Let’s get back to your own primary topic, that of perceived “flaws in radiometric dating” (as per the topic header).
What leads you to raise this question? What are the actual “flaws in radiometric dating” that you find concerning?
Speak to anyone, absolutely anyone, who is involved in any form of radiometric dating anywhere. You will find that they are extremely well aware of all the possibilities of errors, contamination, uncertainty of measurement, etc. that can play a part in their own everyday life-work in this area. Taking all these possibilities into account is an integral part of daily work. They know the potential sources of error; they know how to take them into account and how that might affect the statistical “confidence level” which which they trust, or mistrust, their own findings.
They already know.
So could you identify, please, which particular “flaws” you have in mind, that you think they are unaware of? What particular detail or example do you know that they don’t already know? Providing a real, specific example or two might help you to think through this towards greater clarity.
If we divide people into 3 groups, which would you fall under:
those who agree with Purdue University and the Israel Geological Survey who believe that there is a new discovery that decay rates are not a constant, but are influenced by solar flares, daily fluctuations, seasonal fluctuations, 33 day cycles and 11 year cycles as shown in their studies as quoted in this thread.
those who argue that the new effect is simply instrument error
those who don’t really follow the debate and assume it doesn’t exist in scientific circles.
You seem to be in category 3, am I right? I’m in category 1.
Are you saying that a small river in a small catchment area will show seasonal flows more than rainfall specific flows? My understanding is that small catchment areas, especially with steep slopes will have quick runoff with each rainfall rather than displaying seasonal patterns.
Thus the 1mm layering in Lake Suigetsu more likely represents 60000 rainfall based layers, rather than 60000 years.
I would like to hear your factual geological opinions on why you think that particular river, being the Hasu River would cause seasonal varves rather than rainfall layers in Lake Suigetsu.
I don’t find blind acceptance of scientific conclusions intellectually stimulating at all. Scientific opinion is there to be challenged and improved, not blindly accepted.
My reply wasn’t about dividing people into three groups. My reply was precisely to your apparently precise topic: “flaws in radiometric dating”.
Did you mean your topic to be about radiometric dating (and so-called ‘flaws’ in it)? Or was it merely a stalking horse for a “Gish gallop” of superficial glances off many topics, many unrelated to your apparent ly precisely-intended topic?
If your question is, genuinely, about “flaws in radiometric dating”, please could you keep this thread on topic?
Yes, ten years ago Purdue did indeed, seem to have some measurements that appeared to point in this direction. And the noting and investigation of such things is precisely how good science works.
Good science is perfectly happy to handle data points which fall in unexpected places. Scientists love apparently anomalous data points. That is how science lives and thrives and grows. After all, isn’t this handling of data points in unexpected places how “theory of the atom” itself (of which radiometric dating is an outcome) developed from the late nineteenth century? (Einstein’s Nobel prize wasn’t in relatively, but rather in an aspect of atomic theory.)
That Purdue/NIST report was nearly ten years ago. Have you checked the developments in the ten years since? What do you understand of those subsequent updates?
We have already covered this in this thread. You are welcome to peruse the thread and the appropriate links and comment further. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
I think that is a good principle when applied across the board. It appears however that you have accepted the studies you quoted though apparently only the parts you liked, and largely ignoring the fact that they found very little variation in decay rates, largely confirming that dating techiques were unaffected. And those studies have been at least partially refuted.
The bigger question to me is of how to explain why radiometric dating, chronodentrology, varve counting, ice layer counts, geologic formations, astronomical observations and probably several others I missed all give the same conclusions that are compatable within the limits of our understanding. If they are all wrong, what does that say about creation, what does that say about about the Bible which proclaims creation as reflecting the glory and nature of God, and ultimately, what does that say about God?
Well the general problem with most of those methods are that precipitation based events are misunderstood as annual events. This applies to Lake Suigetsu, ice cores, bristlepine dendrochronology. Then carbon dating ratios are calibrated against these misunderstood time frames.
I prefer a more literal biblical view, and I prefer more accurate scientific timeframe studies. I can understand that my doubt of radioactive dating techniques is seen as negligible owing to the negligible discrepancies, nevertheless I suspect this to be connected to the slight changes in background radiation that would have occurred in the conditions studied.
New information regarding eras past indicate that atmospheric air pressure was pretty high back then, and this has a major influence on reduction in background radiation (muon induced). So although no one has studied these correlations I do see potential for a huge cause /effect in eras past.
I have posted a number of links to the studies in question. These were mainly by Jenkins, Fischbach and Sturrock, Steinitz.
You are welcome to look through this thread, and read the studies involved. The additional theory that neutrinos are the culprit has been thoroughly refuted, so the cause/effect of this phenomenon remains unknown.
Well, let’s see if you find flaws in this argument.
I weighed myself on 3 different bathroom scales, with the results being 210, 211, and 208 pounds. Therefore, I conclude that I could weigh 3 million pounds and that bathroom scales can’t be used to determine weight.
That doesn’t explain why different parent isotopes with different decay rates and different decay mechanisms all give the same ages. Add to that the agreement between radiometric dating and non-radiometric measurements, such as the agreement between tectonic plate movements and radiometric dates.
The mystery could be as simple as measurement error. The machinery they are using to measure decay rates tends to drift on an annual basis while the decay rates stay constant. Given the inability of others to replicate the tiny annual change in other labs, this is the most likely source of the drift.
Then why do they all agree with one another? Why do two tree ring data sets on two different continents agree with one another? Why do ice layers agree with tree rings? Why do varves agree with both tree rings and ice layers?
The discrepancies in the constancy of decay rates fluctuate even on a daily basis. Unless the instruments they used were so useless as to drift out whenever there were slight temperature changes during the day, instrument error is not a satisfactory explanation for the discrepancies.
Sure when comparing the discrepancies with the actual neutrino flux they found no correlation, but this is no excuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sure neutrinos are not the cause, I suspect the cause is the energizing effects of background radiation.
The discrepancies are in the measurement of decay rates. The method of measurement has to be considered.
As history has shown, if a piece of equipment suggests that a basic law of physics is wrong contrary to thousands of other experiments it is usually the piece of equipment that is wrong. If you think it is possible for a fundamental constant of the universe to fluctuate, why are you so adamant that equipment made by fallible humans can never be wrong?
Precipitation is approximately regular. Show me the studies that reflect this perfect correlation. Normally it’s circular logic, carbon dating is seen as being approximate, and is calibrated against the one method, then used to approximately correlate the rest and sure precipitation events do have an approximate consistency. You guys overemphasize the so called correlations, they are not as exact as you presume, unless you can show me studies otherwise.
I feel that while technically true, it misrepresents the reality. The half life of carbon 14 is well defined totally independent of those observations, and by itself would give us a general age based on based on currently observed atmospheric levels. The observed data sited only serves to fine tune the calibration. In addition to those scientific observations, you add the historical confirmation that backs up the calculated dates. You can date a date at found at Pompey and we know with certainty the year that date can be dated. Unless it was an out of date date, then may be a year older, not to be confused with Pliny the Younger who wrote of the event. Other volcanic eruptions can also be historically dated and their dust confirms the accuracy of the varves and ice layers as far back as we have historical records.