• Assumptions of Radioactive Dating

    It’s been a long day so I’m going to hit some low hanging fruit here and call it done.

    The first “Hard Question for Evolution” is

    List at least 9 of the false assumptions made with radioactive dating methods.

    There are only two I’m aware of.

    The first is that atoms have always decayed at the same rate.  And this isn’t really an assumption as the decay rates have been tested in the laboratory for a hundred years or so, we have an example of a natural nuclear reactor where we can measure the various products and determine the decay rates (and the fine structure constant), and we can observe the past by looking deep into the past of the universe.

    The other is that the decay products of various atoms are always the same.  This is also actually kind of trivial and easily determined in the lab.

    That’s it.  Let’s see what the Missing Universe Museum thinks are the assumptions of radioactive dating methods.

    • That the atmosphere has had the same (all instead of Carbon 14) concentration in the past as now.  Who knows?  This is a false assumption.
    • That the production of parent isotopes has been constant.  Again, who knows?  This is a false assumption.
    • That the original ratio and amounts of the isotope in the fossil or rock is known.  This is based on current processes and assumes the rate of absorption was the same in the past.  This is a false assumption.
    • That the decay rate is constant.  Many things are known to affect decay rates.  This is a false assumption.
    • That no contamination has occurred.  This is a false assumption.
    • That no daughter (stable) element was originally in the fossil.  This is a false assumption.
    • That the decay rate was determined accurately.  Decay rates are constantly being modified and criticized.  This is a false assumption.
    • That the only loss of the isotope is due to the decay process.  This is a false assumption.

    Wow, that’s a lot of assumptions… but are the really assumptions?  Just looking at this list, I can see that none of these are actually assumptions used by radioactive dating methods and/or they are known issues and compensated for.

    I guess we have to start at the top and work our way down… sigh.  So much for low hanging fruit.  But I’d like you to note something here.  The sigh isn’t for the effort of writing, it’s for the effort of finding all the references.  Something that this particular website has none of.  Indeed, this is a classic Gish Gallop.  Basically, just like all creationists, they are making stuff up and then hoping you won’t check them on it.

    Let’s check.

    1) atmosphere has always had the same amount of C-14

    This is obviously in reference to carbon-14 dating of formerly living tissue.  During an organisms life, it takes in CO2 and uses that carbon to build things or an organism eats an organism that has taken in CO2.

    Some of the carbon atoms in CO2 have the common 6 protons and 6 neutrons.  This is carbon-12.  However, due to some interesting nuclear chemistry (which I’ll go into if requested), there’s another version of carbon (called an isotope) that has 6 protons and 8 neutrons.  Somewhat obviously, this is carbon-14.  Note that if the number of protons change, then the atom is no longer carbon.  It must have 6 protons to be carbon.

    Amazingly (and unlike what is claimed by the creationists), scientists have known about a variety of methods that create carbon-14 and how those methods have varied over time.  Indeed, by doing almost 20 seconds of research on google (type in “variations in C14”, click on Google Scholar) the second link is this article from 1954: Carbon 13 in plants and the relationships between carbon 13 and carbon 14 variations in nature

    So, this issue has been known about for a long time.  Do you honestly think that no one has done anything about it?  Of course not.

    Radiocarbon dating must be calibrated.  How do we calibrate it?  Well, we take a carbon sample from a material of a known age and date that.  Then we compare the two and adjust the radiocarbon date to the known date.  By making thousands (if not millions) of these adjustments we get a very good idea of how old a piece of unknown material can be.

    Yes, this is a range of possible dates.  All radiometric dating systems are  range.  The 2004 calibration set is here.  Basically, the calibration curves are off by no more than 16 years over the historical range (6,000 years or so) and no more than 163 years over the last 20,000 years.  That’s less than 1% if you’re interested in that sort of thing.  The 2009 calibration set extends the ‘well calibrated range’ to 50,000 years using the varves in a Japanese lake.  Varves are cool.  I just like saying ‘varve’.  But this is already almost a thousand words and I’ve only done ONE! response to these clowns.

    Long story short, scientists have always known that variations in C-14 concentration happen.  This is unlike the creationists which think it happened, but can’t be bothered to check.

    Scientists, using rigorous methods have established a process to eliminate this problem by calibrating radiocarbon dating results to items of a known age.  In this way, items of unknown age can be tested and an age determined to a reasonable degree of accuracy.  (Aside, my dad doesn’t know how old I am, he usually misses by about two years, giving him an error of almost 5%.)

    Not only, is this not a ‘false assumption’.  It’s not an assumption at all.  It’s a known issue and been corrected for.

    More tomorrow where we explore the concept of isochron dating and how it neatly destroys most of the rest of these ‘issues’.

    Oh and here’s a link to the Table of Contents for this set of creationist misconceptions.

     

    Category: CreationismGeologyPhysicsResearchScience

    Tags:

    Article by: Smilodon's Retreat

    • Bill Huningahke

      Did you have any logical arguments or any actual evidence in what you stated. With all respect, your statements are no more than a lot of emotional opinions, but I couldn’t find any logical arguments or evidence within them. If you are able to come up with a rational objection, I’ll be happy to respond. Your very statements are simply more assumptions – nothing more.

      • Mark King

        His statements are perfectly logical. All this tripe on your part –based on nothing more than “Just because Bill Huningahke says so” is what is the emotional opinions. Unless you have some HARD EVIDENCE that disproves that these assumptions inform radiometric dating methods — I’d be interested more in seeing that rather than moronic ad hominems 😉

    • cryptoguru

      there are 3 faulty assumptions with radiometric dating … all 3 have been proven to factor into dating inaccuracies

      1) we know the initial conditions
      2) there has never been any contamination
      3) the decay rate is constant

      We can’t possibly assert that we can prove 1 or 2 because neither is observable, except we can maybe enforce 2 in the case of diamonds. We have cases where we have later proved that our initial assumptions for 1) and 2) were wrong … so how do we know when we’ve got it right?
      For 3 we do know that decay rates can be effected by external factors
      http://www.earth.sinica.edu.tw/papers/HuhCA/EPSL%20171%20325-328.pdf

      So answer me the following
      how is there C14 in diamonds?
      how is there C14 in dino bones?
      why do professionally processed rock datings on the same sample give WILDLY varying results?
      why do professionally processed rock datings on known age samples (100 years) give billions of years?

      Calibrating is nonsense when all you know is either very young or an assumption. And you can’t assume linear extrapolation is even valid as you have no old data to check your answers (you know, the scientific method, where we measure stuff to verify it)

      • SmilodonsRetreat

        If you are attempting carbon dating on Dino bones or natural diamonds, the you have no idea what is going on.

        • cryptoguru

          no … you have no idea what’s going on.

          Tell me … why should I not do carbon dating on dino bones???
          (long dramatic pause) ….
          Because there should be no C14 in dino bones!! If the dino died 100 Million years ago or whatever there should be no C14 left. Not a single atom.

          So why is there significant amounts of C14 in dino bones that we can measure within dating error bounds? According to your belief in dating methods that should mean you accept that the dated Acrocanthosaurus is 24,750 (+/- 280) years old and the Allosaurus is 31,360 (+/- 160) years old. Do you??

          With respect to isochron dating, samples from the western Canyon basalt lava flows (some of the youngest) were analyzed. Using the rubidium-strontium isochron dating method, an age of 1.11 billion years was assigned to the oldest rocks and a date of 1.14 billion years to the youngest lava flows. (i.e. seriously flawed). These results have been repeated and confirmed over and over. The parent-daughter assumptions in isochron dating simply replace the initial conditions assumption in simple dating methods. All the dating methods are provably inaccurate, unless you just take one reading and assume that it’s right because it fits your expectation.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            All these are claims without any evidence. If you can find a peer-reviewed paper by an actual paleontologist that shows C-14 in dinosaur fossils then let’s talk about it.

            However, there are plenty of opportunity for contamination. Geologists and paleontologists can easily tell if such sources of contamination are present.

            For example, Dahmer (1990) makes a critical error in talking about total carbon, not dividing it in inorganic and organic carbon. Thus, the carbon-based preservatives (shellac and epoxies) and ends up dating bone with no appreciable amount of organic carbon. Think about using acetic acid or methanol to clean dinosaur bones. Oops, those have modern carbon in them.

            Even 1 gram of modern carbon in a 100g sample can change a result from “undatable” to 37,000 years ago.

            Then you have to account for modern microorganisms that may live in the matrix of the bone itself.

            So, no, you provide a paper and we can fisk it. But with the known issues already presented, the attempt to get a valid carbon date from something that is older than 50k-60k years is fraught with peril. The physics doesn’t allow it.

            Since you obviously don’t agree with a young Earth hypothesis, then it’s a pointless discussion.

            As far as Rb-Sr dating, Here’s an actual paper that discusses the proper dating for those systems: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC21407/

            Now, you mentioned Rb/Sr dating. Rb-87 has a half-life of almost 50 billion years. Using it to date samples that are really 500 million years old is a mistake. This is another common creationist tactic: to purposefully date rocks with radiometric techniques that are simply wrong for it.

            Working out the decay rate for Rb/Sr that date range leaves 98.45% of the original material in the system. So any contamination will alter that date by a huge range. Doing the math, a 8/100ths change in the mass (one way or another) will result in a 500 million year difference in ages. Which means your date is probably within the error for that dating method.

            • cryptoguru

              Have attached a table with dino C14 findings. I’m sure they’re ALL contaminated … we know that right, because they disagree with your assumptions.

              No, I do believe in a young earth!

              All you’ve proved above is that dating is completely inaccurate and unreliable. It’s a “proper” dating when you get a date that you expect and an “anomalous” one when it doesn’t fit the paradigm. Cool scientific method man!

            • cryptoguru

              the soft tissue in dino bones also backs up these young dates … unless of course you can’t look at the evidence objectively and only allow an interpretation that corresponds to what you originally thought.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              You have to provide evidence of said soft tissue. This has been quite well refuted. It was not dinosaur tissue.

              You still haven’t provided a paper or other support for your claims.

              Dahmer et al. (1990) theorize that the black coloration of dinosaur bones
              is decomposed flesh. Reduced iron (Fe+2) and MnO2 predominate in fossil
              bones and are logical causes of black colors. Flesh and tendons have been
              preserved in Pleistocene fossils, but under permafrost or hyper-arid cave
              conditions that mummify the tissue and do not carbonize it. Animal skeletons
              preserved under anoxic conditions have well preserved bone that can be
              either white (Dansie et al. 1991) or stained black to reddish brown by tannins,
              manganese or iron. Decayed flesh is not preserved under these anoxic
              conditions. The logical source for the carbonaceous scrapings is the preservatives
              applied by museum technicians. – from NCSE publication http://ncse.com/files/pub/CEJ/pdfs/CEJ_30.pdf

              I can look at the evidence. You cannot. I can be swayed by evidence. You can be swayed by anything that says what you want to hear.

            • cryptoguru

              it’s not well-refuted …. there has been more than one finding of soft tissue in dino bones. Here is a recent-ish (2011) report, which amazingly reports how it’s now starting to be more widely accepted.

              http://phys.org/news/2011-06-evidence-dinosaur-soft-tissue.html

              Notice how it’s only being accepted now that they can find an old-earth explanation for it. i.e. if they couldn’t find a rescuing device, they’d probably all just say it most probably wasn’t tissue and ignore the evidence.

              This is exactly what I’m talking about, censorship of evidence and refusal to accept facts unless they can be curtailed to fit within the evolutionary paradigm.

              You can probably make all sorts of claims for contamination in bones, but you can’t with diamonds … so what’s the explanation there? There should be no C14 left if they’re old.

              If you’re going to argue that contamination somehow caused a replenishment of diamond C14, then you can’t possibly believe that any radiometric dating method is reliable … if something as robust as C14 decay in something as impermeable as diamond can’t ever be trusted to date something, how can you honestly assert that rocks have not been subject to isotope contamination in the same manner?

              “That’s not what I said and you know it. But nice job trying to redirect.”

              I’m not trying to redirect … I’m drawing attention to the flaws in your argument. You can’t on one hand argue for the accuracy of radio-dating and on the other dismiss evidence under the assumption that it’s inaccurate if it doesn’t agree with your expectations. That is contrary to the scientific method and utterly illogical. You can’t demonstrate how one set of readings can be deemed to be accurate and another not, simply by making up an unsubstantiated story to explain why one of them isn’t accurate. The fact of the matter is you’re claiming radio-dating methods are useful for dating, we’re both proving here that they aren’t.

              Let’s look at an example to bring it down to earth:

              Say I gave you a bone to date for me and didn’t tell you it was a dinosaur bone (maybe I wasn’t being deceitful, maybe I truly didn’t know and thought it was a modern animal). You may then go and carbon-date it (maybe you send it to different labs for analysis) … and get a valid reading within 30K years to +/-90 years accuracy or something (I’m not agreeing with these dates BTW). Are you telling me you’d reject that reading on the basis that it could be contaminated by some unknown and undiscovered process to you? As far as you can see all the correct processing has been followed … . So you finally get back to me and tell me this bone fragment I’ve found is 27K years old. OK, so maybe now I tell you I don’t believe your dodgy C14 interpretation because I’m a creationist and I think it’s probably only around 4K years old. You’d get very cross with me and say that I’m denying the evidence that is in my face … you’d say this bone is FACTUALLY 27K years old, the science proves it. I then tell you I’ve since discovered it’s actually a dinosaur bone, and definitely from a Hadrosaur. Suddenly your interpretation of the bone’s age has gone from undeniable fact that you will fight me over, to completely wrong. You will then proceed to tell me that you can’t carbon-date dino bones and the date is therefore unreliable. But you just did date it! And you got a date that you believed … so why is it now suddenly wrong? I’ll tell you why, because you don’t like the result anymore, even though it’s still the same bone that was collected and measured under a scientific process that you endorsed. Now you need to find a rescuing device to explain why the C14 reading is wrong. That is not objective, that is a SEVERELY BIASED intepretation of the facts!!

              This happens all the time, museums have back rooms that are full of “anomolous” fossils that were either found in the “wrong” layer or don’t quite fit in with the evolutionary story. They are excluded from display and from public discussion so as “not to confuse” the general public.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              “s that thus far there is no way to definitively prove whether the soft tissue found inside that T. rex bone was in fact a remnant from its original owner, or something that came after.
              Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2011-06-evidence-dinosaur-soft-tissue.html#jCp

              Until this is known, then there’s no way to be sure.

              That’s what you want right… to be sure.

              No, sorry, of course you don’t. You want ANYTHING that will support your claims and you ignore that which doesn’t.

            • cryptoguru

              hehe …. I think you may need to apply Occam’s razor there mate. Yeah sure, it’s also possible that aliens abducted the dinosaur bone and injected it with a very convincing hoax. Or maybe the T-rex invented a time machine and decided to go forward in time just before he died just to mess with everyone’s chronology. I prefer to stick to the scientific explanations rather than just making stuff up. But hey if that’s what works for you … go for it.

              So back to this watertight dating thing?

              You didn’t mention how C14 can still be present in diamond, and if it somehow magically can through contamination somehow, how you can trust any dating at all due to contamination?

              Then there’s polonium halos, which demonstrate that granite formed quickly and not from slowly cooling molten rock.

              Oh and the fact that even isochron dating gives consistently unexpected results even for samples taken from the same rock, and especially for lava flows of known age.

              If you can manage the fact that this is probably written by a creationist (I’m assuming it is) and that they are unable to make their webpage look like it hasn’t been designed by a 10 year old in the 90s … have a read of this, it has science in it
              http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Personal webpages are allowed by most universities for faculty and students. Those web pages can say anything they want, just because it’s a university domain doesn’t mean that it’s right.

              That’s pretty obviously a case of the Gish Gallop. Throw so much shit and hope some of it sticks. And not a single reference in the bunch. How do you know that guy isn’t just making stuff up?

              Really, how do you know?

              http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html

              http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

            • Bill Huningahke

              Unaware of anything on talk origins that hasn’t already been refuted … see trueorigins.org … you need to educate yourself instead of using old tired refuted and debunked gibberish …

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Interesting, so the source documents from peer-reviewed scientific journals are all wrong.

              Why do you use the internet? How do you use things like air conditioners and cars and GPS systems since you claim that science doesn’t work?

            • Bill Huningahke

              See creation.com

            • Dr. Swift

              IT’S BEEN WELL DOCUMENTED.

              The deposit in which the Tyrannosaurus rex fossil was found is
              dated at 70 million years. Not only were blood cells found, but soft and
              pliable tissue as well, including flexible blood vessels.
              Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer, who made the discovery in Montana,
              exclaimed: “Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think
              about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved
              don’t allow for this.”

              You can see here that Schweitzer won’t even CONSIDER that that Dino is NOT 70 MILLION years old. She holds FIRM to her belief that EVOLUTION IS TRUE and so she is forced to completely change everything she does know about decay in order to allow for her silly theory of evolution.

              I really wish people would see the foolishness that goes with Evolution and WAKE UP. It’s a total SHAM.

            • Kenisaw Landis

              Soft and pliable tissue only after it was soaked in an acidic bath and minerals removed. It was fossilized…

            • Bill Huningahke

              Your wrong on all accounts … see creation.com for details from world renowned scientists

            • John

              Thought this was an interesting find…

              https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8352

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              That’s not what I said and you know it. But nice job trying to redirect.

              Radiocarbon dating works quite well (even matches across multiple types). I’m sorry that offends you.

              I do continue to find it interesting that you quote large amounts of text without a reference. Is it Dahmer et al. (1990)?

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Let’s be very clear here. You are attempting to say that using a method that is, at the absolute best, good for 65,000 years on samplers that, by every measure known to man, are 65 MILLION+ years old… and that’s evidence that science is wrong.

              Um, no. It’s evidence that you’re an idiot. You’re trying to use a claw hammer as a dental pick. And you’re shocked and amazed that it’s not working, so you assume that every tool in existence is flawed, when it’s your thinking that is flawed.

              Is it Dahmer et al (1990)?

            • Dr. Kline

              They have Found C14 in Diamonds. Which given the known Decay rate of C14 and the claim MILLIONS or BILLIONS of years that Diamonds are supposed to be, there shouldn’t be any C14 left! But there is! You can find C14 in Coal and Diamonds both of which are supposed to be FAR BEYOND the age which Radiometric can detect.

              It’s just a total shame. A total LIE. Made up fairy tale. You’ve all been DUPED like sheep to the slaughter.

            • Bill Huningahke

              See creation.com … mucho peer-reviewed material … BTW: peer -review is a biblical principle …

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

              Citation needed.

              Tell me, which Bible do you use? Does your Bible have Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, 1 and 2 Maccabees? What about 1, 2, 3, and 4 Esdras, Psalms 151 – 155, Odeas? What abour Prayer of Manasseh? The Gospel of Judas or the Gospel of Thomas? Enoch, Jubilees, 1, 2, 3 Meqabyan?

              Any of those?

            • Craig Ewoldt

              Okay, for the sake of argument, let’s agree that the C14 in dino bones is all contamination. But then you also have to assert that soft stretchy tissue that snaps back and contains blood vessels and blood products and/or blood have lasted for 68+ millions of years. Wow. Will nothing shake your faith?

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              There is no measurable C14 in dinosaur bones, because A) the C14 has all decayed and B) they are NO LONGER BONES!!!

              People have claimed to find “dinosaur horns” that have carbon in them, but they are dated, in the right environment, and shaped exactly like bison horns. Shocking.

              There is zero RELIABLE evidence of anything you mentioned actually existing in dinosaur “bones”.

        • Truth Be Told

          The point is, there is still CARBON in Diamonds. Given the known Decay Rate of C14 and the “Claimed” Millions or BILLIONS of years of age Diamonds are supposed to be, there should be NO MORE CARBON LEFT IN THEM!

          As for dating Dinosaurs bones, that’s a JOKE! Total Circular reasoning!
          The Fossils date the rocks, and the rocks date the fossils! How’s that for some scenpertific reasoning! AHHAHA

          YOU have no idea what’s going on! You’ve been DUPED!

        • Bill Huningahke

          Therein lies the problem … there should be no C14 but there is …

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Except that there are known explanations for this:
            #1. The small apparent non-zero values are less than measurement error. Thus things like cosmic rays and imperfect vacuums can contribute to the C-14 content even with modern techniques. That’s one reason C-14 dating, even with the best equipment is limited to about 60,000 years.

            #2. Contamination. It doesn’t take much contamination to spoil a sample with near-zero quantity of C14. While that same level of contamination will add some error to the dating of some reasonably aged sample, the error will be small, so long as the sample is not too old.

            #3. Alternate source of C14 production. Natural diamonds are not pure carbon. The most common contaminant is nitrogen, 0.1% in gem-quality diamonds. Cosmic rays and other sources of radiation can form C14 from N14. Another possible avenue is C13, which has a small but non-zero neutron absorption cross section. By either mechanism, this is essentially internal contamination.

            So, you see, there are 3 KNOWN methods for diamonds to have C14… and that’s why certain samples are inappropriate for use as dating samples.

            I’ve already listed multiple contamination sources for dinosaur bones (including the ones above). Which is why we don’t use C14 dating on dinosaur bones. Other methods of dating are more appropriate.

            What is happening, is that you are saying that because you are using a crescent wrench to hammer nails into a 2×4 doesn’t work very well therefore it is impossible to hammer nails into the wall.

            • Bill Huningahke

              explained in detail on creation.com …

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Well, there’s no point in discussing this with you then. You believe what you like. It doesn’t really matter. You are meaningless to the scientific community and if you try to promote teaching of your religion in schools, then I will be involved with the groups who stop you.

              I’m sorry that you refuse to see beyond your bronze age beliefs.

              Personally, I’ll stick with evidence and precedent. The evidence for evolution and physics working is unbelievably massive and the evidence that creationists lie and misrepresent real science is also massive.

              You believe what you like. You can’t be helped and I would continue to remind you that you are a hypocrite. Many of the same principles that are important to things like computers, clocks, and GPS systems are also the same principles that define why radiometric dating works. You accept some, but not all, not because of evidence, but because your beliefs refuse to allow you accept it.

              You really need to think about a belief system that prevents you from seeing reality for what it is.

              Farewell.

      • Doc Bill

        Geeze, Creepto-guru, what a load of malarky you can generate. Did you write a word salad program? Well, you did a great job.

        Too bad you don’t know ANYTHING about analytical chemistry or you would have deleted the output of WS v1.0. Actually, too bad you don’t know ANYTHING about chemistry which seems to be why you put forth these childishly inane arguments.

        The paper you referenced is totally useless, as are you, to your argument. 7Be has a half life of 53 days and is the only isotope of the Be family to decay via electron capture which is why those guys studied it. The variation was on the order of 1.5%.

        So, besides the top of your knuckled head, what’s your point?

        • cryptoguru

          HEY BILBO!!!! I’ve missed you. I like to think that if we met in real-life we’d be good friends and all that. From your little avatar you look like a happy sort of hobbit. You probably play the electric guitar and pretend you’re Jimi Hendrix and eat food and other normal human stuff. (I have to keep reminding myself you’re only human, because I’m frankly intimidated by the sheer depth of knowledge that emanates from your posts … I mean, you did a PHD!!! … in Chemistry Experiments!! … maybe even some equations!)

          I’m actually up to WS v3.0 and not only can it generate random strings of words, but my superior intelligence and grasp of science has been simply generated by this word salad program algorithm through a simple process of random mutation and cumulative selection via differential reproduction dynamics. Pretty cool huh. Who’d have thunk it?!

          The paper I referenced was useful, as you mentioned, in showing testable and measurable variation in a decay-rate. That was the point. So where are the experiments that show that U-Pb, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, U-Th, Ar-Ar, I-Xe, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U aren’t subject to the assumptions of initial conditions (or mixing conditions for isochron dating), no contamination and an unchanging decay rate?

          Do you have scientific experiments that show that all those assumptions hold up for the methods over the period of time that are of interest to you? No you don’t! What we do have is experiments that show that those assumptions don’t hold up in lots of places …. I’m sure you’ve seen plenty yourself.

          Too bad you don’t know ANYTHING about maths or you would know how to think logically and not just put letters together randomly and hope they form a meaningful sentence. (yeah 2 can play at the 5 year old arbitrarily-claiming-the-other-person-is-stupid game)

          If you do somehow manage to believe these things always work, how do you explain the countless cases of provably terrible rock dating? Or do you pretend that never happens. I suppose ignorance IS bliss … is it?

          BTW: do you know why dino bones and diamonds have plenty-o-C14 still in them? contamination? magic? time machines? … I’m sure one day we’ll figure it out and it’ll all line up nicely with the other bullet-proof Humanistic Naturalist Atheist theories

          Oh .. Robert Gentry’s Polonium Halos stuff, that’s obviously not science either then? GUTTED!! I’m so glad we’ve got you (and people like you) to expose these non-scientists, Bilbo … what WOULD we do without you?

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Fujii, Yasunori et al., 2000. The nuclear interaction at Oklo 2 billion years ago. Nuclear Physics B 573: 377-401.

            Knödlseder, J., 2000. Constraints on stellar yields and Sne from gamma-ray line observations. New Astronony Reviews 44: 315-320. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9912131

            Nomoto, K. et al., 1997a. Nucleosynthesis in type 1A supernovae. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9706025

            Nomoto, K. et al., 1997b. Nucleosynthesis in type II supernovae. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9706024

            Perlmutter, S. et al., 1998. Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the universe and its cosmological implications. Nature 391: 51-54. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9712212

            Renne, P. R., W. D. Sharp, A. L. Deino, G. Orsi and L. Civetta, 1997. 40Ar/39Ar dating into the historical realm: Calibration against Pliny the Younger. Science 277: 1279-1280.

            Shlyakhter, A. I., 1976. Direct test of the constancy of fundamental nuclear constants. Nature 264: 340. http://sdg.lcs.mit.edu/~ilya_shl/alex/76a_oklo_fundamental_nuclear_constants.pdf

            There you go.

            As usual, you have no idea what’s going on.

            • cryptoguru

              As per usual, you quote things that don’t prove anything.

              Oklo interactions have also been used to validate a young earth view after analysis of the restraints imposed on the alpha-decay half-lives.
              http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0307007.pdf
              https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Accelerated-Decay-Theoretical-Considerations.pdf

              Supernovae are a different subject altogether (and VERY difficult for you to assert any proof from due to the colossal amount of assumptions made in the field of interpreting SNe data), let’s stick with geology for now and not change the subject. we can do SNe later if you like. (I do have rebuttals for that stuff)

              The 40Ar/39Ar one is interesting … interesting because it supports my view more than yours. The researchers chose a fluence monitor that is only 1.19 Ma (usually 10s or 100s Ma) to fudge the results. Here’s a paper explaining the flaws in the analysis.
              https://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/47/47_1/CRSQ%20Summer%202010%20Overman.pdf

              Your last link is dead … as is your theory.

              Stop saying I don’t know what’s going on … I clearly do. It’s just a lame attempt at Ad Hominem.

              Let’s reverse the accusation … do you even understand what is written in those papers or do you just link to things you see other people post on evolutionist websites? What is your field of study?

              Mine is Mathematical-Biology, Fluid Mechanics, Chaos Theory, Mixing, Informatics, Quantum Mechanics, Cryptography. (my PhD study was in Mathematical-Biology, Chaos Theory, Fluid Mechanics, Mixing) … I’m writing up my PhD part-time and later on in life because I get paid lots of money to do other applied maths in industry (the PhD is for fun) … I’ve worked for companies like Rolls Royce doing lubrication theory and am currently helping out some geneticists with computer science applications in DNA amongst other things. So, just because my opinion isn’t widely held, it doesn’t make me stupid or uneducated … I actually know a fair bit about science, and probably know a lot more than most people about how to use science in the real world.

              What do you do Kevin??

              Are you a disgruntled Science Teacher at a secondary school in Texas raised amidst bible-thumping nitwits who hate gay people and struggle to formulate sentences?? And have therefore written off all creationists as bible-thumping, gay-hating idiots who can’t form a coherent thought? (I’m just guessing) … are you, therefore, a bigot?

              So stop the nonsense assertions that I don’t have any idea about science and focus on the actual science.

              Or just keep linking to things you saw on Panda’s Thumb …if that’s how you roll. I’m not against you linking to stuff (obviously). It’s the fact you simply link to things and don’t seem able to argue your point … ever, that leads me to believe you don’t really understand the science and that you’re simply deflecting and accusing me of what you’re guilty of.

              Prove you know something … use Kevin’s words as a sort of journal review to explain why you can be sure that the radiometric dating assumptions applied to “measure parent Isotope A and compare to daughter isotope B to get the age of a rock” can be trusted. Explain in English how it works in the face of contamination and untrustworthy decay-rates. Explain how we can have C14 in diamonds … and if your answer is contamination, explain then (because you may have forgotten to before) how we can be sure that contamination hasn’t occurred in all other cases.

              Here’s a rather in-depth look at the formation of Po radiohalos in diamonds using the hydrothermal fluid transport model.
              https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiohalos-and-diamonds/

              BTW: you have repeatedly missed the point regarding C14 in dino bones. It’s got nothing to do with using “the wrong tool for the job” … you do understand the basic fundamental principles of C14 dating right? Let me go through it real slow and maybe the penny will drop.

              1) C14 is produced in the atmosphere by cosmic rays
              2) C14 infiltrates living organisms through respiration
              3) when an organism dies it stops absorbing C14
              4) if we compare the amount of C14 in a dead organism with the amount in the atmosphere, and assume that the atmosphere C14 is the same now as it was when the organism died, and that the decay rate of C14 is the same now as it has been since the organism died, then we can estimate how long ago the organism died.

              Current C14 half-life is 5,730±40 years … so if C14 has always had the same decay rate, we won’t find any C14 in organisms older than a few hundred thousand years. In fact we do find it in dino bones, and it’s measurable, which proves that the bone is young.

              Let me demonstrate your faulty logic with an anology:
              We use a stopwatch to calculate the laptime of runners around a race track. The stopwatch can only count long enough to accurately measure runners that run the track faster than 12mph. Anyone slower than that can’t be calculated because the timer has already stopped before they finished; we simply know they’re slower than 12mph. I tell you that my 92 year old Grandma would like to have her lap timed, she used to be a great runner when she was young, and would love to see how fast she it now. You tell me that won’t be possible, the stopwatch won’t calculate her time, she’d be too slow to get an accurate time on. I ask you to do it anyway just to humour her. You start the stopwatch, you watch her run around the track, accurately measure the time and see that she’s done it at 16mph. You cannot now claim that the stopwatch was the wrong way to measure her. You assumed it was the wrong method initially because you assumed she was too old and therefore too slow to register on your scale … she registered on the scale, so either I’m having a laugh and dressed an athlete up as my grandma or you need to rethink what’s possible by a 92 year old … either way, you can’t claim that the measurement was wrong.

              I await with anticipation your learned and educated response (see I’m being nice)

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Umm… The Oklo reactor allows us to measure the fine structure constant from 1.8 billion years ago.

              The radioactive isotopes created in supernova explosions produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates. 1987A is over 150,000 light yaers from Earth.

              Therefore, there is has been no measurable change in decay rates over 160,000 years and no factors that could affect decay rates have changed in over 1.8 billion years.

              Of course, you want to stick to only geology, because it’s easier for you to conflate and make up stuff that supports your point of view.

              Your paper by Overman is pretty funny. Nine references, one of which is a business statistics book and two of which are creationists.

              I also find it interesting that this “paper” doesn’t mention other, more recent works either.

              Finally, I notice that the paper’s “conclusion”, that older rocks have larger error ranges, is not at all surprising, nor is it a problem for science, radiometric dating, or evolution.

              But I enjoy watching your confirmation bias. I work that seems to discredit science, by someone with an obvious bias, and no known training in the field, is accepted by you as God’s own truth, with dozens of papers by physicists who actively work in the field are ignored.

              Truly hilarious.

            • Mr Flemming PhD

              Again, ASSUMPTIONS are being made yet again! They are ASSUMING the age of the stars, planets, etc.

              And FYI: A light year is NOT a time, it’s a distance. And there is no way to measure the one way speed of light.

          • Doc Bill

            That’s DOCTOR Bilbo to you, MISTER Creepto.

            Yes, in fact I do know why there is some but not plenty-o-C14 in dino bones and diamonds, and you could Google it, too, but you won’t because you’d rather live up to your shit-for-brains Creepto reputation of were it not for dim wit you’d have no wit at all.

            Yeah, Robert Gentry is a well known Liar for Jesus ™ hack “scientist” and dim bulb of the week. So what? Gentry’s “work” isn’t worth scraping off your shoe. Hey, Creepto, I know this guy who captured a halo on a toasted tortilla and, surprisingly, it’s better quality “research” than anything Gentry’s done. Try again, loser, with another creationist. How about Kurt Wise? Or maybe Hugh Ross? Come on, Creepto, get cracking!

            But seriously, folks, we really miss your antics over at the Panda’s Thumb. You have your very own stage and you’re missing a golden opportunity to show us how incredibly dim you can be. Half wit? You’re not even half watt! See how I did that? Pure brilliance. Oh, it’s a joy to be smart.

            • cryptoguru

              Hey DOC Bilbo, yeah I’m not that much into titles and such. As I’ve said I studied for my PhD, still finishing writing up in my spare time, because at the time making money and providing for my family was more important than just getting a title to append before my name try and impress people with my superior intellect. I’m sure you don’t do that .. that would be silly. (Doc Bill)

              TBH: I haven’t looked at rebuttals to Gentry’s work in detail, his research looked very interesting … but he could be a complete idiot for all I know. I suppose the problem comes down to the origin of the granite samples and whether or not they are primordial granite or not.

              Tell you what though … the diamond Po halos stuff by Snelling is more compelling, as the location of the diamond is not important.
              (I gave the AiG link to Kevin too … I know you love those guys)
              https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiohalos-and-diamonds/

              The Panda’s Arse-den is basically an Evolutionary Religious Zealot’s site … akin to a bunch of 50 thick-headed bullies who invite you down their alleyway and proceed to punch and kick you from every side whilst they claim that you’re not very good at fighting. Do you only like to argue when your mates are with you? In MMA fighting, it’s just 2 guys battling it out … you’re not allowed to go and get your girlfriend to help you out when you start to lose the fight.

              so just to recap ….
              1) you didn’t deal with radio-dating assumptions and didn’t comment on your faulty assertion that decay rates don’t change.
              2) you don’t have an argument in your own words that explains how dino bones and diamonds can have C14 in them (never mind red blood cells and collagen in dino bones http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/?no-ist)
              3) you just say everyone who publishes something that you don’t like is an idiot.

              I’m not claiming all of creation science is correct … just that there is enough evidence to call into question every single evolutionary axiom (spontaneous matter/universe/life/diversity/consciousness over millions of years).

            • Doc Bill

              Your main problem, Creepto, is that you’re a willfully ignorant fucking idiot. Can’t help you there although I did shed a tear at your failure to complete your degree. (Boo fucking hoo) I guess those of us who can do and those of us who can’t cry in their beer about it.

              So, you see, Creepto, (and I’ll use itty bitty words commensurate with your brain capacity) the source of your Dunning-Kruger syndrome is that you’re fucking ignorant. You don’t know squat, sorry, fuck all, about chemistry and less about biology. You can fling poo like the caged monkey you are at the denizens of Panda’s all you want, but unlike you, a religiously handicapped failed academic, those people are real scientists with real degrees and real experience and they are very, very smart. Sure, you get beat up because you wear a t-shirt that says “Kick Me” and you are an arrogant bastard without having earned the privilege to be arrogant. Again, boo fucking hoo.

              Sadly, you will keep reading creationist websites and wolfing down bowls of bullshit encrusted creationist pap with a side of straw men because it’s easy; just make stuff up. You keep talking about “assumptions” because that’s a favorite creationist straw man. Creationists can’t deal with observations and theory because those are hard and, alas, irrefutable. So, they call those things “assumption” because, intellectually, they haven’t gone further than Thomas Aquinas. Right, all of chemistry is based on assumptions pulled out of the air because that explains why chemistry works so well. Oh, and nuclear chemistry is a total mystery; nobody knows why decay happens and analytical chemistry is just lucky I guess.

              Tell you what, Creepto, you go ahead and believe that. Better yet, go back to the Panda’s Thumb and argue your point. If it’s valid then you’ll hold your ground, you rough and tumble bullshit-eating kung fu poseur, you! But, I know you won’t because you’re a typical dishonest lying creationist coward who plays with his beads in a church basement, shaking in his boots when he hears thunder. Sucks to be you, Creepto.

            • cryptoguru

              I can’t take any responsibility for the abuse that you obviously suffered at the hands of some religious wing-nut as a child that pushed you to become Bilbo, the hyper-reactive anti-scientific buffoon. But I do genuinely feel for you … and joking aside, I’m praying that whatever damage someone has done to you in the past; you won’t attribute that character to God for the rest of your life. and you’ll eventually see Him for who He is and not the maniacal psycho picture you’ve come to accept in your head. (in the fleeting moments of clarity you get outside of when you’re asserting that He doesn’t exist)

              I am pretty good at being able to identify when someone has run out of credible arguments and has to resort to 5 yr old name-calling. I think you stepped well outside the “discuss science zone” and into the “kill all creationists zone”. So unless you can manage to pull an interesting fact for grown-up debate out of your arse you should probably avoid the device with letters on it in front of you that has enabled your communicative diarrhoea.

              “I guess those of us who can do and those of us who can’t cry in their beer about it.”

              err … yeah whatevs, Bilbo, I’m very happy making a killing in the commercial world in applied mathematics. I have not failed anything. I have been approached several times by the department to go back and finish what I started, as I had discovered some new useful things in the field that they would like to get published. I have agreed to finish part-time … I initially left because I was offered some very exciting opportunities that I didn’t want to turn down. That is all completely beside the point … and a cunning diversion from your inability to answer any actual scientific questions. (Ad Hominem)

              Does the anger flare up just when you haven’t got a good answer? Or does it happen all the time irrespective of how badly your side of the argument is going? … Does your wife need counselling?

              Arrogance is in the eye of the beholder.

              I’ll quite happily go along to PandaBook again, but I need the energy to be bothered to deal with the pig-headed ignorance that befalls those who bury their heads in unscientific propaganda. And the need to explain everything from first principles every post, because the basic arguments get distorted and misrepresented at every turn.

              I reckon if you spend the next hour playing Slow Ride on Guitar Hero after breathing through a paper bag you’ll be able to forget the whole thing and it’ll be as though there never was a point where a creationist asked you difficult questions that made you temporarily question your belief system. Peace!

            • Doc Bill

              You are too funny, Creepto! You won’t return to the Thumb because you know you’re full of shit and they call you out on it. No one misrepresented your arguments, and do point out who did that, rather they pointed out your arguments were crapola.

              Face it, Creepto, I’ve forgotten more chemistry than you’ll ever know. Do you really think that nuclear scientists have been studying radioactivity for over a hundred years, thousands of them, and blindly stumble about on a mountain of “assumptions?” If so then you are a bigger fucking idiot than I imagined! The process of nuclear decay is settled science, not a mystery, you buffoon. Geeze, louise, you are one thick brick.

              Answer your “scientific questions?” You haven’t asked one! You just make creationist assertions we’ve heard a thousand times. Tell me, Creepto, how come you haven’t asked us about Brown’s vapor canopy or Hovind’s ice canopy or Baumgartner’s runaway subduction? Why is it you can’t answer your own insipid creationist bullshit questions with a five minute Google search? You are so pathetic. Do you know who disproved Dembski’s “Explanatory Filter?” Dembski! He wrote that it was a crap idea, didn’t work, could never work and was a bad idea. Bully for him, actually. But after a group of creationists had a shit fit about it, he said, well, it might work and they went off happy. Of course, scientist and mathematician and philosopher Dembski shortly later got fired from his seminary job because he wrote an essay expounding on Noah’s Flood as being a local event. Oops.

              So, regarding “discussing science,” Creepto, you haven’t raised any scientific topics to discuss! All you’ve done is throw down a bunch of creationist bullshit. Sorry, but that don’t fly, thick as a brick boy.

              Still, sucks to be you.

            • Doc Bill

              Creepto is back at the Thumb where he’s being his normal stupid dishonest self and is getting eaten alive by educated honest scientists.

              Again, Creepto, sucks to be you!

            • Nortn B. PhD

              The Logical Fallacies Run Deep with Doc I see.

              You certainly have the grammar of a 1st grader.

              There is no help for someone as misguided and uneducated in the real scientific method as you.

              Through your grammatical tirade you show how little you really understand about the limits of science, assumptions, evidence, and the real scientific method.

              A Doctor? I highly doubt it.

            • cryptoguru

              It’s me again … missed you all. Well I suppose it’s easy to believe anything at all that suits you if your fundamental position is that matter comes from non-matter, energy from no energy, information from disorder and universal, invariant, abstract laws of nature just happened by accident … everything happened – all by itself. If you can believe that, then it’s no real stretch to just take the latest anti-creation theory as FACT irrespective of the contrary evidence; simply because your new theory stands against a creator. Who needs science when you’ve got naturalistic fundamentalist faith eh?

            • M. Flinger PhD

              Gentry’s work is well known. Some have tried to LIE and say he only sampled a few small areas, but he actually obtains granite samples from all over the world to test.
              His work shows the earth was NOT a boiling hot ball of lava as Evolution likes to claim. Granite was cooled and formed in Microseconds leaving Halos behind in the stone.

            • Dr. Flemming PhD

              A Medical Student is far from a Dr. LOL

      • joey

        hello crypto are you online
        seems like you are a good mathematician.may be that’s why the author of the blog is failing to understand that 1)most biologists fail to understand mathematical principles and 2)they are unwittingly using LEMMAS and COROLLARIES to make their point to prove their assumtion they use another assumption but mathematicians know how fallacial these propositions are ,let alone scientific.

    • James

      HEy guys um, ijust have one question for you guys, do you believe in a young Earth or an old Earth. Uniformitatinism or catastrophism?

      • SmilodonsRetreat

        Who are you asking? Me? Well all the evidence that exists says that Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. That includes radiometric dating of meteors, moon rock, and Earth samples, lunar retreat, impact craters, continental drift, lack of DNA in fossils, geomagnetic reversals, varves, the Oklo natural nuclear reactor, etc.

        All of these, from multiple independent fields, indicate that Earth is much older than a Young Earth Creationist model. In fact, just considering that model, we can ice layers, coral growth, tree rings, stratigraphy, and several other methods… all of which show Earth must be older than the 10,000 years of the YEC model.

      • Doc Bill

        James, it’s not a matter of belief, rather it’s understand and accepting the evidence, models that not only explain currently observed phenomena but predict behavior of yet-to-be observed phenomena. The framework generated by application of the scientific method does not rely on, nor rest on, a single line but, rather, the convergence of many lines of study. Thus, the expansion of the Atlantic Ocean by plate tectonics is supported by the matching geology of eastern South America and western Africa, matching fossil evidence from both places, agreement with the current rate of plate movement and most beautifully of all symmetrical core samples on either side of the mid-Atlantic ridge of paleomagnetic reversals.

        The current age of the universe, the understanding of the underlying physics requires many years of study in graduate school, is currently known to be 13.798±0.037 billion years. Note the precision of that number! Not 13-14, but zero point seven nine eight plus or minus point oh three seven. That’s not a guess. That’s a number that agrees with several different observations, like measuring the size of a room using a yardstick, tape measure, a laser rangefinder and sonar.

        The age of the earth is known to be 4.54 ± 0.05 billion yeas old, and note the precision of zero point zero five. Again, that’s not a wild guess but a convergent figure based on several different radiometric dating methods, study of meteorites and samples from the moon. Also, it agrees with models of the Sun’s formation and current age of 4.57 billion years.

        By uniformitarianism I assume you mean that the properties of physics 4 billion years ago are the same as they are today. That is not only a good assumption but there are underlying principles of physics that demonstrate that to be true. Young Earth Creationists often “claim” that the speed of light, radiometric decay rates and the motions of the planets could have been different, but the magnitude of the difference would cause the Earth to be vaporized, and no YEC, not a single one, has provided an estimate of what those speeds and rates should have been, how they changed and why they are stable today. Remember, you can’t just mess with the speed of light because that messes up all your other physics!

        Catastrophism, as understood by YEC’s that the Flood explains all geology etc, has been demonstrated to be false by any metric or field of study you choose. Simply put, if the planet is covered with water to any depth it can’t “drain.” Floods always drain because they are local events. You can’t drain a water planet. That’s just one point, however, any point raised by YEC’s regarding a global flood can be demonstrated to be false. Real catastrophes did happen, the formation of the moon being one, which melted the Earth. The Late Bombardment was another one that most likely melted the surface, and the global glaciations (Snowball Earth) were pretty harsh, but one could also point to the Permian Extinction as a catastrophe; the trilobites weren’t too happy with that, I’m sure.

        So, you see, it’s not a matter of belief, rather it’s understanding and accepting what science has discovered over the past 400 years that leads one to the conclusions accepted today. The nice thing about science is that you don’t have to rely upon the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics to look up the boiling point of water, you can go out and measure it yourself. Anybody can go out there and discover, repeat, independently all scientific knowledge we have today, and scientists do that from time to time, but mostly they build on the work of others; don’t have to re-invent the wheel every time.

    • gadrogeek

      “False Assumptions”? Very clever! Your complete dogma about the age of things is very sad. If I take a rock to one of these wonderful dating laboratories, and don’t tell the technicians where it came from, they will have no way of “dating” it, especially so that it fits with their ridiculous assumption about the age of the Earth, solar system, galaxy and universe. The fact remains that no one was there “in the beginning” so no one can actually state, with any certainty, scientific or otherwise, how old things are. We are living in an atheistic and racist world. Happy New Year! Star Wars? No, Stop Wars!

      • SmilodonsRetreat

        Of course, if you lie to the lab about the rock (like the creationists did), then they will actually have false assumptions about said rock. Which leads to bad results.

        Instead if you actually understand how to acquire and prepare the source rocks, then you will get a continuous system of ages using multiple, totally independent types of radioactive processes.

        I do love how you through in that dig about atheism somehow being related to racism. It’s sad that you would play little tricks like that. I’m sure you think it’s valid. But then, you think that science doesn’t work… all while using the benefits of science to complain about it.

    • Truth Be Told

      LOL You are STILL making ASSUMPTIONS when “Calibrating”
      Clueless Indoctrinated Sheep.

    • Craig Ewoldt

      If there is discordant or anomalous data, it doesn’t count. Never show it to your colleagues or share it with your students. You could be made fun of, or worse, you could lose your job. Whenever you begin to doubt, take a deep breath and chant 10 times, “There is no valid anomalous data.” That should take care of any hint of doubt on your part.

      All anomalous data can be explained away. Any data that doesn’t fit is not “hard” data. Only experts (people trained in deep time) are competent to weigh in on the validity of deep time. The only acceptable data is data that is affirmed by deep time believers and published in valid deep time peer reviewed journals. Believers in deep time can be certain beyond any doubt about what happened millions and billions of years ago; young earthers cannot be certain of anything regardless of data.

      I think these are the “rules”, huh?

      • SmilodonsRetreat

        If you also read this article, it will explain why “anomalous” data is discounted. It’s because data that doesn’t result in an isochron doesn’t give a reliable time range. Scientists do NOT then make up a number, they simply say it can’t be tested.

        http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2013/04/07/radiometric-dating-part-ii-isochrons/

        As to the rest, I’ve dealt with hundreds of creationists who say the exact same thing and none of them can point to any RELIABLE data that shows that radioactive dating mechanisms don’t work. By reliable I mean, by anyone who has not been shown to purposefully lie about their experiment in order to promote Jesus.