Quality of the extrapolation leading to billions of years

@GJDS

Isn’t it enough to know that the Earth is not 6000 years old?

Since there are so many ways to measure the age of the Earth… what age of the Earth are you comfortable relying upon?

Actually, a better procedure than saying that someone should not bring a known young sample, is to have the lab measure the sample, and then determine the reliability. In other words, if it “dates” as less than 2my, the lab should indicate the age as zero or unreliable, or give the range of from zero to 2my. It should be able to give an error range which applies to the data, not an error range which is pre-determined by someone’s assertion. The reason this is necessary, is because how do we determine something is less than 2my… if it is possibly 1.5 my, but that is the guess, we were not there, that is the exact thing to be determined. The method is not just to verify something, but to discover something. If it is 1 my but reads as 3.5my, then it will seem to be an accurate reading even when it is not. If we already know the date, then what is the point of measuring it? The measurement should apply when we do not know the date.

My understanding of a lab’s stance in a situation like this is that it’s a matter of integrity and customer service to let your customers know in advance about your limitations. Geologists often have ways of surmising the date of a formation from neighboring strata, the age of neighboring formations, the variety of rock, etc., so if a geologist thinks a specimen is only 100ky old, s/he might take the sample to a lab whose equipment is sensitive enough to date it, rather than waste money and time with a lab that likely can’t produce useful data.

I think you’ll agree with me, John, that integrity and customer service matter a lot in this situation.

Cheers,

1 Like

Integrity is customer service. A method should be impartial, and able to give results that are relevant and accurate. To say that radio dating indicates a 3my old rock, and then later backtrack because the rock is known to be less than 100 years old is neither good service nor an indicator of reliability. When analyzing for an element in a soil or mineral compound it is somewhat laughable for a lab to ask how much of the element is in the compound. If it has to ask, why bother to analyze? And for radio dating how do we know the integrity doesn’t work in reverse… that the sample will continue to be analyzed in various ways and by various methods until a corresponding date is found?

A reliable method would indicate that the sample falls below the reliable detection limit, indicating an age of zero, not of 3.5my, not of 300,000 years.

They are.

But that’s not what happens. If you use the wrong radiometric method on a rock, then the radiometric dating is not telling you how old the rock is. It is simply misleading you.

The test is not analyzing FOR an element, it is analyzing HOW MUCH REMAINS. If there isn’t any to start with, then the test won’t work.

Are you saying that you do not understand how radiometric dating works?

This suggests you do not understand how radiometric dating works. Perhaps you could explain how you think radiometric dating works.

Hi John - I hope you are abiding in God’s grace today.

You seem not to understand how radiometric dating works, John. If the sample falls below the reliable detection limit, it does not indicate an age of zero. It indicates an age which is below the detection limit of the apparatus, so the age could be anything from zero up to whatever the limit is.

You haven’t given enough information to assess reliability. What were the lab’s reliability claims? What was the lab’s statement of limitations?

Again, you have not understood this process. If you have in your hand in igneous sample from the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption, then you know the age as of this writing is 36 years. You don’t need to measure the ratio of elements to determine the age.

With regard to the RATE project’s use of radiometric dating: The lab’s policy wasn’t demanding that the customer tell them (for example) the ratio of potassium to argon; the lab was saying if the provenance of the customer’s sample indicated a recent age, the customer shouldn’t use their lab.

EDIT: grammar

1 Like

I’m glad it’s not just me who thinks this.

Jonathan, you seem to be getting caught up in your own net, twisting yourself into a pretzel. You contradict where there is no need, and thus leave everyone confused. Your use of language leaves something to be desired. You cannot test for how much of an element remains, if you cannot test for the element. You cannot determine the parent/daughter ratio if you cannot test for both. If there isnot any daughter to start with, then the test should show that… in other words, the ratio of daughter to parent would be zero.

Why am I even replying to this???

You are demonstrating yourself to be a troll, since it is obvious that you have no idea how radiometric dating works, and yet pretend otherwise.

This is a good response, Chris. But the point is that something that is below the detection limit, would indicate zero, since it could not be detected. When it is detected at low levels, but within the range of error or variance, it should be less than the error limit of the detection method, which is reported at about 200,000 years equivalent, or sometimes at 280,000 years equivalent. If this is all that is detected within this range, then the report should indicate this equals zero. However, the values were well outside this range, up to 3.5my.

However, while true, this misses the point of examining the method. The method ought to be as good on a blind test as on a sample of predetermined age. It is valid to measure the ratio either way.

Of course I know that. But what if the customer did not know how old the rock was? And they tested it, and suggested it was half a million or 3my old? And the customer believed the lab…? Mistakenly?

I already told you this myself. I already said “If there isn’t any to start with, then the test won’t work”. And I already told you that this is why C14 dating is used on organic samples, because we already know, without needing to test for it, that organic samples start with a certain amount of C14 in them.

Chris actually told you exactly the same thing I did. Testing FOR a substance is not the same as testing HOW MUCH of the substance remains. As Chris has also said (just as I did), it is you who does not understand radiocarbon. Again, perhaps you could explain how you think radiometric dating works.

1 Like

[quote=“Jonathan_Burke to johnZ, post:149, topic:4700”]
This suggests you do not understand how radiometric dating works. Perhaps you could explain how you think radiometric dating works.
[/quote]Without cutting and pasting…

2 Likes

Perhaps you should consider actually examining the method for yourself?

1 Like

This reveals your lack of understanding. If there is no element, then the test should still work… it should reveal that no element is present; that is the point of the test. [quote=“Jonathan_Burke, post:154, topic:4700”]
perhaps you could explain how you think radiometric dating works.
[/quote]

If you do not understand how radiometric dating works, then why are you presuming to lecture on it? Why not just look it up how it works? There are ample explanations all over the place. You can even cut and paste, if you find it too difficult otherwise.

No. As Chris and I have explained to you, the purpose of the test is to show how much remains in an artefact which definitely had some in it to start with. If the artefact had some in it to start with but does not have any in it now, it’s possible to date it with this method. But if the artefact never had any in it to start with, then it is not possible to date it with this method.

But I do. As Chris, Ben, and I have all pointed out, it’s you who doesn’t understand. That’s precisely why Chris, Ben, and I have expressed our interest in you explaining how you think it works.

This is the sentence that reveals some poor neuron connections in your thinking. In acutality, you cannot test for what remains, if you cannot test for an element. If your test will not reveal an element if present, then it is not a valid method to determine absence of an element.

What remains is what is tested and found. But the percentage of what remains is based on the assumptions of what was there in the beginning, which cannot be measured. So you have got your wording all backwards.

Dating something is not the same as testing for an element. This is where your wording, semantics, precision of thought, and explanation of method, is all lacking. The dating comes from the algorithm attached to the measurements of the isotopes; it does not come directly thru some magical process from the measurement itself. Thus it is for that very reason, that an explanation must accompany a measurement of isotopes that lead to a “dating” of 3.5my. The measurement is of the isotopes, not of the age. The age is interpolated from the assumptions. When an anomalous dating is arrived at, the explanation is that the original amounts were not what the assumptions of dating would normally assume. Thus there is more or less of the original elements of the measured ratio, than what would have been expected.

And so you have it all backwards.

These points are discussed in the talk.origins references provided earlier. One could also research sources such as G. Brent Dalrymple (“Age of the Earth” and “Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies”). Dalrymple also wrote a paper that was reposted here (from the Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science).

There is a method of dating that can determine the starting amounts as well: See ‘isochron dating’. Here is a link that provides useful diagrams.

I already told you this myself. I already said “If there isn’t any to start with, then the test won’t work”. And I already told you that this is why C14 dating is used on organic samples, because we already know, without needing to test for it, that organic samples start with a certain amount of C14 in them.

I see Argon has already corrected you on this point.

The measurement of the isotope tells you the age. Again, please read the links Argon provided so you understand how radiometric dating works.

This simplistic statement reveals your lack of understanding of the radiometric dating methods. The measurement of the isotope tells you only how much of the isotope exists. No age is attached to this. Furthermore, the measurement of the parent or daughter element is also necessary; one isotope is not sufficient. Furthermore, an assumption of the starting ratio is necessary. Furthermore an assumption of constant rates of degradation is necessary. When you learn about all of these things you will begin to understand how radiometric dating works.

It would also be good for you to actually study and examine the isochron methods in order to understand all the assumptions embedded in that method.

That’s like saying when you measure something with a ruler, it doesn’t tell you how long it is, it just tells you how many numbers on the ruler it takes to measure it. Of course an age is “attached to this”, because a measurement of how much of the isope remains tells you how much time has passed. This article from the Christian American Scientific Association will help you understand this.

This doesn’t in any way contradict what I wrote.

No, these are not actually assumptions. They are certainly not “assumptions” in the sense of “facts assumed without evidence, analysis, or testing”. They are starting points which are established because they have repeatedly withstood testing. If they are to be called assumptions at all, they should be called “reliable assumptions”.

I suggest you read again the comments by Chris, Ben, and Argon, all of whom have told you the same things I have told you, all of whom have corrected you, and all of whom have asked you several times to read about how this dating method works. It would also help, as Ben pointed out, if you could explain how you think this dating method works, in your own words.

Better to go to the sources I cited.

1 Like