Research shows radiometric dating still reliable (again)

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) ^ | September 16, 2010 | Unknown

[decimon]

Deja vu (again) ping.

[James C. Bennett]

So, what’s the consensus on the 6,000-year human existence model?

[Westbrook]

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20The%20Age%20of%20the%20Earth.htm

Enjoy.

[central_va]

I though this was about some form of internet dating I hadn’t heard of.

[dirtboy]

A less-than one percent variation is obviously enough to change 4.5 billion years to 6,000 years. Can't you do basic math?

In all seriousness, it can call into question the outer end of radiometric calculations. But probably in the neighborhood of making the error margin plus or minus a hundred million years more than it already is.

[dirtboy]

And you still have all of those geological formations that have to be explained by more than fanciful attempts at science.

[James C. Bennett]

The “less-than-one percent” variation was not repeatable in the controlled experiment, per the article, however.

[James C. Bennett]

Are geological formation processes reliable in dating history?

[dirtboy]

I'm giving the creationists the benefit of the doubt on that one. Even if it were true, and even if solar activity and flares were far greater on the ancient earth, and I'll even given them a TEN percent variance in radioactive decay (or well over an order of magnitude of what was allegedly observed), then what does that shave off? 450,000 million years. Let's make it 50 percent. That makes the Earth 2.5 billion years old. Ninety percent? We still have the Cambrian at 450 million years.

In other words, the level of change in radiometric decay would have to be astronomically more rapid to even begin to move the age of the Earth to the same zip code as 6,000 years.

[prisoner6]

Bumping for later because I have to run.

That said IMO it's not so much a problem in the variation of radioactive decay but a possible variance in Time itself, especially at different points across the universe.

[dirtboy]

That said IMO it's not so much a problem in the variation of radioactive decay but a possible variance in Time itself,

So would that also change the very nature of geological processes that formed basement rock, deformed it, infused it with igneous intrusions, laid sedimentary rock on top of it, tilted that, eroded it, and then laid thousands of feet on top of that? As inthe Grand Canyon?

And that's a rather simple geological landscape compared to other locales.

[Tax-chick]

[Liberty1970]

Oh please. They aren't even mentioning or interacting with the issues. This is pathetic propaganda. It's like watching flat-earthers focus myopically on their flat yard lawns.

C-14 and other radioisotope dating techniques now provide more evidence for a young earth than an old one. It's now the old-earthers that are forever excusing the results and crying 'contamination' and so forth because they can't accept the raw data. Let's stop the pretense that they believe in 'science.'

[Liberty1970]

I should clarify that my ire is not directed at the scientists involved here, but at the media who cite overarching ‘reliability’ because of one small aspect of the factors affecting geochronometry. The significance of these results merely shows that radisotope decay is not some sort of fundamental, unalterable constant - but the scientific community has known that for years outside of the propaganda channels.

[dirtboy]

C-14 and other radioisotope dating techniques now provide more evidence for a young earth than an old one.

Uh, yeah, sure. C-14 is used for dating organic objects in the ranges of thousands of years ago. Try tacking K-Ar dating and get back to me. As well as the rate of decay of U-238.

You distort the science, yet say the old-Earth folks are the ones who aren't serious about addressing such?

[dirtboy]

C-14 and other radioisotope dating techniques now provide more evidence for a young earth than an old one.

Let's see how much that constant would have to change for a young Earth.

90 percent change - Earth is 450 million years old.

99 percent change - Earth is 45 million years old.

99.99 percent - Earth is 4.5 million years old.

99.999 percent - Earth is 450,000 years old.

99.9999 percent - Earth is 45,000 years old.

So in other words, the rate of fluctuation in radiometric decay would have to be greater than 99.9999 percent to get to a 6,000 year old Earth.

[dirtboy]

Are geological formation processes reliable in dating history?

Not back to 4.5 billion years, too much of the geological record from the early days of the Earth has been eradicated by natural processes of erosion and tectonics.

But it definitely correlates, reasonably well, to the inferred ages of the Phanerozoic formations (Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic).

[Crooked Constituent]

Have you all considered that the creator of time could have made a million year old earth six thousand years ago?

[Texan Tory]

"The maximum neutrino flux in the sample in their experiments was several times greater than the flux of neutrinos from the sun. The researchers followed the gamma-ray emission rate of each source for several weeks and found no difference between the decay rate of the spheres and the corresponding foils."

This probably rules out neutrinos as any sort of cause, so scientists need to think very carefully about what other factors change during a huge solar flare. Because there aren't any other obvious factors, this seems to point to the involvement of an as-yet-undiscovered force, particle, or type of energy. Exciting (or maybe frustrating) time to be a physicist.


"Fascinating"