solar flare. Jenkins lab was faced away from the Sun meaning if solar particles were affecting his isotope they had to first pass through the Earth to reach his lab�The obvious culprit seemed to be neutrinos, an elementary particle which travels at near light speed. Neutrinos are nearly massless, which enables them to travel so fast, much like Electrons.
http://questional.com/blog....riangle

The sun link was made even stronger when Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics, suggested that the Purdue scientists look for other recurring patterns in decay rates. As an expert of the inner workings of the sun, Sturrock had a hunch that solar neutrinos might hold the key to this mystery.
http://news.discovery.com/space....le.html

forastero

Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink)

Posted: Dec. 08 2011,14:36

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,08:49)

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,09:24)

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,05:26)

� �

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:13)

� �

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28)

� � � �

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33)

� � � �

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42)

Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance.

I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.

How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"?

Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds

No, I'm not that fellow. I don't know how isochrons correlate with Milankovitch cycles, but that correlation has nothing to do with contamination. And isochrons certainly aren't calibrated with Milankovitch cycles.

� �

Quote

As for contamination here is a good but I will look for some more
Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29
Abstract: The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. .

Still not contamination. Note that "Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron." Note also that almost all isochron dating is consilient with other methods such as U-Pb concordia-discordia, by far the most widely used method, and with Ar-Ar, probably the second most widely used method.

If you had any idea of how isochron dating works, you would know that errors due to initial isotope ratio mismatches are rare and why that is so.

You are wasting your time with isochrons. They have their uses, but if you want to discredit radiometric dating you need to be talking U-Pb and Ar-Ar.

I don't have a subscription to Geology, and they don't offer the option of purchasing a single article. Will you send me the PDF of the whole thing? I assume you're not just blindly copying what some creo website has to say ... hee hee hee.

Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson

http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf

Goodness me, there is an actual mention of calibration of Ar-Ar from Milankovitch cycles! I suspect that they really meant correlation. But how about the vice-versa?

And on further investigation I was right, they did really mean correlation. From the full paper at Cyclostratigraphy � concepts, definitions, and applications:

"Despite these caveats, the cyclostratigraphic method has great potential. Major advantages and applications are: ... {long snip} ...

Intercalibration with radiometric dating methods. Comparison and intercalibration with independent radio-isotopic dating methods is fundamentally important. For example, new radiometric age dating recently challenged the up to then widely accepted cyclostratigraphical interpretation of the Middle Triassic Latemar platform in Italy (e. g., Goldhammer et al. 1987, Hinnov & Goldhammer 1991, Brack et al. 1996, Egenhoff et al. 1999, Z�hlke 2004). At the Tortonian GSSP at Monte dei Corvi (Italy), however, new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating (Kuiper et al. 2005). Nevertheless, a detailed comparison of the astronomical and 40Ar/39Ar ages reveals a rather consistent offset of ~ 0.8%, the astronomical ages being older (Kuiper 2003). This study provides an astronomical age for mineral dating standards and opens the possibility for the introduction of an astronomically dated standard in 40Ar/39Ar dating. An accurate and precise intercalibration is especially important by providing tight constraints for the astronomical tuning when it is extended into the Mesozoic."

(bold added). So it's obvious that they cleared up a discrepancy and think that cyclostratigraphy could possible be used to calibrate Ar-Ar dates someday. We're back to no evidence of calibration of one by the other.

Oh so now intercalibration doesnt mean calibration?

Plus its as clear as day that they are calibrating isochrones with Milankovich cycles and Milankovich cycles with isochrons. Typical circular fervor evocreo

forastero

Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink)

Posted: Dec. 08 2011,14:42

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 irrelevent 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.

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. More c14 at the time of death could in turn make samples appear younger but then surges are known to deplete C14 from biotic matter after death; thus making them appear older. Interestingly, tap water accounts for 80% of the cancer risks from radioisoptopes, which to me means that water is also a big time source of contamination in fossils. Even more well known is water leaching radioisotopes from rocks. 14C is also found throughout the earth�s soil and like most radioisotopes, it reacts with other radioisotopes. Heat, carbonates, acids, changes in the magnetic field, and other factors can affect the ratio of C12 to C14. Microbic decomposers are often found in prehistoric bones and thus can also contaminate samples.

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. Thus, do we really know if prehistoric animals consumed the same ratio of 14C? Different plants and animals ingest, absorb, and excrete 12C and 14C differently as do different body parts. 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. 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.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Dec. 08 2011,14:43

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,14:36)

Plus its as clear as day that they are calibrating isochrones with Milankovich cycles and Milankovich cycles with isochrons. Typical circular fervor evocreo

So write a paper on your amazing discovery. Get it published. Find out what if feels like for a person such as yourself to stand on the shoulders of giants for once.

It's the only way to correct such issues, posting on backwater internet forums ain't gonna fix it none.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger�s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Tracy P. Hamilton

Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Dec. 08 2011,15:08

Quote

Elevated neutrino flux during a relatively brief period would have two effects: (1) a surge in C-14 fraction in the atmosphere.

No one said that neutrinos effect �c14 production

Forastero did (quoting a crank paper), have a talk with him and maybe you two can get your story straight.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you�re taking refuge in what we see in the world." �PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

Tracy P. Hamilton

Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Dec. 08 2011,15:16

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,14:36)

�

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,08:49)

�

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,09:24)

� �

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,05:26)

� � � �

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:13)

� � � �

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28)

� � � � � �

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33)

� � � � � �

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42)

Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance.

I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.

How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"?

Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds

No, I'm not that fellow. I don't know how isochrons correlate with Milankovitch cycles, but that correlation has nothing to do with contamination. And isochrons certainly aren't calibrated with Milankovitch cycles.

� � � �

Quote

As for contamination here is a good but I will look for some more
Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29
Abstract: The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. .

Still not contamination. Note that "Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron." Note also that almost all isochron dating is consilient with other methods such as U-Pb concordia-discordia, by far the most widely used method, and with Ar-Ar, probably the second most widely used method.

If you had any idea of how isochron dating works, you would know that errors due to initial isotope ratio mismatches are rare and why that is so.

You are wasting your time with isochrons. They have their uses, but if you want to discredit radiometric dating you need to be talking U-Pb and Ar-Ar.

I don't have a subscription to Geology, and they don't offer the option of purchasing a single article. Will you send me the PDF of the whole thing? I assume you're not just blindly copying what some creo website has to say ... hee hee hee.

Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson

http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf

Goodness me, there is an actual mention of calibration of Ar-Ar from Milankovitch cycles! I suspect that they really meant correlation. But how about the vice-versa?

And on further investigation I was right, they did really mean correlation. From the full paper at Cyclostratigraphy � concepts, definitions, and applications:

"Despite these caveats, the cyclostratigraphic method has great potential. Major advantages and applications are: ... {long snip} ...

Intercalibration with radiometric dating methods. Comparison and intercalibration with independent radio-isotopic dating methods is fundamentally important. For example, new radiometric age dating recently challenged the up to then widely accepted cyclostratigraphical interpretation of the Middle Triassic Latemar platform in Italy (e. g., Goldhammer et al. 1987, Hinnov & Goldhammer 1991, Brack et al. 1996, Egenhoff et al. 1999, Z�hlke 2004). At the Tortonian GSSP at Monte dei Corvi (Italy), however, new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating (Kuiper et al. 2005). Nevertheless, a detailed comparison of the astronomical and 40Ar/39Ar ages reveals a rather consistent offset of ~ 0.8%, the astronomical ages being older (Kuiper 2003). This study provides an astronomical age for mineral dating standards and opens the possibility for the introduction of an astronomically dated standard in 40Ar/39Ar dating. An accurate and precise intercalibration is especially important by providing tight constraints for the astronomical tuning when it is extended into the Mesozoic."

(bold added). So it's obvious that they cleared up a discrepancy and think that cyclostratigraphy could possible be used to calibrate Ar-Ar dates someday. We're back to no evidence of calibration of one by the other.

Oh so now intercalibration doesnt mean calibration?

Possibly and someday means not done yet, so you cannot speak of this process being done in the present or past. �JonF even bolded it for you.

Of course I had to leave in the incredible stupidity of accusing somebody else of saying isochrons were calibrated with Milankovitch cycles when it was himself.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you�re taking refuge in what we see in the world." �PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

JonF

Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: Dec. 08 2011,15:27

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,15:36)

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,08:49)

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,09:24)

�

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,05:26)

� � �

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:13)

� � �

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28)

� � � � �

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33)

� � � � �

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42)

Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance.

I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.

How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"?

Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds

No, I'm not that fellow. I don't know how isochrons correlate with Milankovitch cycles, but that correlation has nothing to do with contamination. And isochrons certainly aren't calibrated with Milankovitch cycles.

� � �

Quote

As for contamination here is a good but I will look for some more
Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29
Abstract: The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. .

Still not contamination. Note that "Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron." Note also that almost all isochron dating is consilient with other methods such as U-Pb concordia-discordia, by far the most widely used method, and with Ar-Ar, probably the second most widely used method.

If you had any idea of how isochron dating works, you would know that errors due to initial isotope ratio mismatches are rare and why that is so.

You are wasting your time with isochrons. They have their uses, but if you want to discredit radiometric dating you need to be talking U-Pb and Ar-Ar.

I don't have a subscription to Geology, and they don't offer the option of purchasing a single article. Will you send me the PDF of the whole thing? I assume you're not just blindly copying what some creo website has to say ... hee hee hee.

Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson

http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf

Goodness me, there is an actual mention of calibration of Ar-Ar from Milankovitch cycles! I suspect that they really meant correlation. But how about the vice-versa?

And on further investigation I was right, they did really mean correlation. From the full paper at Cyclostratigraphy � concepts, definitions, and applications:

"Despite these caveats, the cyclostratigraphic method has great potential. Major advantages and applications are: ... {long snip} ...

Intercalibration with radiometric dating methods. Comparison and intercalibration with independent radio-isotopic dating methods is fundamentally important. For example, new radiometric age dating recently challenged the up to then widely accepted cyclostratigraphical interpretation of the Middle Triassic Latemar platform in Italy (e. g., Goldhammer et al. 1987, Hinnov & Goldhammer 1991, Brack et al. 1996, Egenhoff et al. 1999, Z�hlke 2004). At the Tortonian GSSP at Monte dei Corvi (Italy), however, new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating (Kuiper et al. 2005). Nevertheless, a detailed comparison of the astronomical and 40Ar/39Ar ages reveals a rather consistent offset of ~ 0.8%, the astronomical ages being older (Kuiper 2003). This study provides an astronomical age for mineral dating standards and opens the possibility for the introduction of an astronomically dated standard in 40Ar/39Ar dating. An accurate and precise intercalibration is especially important by providing tight constraints for the astronomical tuning when it is extended into the Mesozoic."

(bold added). So it's obvious that they cleared up a discrepancy and think that cyclostratigraphy could possible be used to calibrate Ar-Ar dates someday. We're back to no evidence of calibration of one by the other.

Oh so now intercalibration doesnt mean calibration?

Plus its as clear as day that they are calibrating isochrones with Milankovich cycles and Milankovich cycles with isochrons. Typical circular fervor evocreo

My my, you're right! �Intercalibration does not mean calibration, at least not in that paper! If A is calibrated by B, then if for some reason B changes than A also changes. That's not the case with cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar dating. It's clear that in that paper "intercalibration" means agreement between independent results. If the underlying calibration of cyclostratigraphy changed, we wouldn't change the results of Ar-Ar analysis and vice versa. If the results of cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar analysis don't agree, that's a problem that needs investigating.

No, it's not "clear as day that they are calibrating isochrons with Milankovich cycles and Milankovich cycles with isochrons." It's clear as day that the are comparing the results of the two different and independent methods and they are glad that they agree closely, but they're a little bothered by a "rather consistent offset of ~ 0.8%". 0.8% when you are looking for 10,000,000%! Hee hee hee ...

In fact, they explicitly say that Ar-Ar is not calibrated by cyclostratigraphy and do not hint anywhere that cyclostratigraphy is calibrated by Ar.Ar. Comparison is not calibration. End of story.

Bottom line: cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar analysis agree closely but are not used to calibrate each other.

How 'bout dem references for "contamination is also a problem"? How ya comin' on that search?

forastero

Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink)

Posted: Dec. 08 2011,15:31

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 08 2011,15:08)

Quote

Elevated neutrino flux during a relatively brief period would have two effects: (1) a surge in C-14 fraction in the atmosphere.

No one said that neutrinos effect �c14 production

Forastero did (quoting a crank paper), have a talk with him and maybe you two can get your story straight.

A multitude of crank papers because they question your dogma?

Of course there is a surge in both Neutrinos and 14C production because they are both generated by cosmic rays which both surge during solar flares but the point on neutrinos is their effect decay rates

forastero

Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink)

Posted: Dec. 08 2011,15:37

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,15:27)

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,15:36)

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,08:49)

�

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,09:24)

� �

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,05:26)

� � � �

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:13)

� � � �

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28)

� � � � � �

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33)

� � � � � �

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42)

Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance.

I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.

How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"?

Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds

No, I'm not that fellow. I don't know how isochrons correlate with Milankovitch cycles, but that correlation has nothing to do with contamination. And isochrons certainly aren't calibrated with Milankovitch cycles.

� � �

Quote

As for contamination here is a good but I will look for some more
Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29
Abstract: The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. .

Still not contamination. Note that "Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron." Note also that almost all isochron dating is consilient with other methods such as U-Pb concordia-discordia, by far the most widely used method, and with Ar-Ar, probably the second most widely used method.

If you had any idea of how isochron dating works, you would know that errors due to initial isotope ratio mismatches are rare and why that is so.

You are wasting your time with isochrons. They have their uses, but if you want to discredit radiometric dating you need to be talking U-Pb and Ar-Ar.

I don't have a subscription to Geology, and they don't offer the option of purchasing a single article. Will you send me the PDF of the whole thing? I assume you're not just blindly copying what some creo website has to say ... hee hee hee.

Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson

http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf

Goodness me, there is an actual mention of calibration of Ar-Ar from Milankovitch cycles! I suspect that they really meant correlation. But how about the vice-versa?

And on further investigation I was right, they did really mean correlation. From the full paper at Cyclostratigraphy � concepts, definitions, and applications:

"Despite these caveats, the cyclostratigraphic method has great potential. Major advantages and applications are: ... {long snip} ...

Intercalibration with radiometric dating methods. Comparison and intercalibration with independent radio-isotopic dating methods is fundamentally important. For example, new radiometric age dating recently challenged the up to then widely accepted cyclostratigraphical interpretation of the Middle Triassic Latemar platform in Italy (e. g., Goldhammer et al. 1987, Hinnov & Goldhammer 1991, Brack et al. 1996, Egenhoff et al. 1999, Z�hlke 2004). At the Tortonian GSSP at Monte dei Corvi (Italy), however, new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating (Kuiper et al. 2005). Nevertheless, a detailed comparison of the astronomical and 40Ar/39Ar ages reveals a rather consistent offset of ~ 0.8%, the astronomical ages being older (Kuiper 2003). This study provides an astronomical age for mineral dating standards and opens the possibility for the introduction of an astronomically dated standard in 40Ar/39Ar dating. An accurate and precise intercalibration is especially important by providing tight constraints for the astronomical tuning when it is extended into the Mesozoic."

(bold added). So it's obvious that they cleared up a discrepancy and think that cyclostratigraphy could possible be used to calibrate Ar-Ar dates someday. We're back to no evidence of calibration of one by the other.

Oh so now intercalibration doesnt mean calibration?

Plus its as clear as day that they are calibrating isochrones with Milankovich cycles and Milankovich cycles with isochrons. Typical circular fervor evocreo

My my, you're right! �Intercalibration does not mean calibration, at least not in that paper! If A is calibrated by B, then if for some reason B changes than A also changes. That's not the case with cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar dating. It's clear that in that paper "intercalibration" means agreement between independent results. If the underlying calibration of cyclostratigraphy changed, we wouldn't change the results of Ar-Ar analysis and vice versa. If the results of cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar analysis don't agree, that's a problem that needs investigating.

No, it's not "clear as day that they are calibrating isochrons with Milankovich cycles and Milankovich cycles with isochrons." It's clear as day that the are comparing the results of the two different and independent methods and they are glad that they agree closely, but they're a little bothered by a "rather consistent offset of ~ 0.8%". 0.8% when you are looking for 10,000,000%! Hee hee hee ...

In fact, they explicitly say that Ar-Ar is not calibrated by cyclostratigraphy and do not hint anywhere that cyclostratigraphy is calibrated by Ar.Ar. Comparison is not calibration. End of story.

Bottom line: cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar analysis agree closely but are not used to calibrate each other.

How 'bout dem references for "contamination is also a problem"? How ya comin' on that search?

yeah, when they wrote: "new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating".

JonF

Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: 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.

forastero

Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink)

Posted: Dec. 08 2011,15:44

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,08:24)

All of those problems are possible, and are some of the reasons that K-Ar dating isn't used much anymore. Some of those problems are obviated by rational sample selections and processing. Of course, dates can be checked by comparing with other independent methods, and those checks indicate that he possible problems are rare.

In 40Ar/36Ar analyses of historic lava flows, Dalrymple tested whether 26 very young lava flows had excess argon. 18 of them did not. 8 of them had detectable excess argon, but only one had enough to affect an age of a few million years:

"With the exception of the Hualalai flow, the amounts of excess 40Ar and 36Ar found in the flows with anomalous 40Ar/36Ar ratios were too small to cause serious errors in potassium-argon dating of rocks a few million years old or older. However, these anomalous 40Ar/36Ar ratios could be a problem in dating very young rocks. If the present data are representative, argon of slightly anomalous composition can be expected in approximately one out of three volcanic rocks."

So excess argon is rare.

You need to demonstrate that the possible problems are near universal and, if you can do that, explain the consilience between different radiometric techniques and non-radiometric techniques. For example, Are Radioactive Dates Consistent With The Deeper-Is-Older Rule? (his source is available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publica....86110).

Still waiting for some evidence that contamination is a problem.

What do you mean its not used much any more? The paper says its always used with 40Ar/39Ar,

Oh and btw, just how do you believe isochrons are calibrated?

forastero

Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink)

Posted: Dec. 08 2011,15:50

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.

I will read those non-peer reviewd papers when I get back but in the mean time how about some proof on your other hasty dismissives?

JonF

Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: Dec. 08 2011,15:52

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,16:37)

�

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,15:27)

� �

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,15:36)

� � �

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,08:49)

� � �

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,09:24)

� � � �

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,05:26)

� � � � � �

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:13)

� � � � � �

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28)

� � � � � � � �

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33)

� � � � � � � �

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42)

Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance.

I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.

How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"?

Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds

No, I'm not that fellow. I don't know how isochrons correlate with Milankovitch cycles, but that correlation has nothing to do with contamination. And isochrons certainly aren't calibrated with Milankovitch cycles.

� � � � � �