sorry, I just could not pass that one up, :-)
Posted on 04/16/2008 11:32:32 AM PDT by Red Badger
sorry, I just could not pass that one up, :-)
Different title and source.......
If you look around a little you can probably find several more.
Yeah, now every country that has spruces will be scrambling to find some that are older!............
Ever worked in a lab? Familiar with the terms Calibration and Gage Repeatability and Reproduceability?
Ever worked in a lab? Familiar with the terms Calibration and Gage Repeatability and Reproduceability?
I can handle the terms. Do you have a point to make concerning them?
Odd that when a living mullusk dates several thousand years old, we know thats wrong, and seek a logical explanation. However, with this uppity Swedish tree, everyone just assumes the reported date is correct.
The decay rate will be assumed to be a constant until creationists show some evidence to the contrary. Raising the issue that the rate is not constant is not the same as providing some -- any -- evidence that it is not, nor does this invalidate the assumption.
The RATE Project spent a million or more dollars trying to disprove radiometric dating and didn't succeed. They of course didn't believe their own results, but they managed to duplicate what scientists had already come up with.
The reservoir effect can be dealt with and understood, and thereby corrected. It is small in any case.
The original amounts of C14 can be determined through tree ring and several other methods, creating a calibration curve. The maximum variation is about 10% back about 11,000 years ago. Mostly it is far less than that.
Contamination can be detected through several means, including checking the C13/C12 ratio.
None of these "problems" you point out amount to much. Certainly unless you can come up with some evidence showing the method is unreliable you won't get far.
Odd that when a living mullusk dates several thousand years old, we know thats wrong, and seek a logical explanation. However, with this uppity Swedish tree, everyone just assumes the reported date is correct.
I would venture that they are checking a lot of other lines of evidence to verify their dates.
By the way, what can you do to standing wood, dead or alive, that will make it appear older than its actual age? I can think of several types of contamination that would make it younger, but what would make it older?
As for the mollusks, are those the ones living on pure limestone in small freshwater streams? Feed that much radioactively dead carbon into an organism and its bound to date older than normal. Again, that is a problem that has been identified and can be taken into account when dating.
You must think those of use who deal with Carbon-14 dating are idiots or something, that we don't actively look for these problems and try very hard to correct them so that our dates are as accurate as possible. And you know, when we are doing research, such as the archaeology that I do, we don't even consider what creationists think about our dates. We are out to get the most accurate dates possible, no matter what they show.
Based on your objections it sounds like you distrust Carbon-14 because you believe in a young earth or something, not because of the science.
The reservoir effect can be dealt with and understood, and thereby corrected. It is small in any case.
based on averages of current measurements, which then assumes it will be constant over long periods of time.
The original amounts of C14 can be determined through tree ring and several other methods, creating a calibration curve.
C14 dating is based on dendrochronology, a questionably accurate science at best. Studies of the plantation pine Pinus radiata have demonstrated that that species can produce up an observed 5 seasonal rings in one year, that are difficult to distinguish from annual rings. This calls into question the use of the Methusaleh tree as a Dendro and C14 baseline. What does the Dendrochronologist offer as proof of the accuracy of the dating method? C14, of course.
creating a calibration curve.
From my personal investigation, it appears that the C14 curves have been calibrated based on the known dates of Egyptian artifacts and the Dead Sea scrolls. However, the actual dates that these artifacts began their C14 decay is unknown, and in some cases is highly questionable. Of course, the Egyptologist would disagree, because they have "records". These records are based on the 3rd century BC writings of an Egyptian Priest "Maneton", who recorded the 30 dynasties into 3 periods.
You must think those of use who deal with Carbon-14 dating are idiots or something, that we don't actively look for these problems and try very hard to correct them so that our dates are as accurate as possible. And you know, when we are doing research, such as the archeology that I do, we don't even consider what creationists think about our dates. We are out to get the most accurate dates possible, no matter what they show.As long as you are conforatable with all of the assumptions, fine by me. I'm not. And having known several "scientists", with advanced degrees, my skepticism is gratuitously increased. I have consulted several years in pharmaceuticals and applied life sciences, and have seen first hand the assumtpions and gage error that is inherent in mass spectrometry.
Finally regarding tree calibration of BP to calendar years, I leave with this statement from BETA Analytic in Miami:
(Caveat: the calibrations assume that the material dated was living for exactly ten or twenty years (e.g. a collection of 10 or 20 individual tree rings taken from the outer portion of a tree that was cut down to produce the sample in the feature dated). For other materials, the maximum and minimum calibrated age ranges given by the computer program are uncertain. The possibility of an "old wood effect" must also be considered, as well as the potential inclusion of some younger material in the total sample. Since the vast majority of samples dated probably will not fulfill the ten/twenty-year-criterium and, in addition, an old wood effect or young carbon inclusion might not be excludable, dendro-calibration results should be used only for illustrative purposes. In the case of carbonates, reservoir correction is theoretical and the local variations are real, highly variable and dependant on provenience. The age ranges and, especially, the intercept ages generated by the program must be considered as approximations.) http://www.radiocarbon.com/calendar.htm
FWIW, I like science, and make a living teaching the application of the scientific method to statistical problem solving in business. However, I trust "scientists" about as much as I trust "TV preachers" and "Theologians". I like to prove everything to myself as to it's validity and veracity.
I am a Christian for this very reason. I could find no other explanation for the claimed resurrection of Jesus other than it is an actual historical fact. Jesus claimed to be God, and there are 3 options: liar, lunatic, or YHWH. My personal investigation led me to conclude the latter.
Have you genuinely considered and investigated the claims of Jesus?
Under a century, of course. But with something like beta decay that is a sufficient statistical universe to put the burden of proof on anyone who claims that the decay rate is not a constant. Bring evidence, not supposition.
The reservoir effect can be dealt with and understood, and thereby corrected. It is small in any case.
based on averages of current measurements, which then assumes it will be constant over long periods of time.
Small potatoes. The average correction for marine shellfish is about 625 years in many areas. That is clearly not enough to change C14 measurements enough to validate a young earth, which is what your arguments all seem to be about.
The original amounts of C14 can be determined through tree ring and several other methods, creating a calibration curve.
C14 dating is based on dendrochronology, a questionably accurate science at best. Studies of the plantation pine Pinus radiata have demonstrated that that species can produce up an observed 5 seasonal rings in one year, that are difficult to distinguish from annual rings. This calls into question the use of the Methusaleh tree as a Dendro and C14 baseline. What does the Dendrochronologist offer as proof of the accuracy of the dating method? C14, of course.
This example is only valid if the trees used for calibrating the C14 curve are the plantation pine Pinus radiata. It would be silly to use species known to do multiple rings. And in any case, the accuracy of the tree rings is tested against known historical events, such as volcanos. Remember the "year without a summer?" That's one of the events they look for. You can find such known events back to past 3,000 years ago accurately recorded in the tree rings.
creating a calibration curve.
From my personal investigation, it appears that the C14 curves have been calibrated based on the known dates of Egyptian artifacts and the Dead Sea scrolls. However, the actual dates that these artifacts began their C14 decay is unknown, and in some cases is highly questionable. Of course, the Egyptologist would disagree, because they have "records". These records are based on the 3rd century BC writings of an Egyptian Priest "Maneton", who recorded the 30 dynasties into 3 periods.
Not correct. Some of the original calibrations pre-1950 used those, but that was very early in the development of C14 dating. Now they use various tree rings, glacial varves, speleothems, corals, and the like. And you know, these various methods agree pretty well with one another.
Finally regarding tree calibration of BP to calendar years, I leave with this statement from BETA Analytic in Miami:
(Caveat: the calibrations assume that the material dated was living for exactly ten or twenty years (e.g. a collection of 10 or 20 individual tree rings taken from the outer portion of a tree that was cut down to produce the sample in the feature dated). For other materials, the maximum and minimum calibrated age ranges given by the computer program are uncertain. The possibility of an "old wood effect" must also be considered, as well as the potential inclusion of some younger material in the total sample. Since the vast majority of samples dated probably will not fulfill the ten/twenty-year-criterium and, in addition, an old wood effect or young carbon inclusion might not be excludable, dendro-calibration results should be used only for illustrative purposes. In the case of carbonates, reservoir correction is theoretical and the local variations are real, highly variable and dependant on provenience. The age ranges and, especially, the intercept ages generated by the program must be considered as approximations.) http://www.radiocarbon.com/calendar.htm
I am familiar with that; Beta does all of my dating at present. But all of this is old news to scientists.
I am delivering a lecture on this very subject later this week, and I am using an example of the old wood effect in the lecture. I am also including a section on calibration dealing with the various reservoir effects.
I am afraid that your knowledge of radiocarbon dating could use some "updating" as you appear to have bought into some of the standard creationist propaganda. The idea that beta decay is highly variable is one of their pets, although there is absolutely no evidence to support that idea. Really, check out the RATE Project.
The RATE Project was designed to prove a young earth, but they produced evidence showing just the opposite!
See Assessing the RATE Project, by Randy Isaac.
From the article (emphasis added):
In 1997, the Institute of Creation Research (ICR) and the Creation Research Society initiated an eight-year research program to investigate the validity of radioisotope dating of rocks. The project was named RATE for Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth. Preliminary investigations carried out in the first three years were summarized in volume I of this work, published in 2000. Volume II, published in 2005, represents the final report. At $79.99, 818 pages, and 3.5 pounds, the book is a heavy investment. For most interested parties, the final five pages of text, pp. 765–9, are sufficient to grasp the essence of the book. A nontechnical version of this book, authored by Donald DeYoung, and a video documentary have also been prepared. Both are titled Thousands Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution.
...
The conclusions of the RATE project are being billed as “groundbreaking results.” This is a fairly accurate description since a group of creation scientists acknowledge that hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactivity have occurred. They attempt to explain how this massive radioactivity could have occurred in a few thousand years but admit that consistent solutions have not yet been found. The vast majority of the book is devoted to providing technical details that the authors believe prove that the earth is young and that radioisotope decay has not always been constant. All of these areas of investigation have been addressed elsewhere by the scientific community and have been shown to be without merit. The only new data provided in this book are in the category of additional details and there are no significantly new claims.
In this book, the authors admit that a young-earth position cannot be reconciled with the scientific data without assuming that exotic solutions will be discovered in the future. No known thermodynamic process could account for the required rate of heat removal nor is there any known way to protect organisms from radiation damage. The young-earth advocate is therefore left with two positions. Either God created the earth with the appearance of age (thought by many to be inconsistent with the character of God) or else there are radical scientific laws yet to be discovered that would revolutionize science in the future. The authors acknowledge that no current scientific understanding is consistent with a young earth. Yet they are so confident that these problems will be resolved that they encourage a message that the reliability of the Bible has been confirmed.
In Thousands Not Billions, the incompatibility of the young-earth position with current scientific understanding is glossed over in the final four pages of the book. The thermodynamic dilemma is dismissed with
Possible mechanisms have been explored that could safeguard the earth from severe overheating during accelerated decay events. One of these involves cosmological or volume cooling, the result of a rapid expansion of space. Many details remain to be filled in for this and other proposed processes of heat removal (p. 180).
Unfortunately for young-earth advocates, cosmological expansion does not cool material on earth nor does it cool some materials and not others. Yet DeYoung concludes: “Young-earth creation is neither outdated nor in opposition to science” (p. 182).
In other words, the RATE project spent over a million dollars and concluded that science is right.
Cool. So school me on where I can read and understand this myself (web is best, obviously).
But with something like beta decay that is a sufficient statistical universe to put the burden of proof on anyone who claims that the decay rate is not a constant. Bring evidence, not supposition.
Prove your point. You have made an Appeal to Authority. While I won't sya it was a falacious appeal, I do realize that we have observed less than 1/57 of a c14 half life, and are extrapolating from there. This causes me concern about the "statistical universe" you refer to. Give a website with data that can be compared and analyzed. So many of these assumptions are akin to the "Mann Hockey Stick" in my mind.
This example is only valid if the trees used for calibrating the C14 curve are the plantation pine Pinus radiata. It would be silly to use species known to do multiple rings.
Since the Bristlecone is of the same Genus Pinus the burden of proof is on the Dendrochronologist to prove the assumption that they don't put on multiple rings like other trees in the same Genus. I mean, what basis do they have to say that Bristlecone puts on only one ring per year?
Why throw RATE in the discussion? We have enough here to keep us busy.
I cited Beta because you stated:
By the way, what can you do to standing wood, dead or alive, that will make it appear older than its actual age? I can think of several types of contamination that would make it younger, but what would make it older?
From my understanding, the error can occur either direction, younger or older.
2. There is no relation between the C14 half-life and the beta decay constant. They are two different things. One need not observe beta decay for any specific time in relation to the C14 half-life, as beta decay is observed in other radioactives. You can observe beta decay in materials with other half-lives, and don't have to limit your search just to C14. It is the little disintegrations (beta decay) that are measured, and the samples contain millions to billions of them; that is the statistical universe I mentioned. To argue the opposite you have to show that in one or more cases the rate of decay changes. This is bonehead physics. If you disagree, bring evidence.
3. Reread my point about volcanos and tree rings. If historical events can be correlated with tree rings for a couple of thousand years, you are not getting multiple rings to any appreciable extent.
4. The RATE Project is relevant as they set out with over a million dollars of creationists money to disprove radiometric dating, and failed.
Until you can bring some evidence to support your contentions it is useless to continue explaining this to you. You can do "what ifs" all day, and it doesn't amount to a hill of beans without some evidence that your "what if" is real, likely, or even possible.
Bring evidence of hugely variable beta decay. Bring evidence that the tree rings don't correlate with volcanic activity. If you want to argue for a young earth you will need to bring a lot of evidence because you will have to overturn most all of modern science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.