The Definition of Real Science

[Yttrium]

Failing to see what can cause a catastrophic global flood and how it can mess with radiometric dating results is why I cannot help you at all.

A catastrophic global flood would have no effect on the half-lives of radioactive isotopes.

 

[ChristB4us]

You haven't shown me anything to see. You can't state why the flood messing things up would change the accuracy of radiometric dating.

I cannot help you, sir, because you cannot see when that evolution theory is blinding you. Only God can help you now.

 

[ChristB4us]

A catastrophic global flood would have no effect on the half-lives of radioactive isotopes.

Funny how a living mollusks has been carbon dated as 2,300 years old "dead'.

Is that proof enough?

 

[Gus Bovona]

I cannot help you, sir, because you cannot see when that evolution theory is blinding you. Only God can help you now.

But YOU haven't said anything for me to be blind to or not. YOU need to say why a flood would affect radiometric dating before I even have a chance to agree or not. You can assume I won't agree that a flood affects radiometric dating before you even tell me **why** it would affect radiometric dating. And "messing things up" is not it.

 

[Yttrium]

Funny how a living mollusks has been carbon dated as 2,300 years old "dead'.

Is that proof enough?

... No. That doesn't even make sense. You can't carbon date living organisms. The procedure is for dead organisms.

And that has nothing to do with catastrophic floods affecting half-lives of radioactive isotopes. Which doesn't happen.

 

[ChristB4us]

... No. That doesn't even make sense. You can't carbon date living organisms. The procedure is for dead organisms.

Living snails carbon dated to be 27,000 years old? <----- It was done as listed at thus link.

And that has nothing to do with catastrophic floods affecting half-lives of radioactive isotopes. Which doesn't happen.

The problem here is the assumption that there were no daughter particles present at the time of creation with parent particles.

On top of that is the "reservoir effect" where marine life absorbs less carbon 14 as those on land do. That explains the living marine life doesn't it?

Science knows about the reservoir effect but keep on not applying it when actually testing fossils or rocks even. Hardly professional when pushing the evolution theory but that is what pays for their grants for research from the government.

@Gus Bovona you might find this interesting, but maybe not.

 

[Yttrium]

Living snails carbon dated to be 27,000 years old? <----- It was done as listed at thus link.

Yeah, you can come up with all sorts of absurd numbers when you try to carbon date living organisms. The whole point of the procedure is that it's used on dead organisms.

The problem here is the assumption that there were no daughter particles present at the time of creation with parent particles.

On top of that is the "reservoir effect" where marine life absorbs less carbon 14 as those on land do. That explains the living marine life doesn't it?

Science knows about the reservoir effect but keep on not applying it when actually testing fossils or rocks even. Hardly professional when pushing the evolution theory but that is what pays for their grants for research from the government.

None of this has anything to do with half-lives of radioactive isotopes. And carbon-14 dating is not used on rocks, it's used on dead organisms, and it isn't reliable past 50,000 years anyway. Your complaints about carbon-14 are irrelevant to all the other radiometric tests out there.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Living snails carbon dated to be 27,000 years old? <----- It was done as listed at thus link.

I clicked on the link you provided and found it made a few statements and then provided another link to a creationist website. This website has a short summary on carbon 14 and then referenced a number of papers that supposedly showed wild dates for carbon dating. But at least it has references to original articles. Note by the way that all the references on this page were dated from 1963 to 1984. Seriously, science has moved on a bit since then.

In any case, I accessed the article in question (Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61) to find that it was indeed a study looking at some problems with carbon dating, but instead of this being a negative as the creationist site wanted to push it as, the study provided a great deal of imformation about why inaccurate results might be obtained under certain conditions. In this case the erroneous results were attributed to fixation of dissolved hydrogen carbonate ions with which the shells are in carbon isotope equilibrium.

You see this is what scientists do, they not only work out methods that provide answers to scientific questions, but they also continue to work out the scope and limitations of the methods, what matrices, contaminants, or conditions can affect the results and how such issues can be identified and taken into account, so that they can be confident in the validity of test results.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Funny how a living mollusks has been carbon dated as 2,300 years old "dead'.

Is that proof enough?

You just changed the discussion from radiometric dating to carbon dating. Those are two entirely different means of dating, they can only be done for certain times periods in the past, etc. Can we stick with radiometric dating? Let's finish that up, then we'll move to carbon dating.

 

[TB2]

A great resource on the subject: "Radiometric Dating a Christian Perspective."

 

[CrowCross]

None of this has anything to do with half-lives of radioactive isotopes. And carbon-14 dating is not used on rocks, it's used on dead organisms, and it isn't reliable past 50,000 years anyway. Your complaints about carbon-14 are irrelevant to all the other radiometric tests out there.

I would say it's not reliable for anything pre-flood as the C14 to C12 ratios were different than the current ratios.
Secondly, after the flood the ratios were not as they are today....as it took years for the ratios to establish todays ratios.

 

[ChristB4us]

Yeah, you can come up with all sorts of absurd numbers when you try to carbon date living organisms. The whole point of the procedure is that it's used on dead organisms.

As real science proves; not always.

Coral Age Dating

"You are a marine scientist studying the deep-sea corals growing on a seamount. In order to understand coral life and history, you need to know something about the age and growth patterns of these organisms. One way to do this is with radiometric dating. As a coral animal grows, it secretes a hard external skeleton. Radioactive isotopes absorbed from seawater by the animal are incorporated into the skeleton, where they begin to undergo radioactive decay. Radiometric dating will reveal the age of individual corals on the seamount." ~~~ end of quote

None of this has anything to do with half-lives of radioactive isotopes. And carbon-14 dating is not used on rocks, it's used on dead organisms, and it isn't reliable past 50,000 years anyway. Your complaints about carbon-14 are irrelevant to all the other radiometric tests out there.

As just been proven, it is relevant and therefore because of the Biblical global flood, you are not going to get an accurate carbon dating results because of it as seen & proven by testing living marine organism.

You just changed the discussion from radiometric dating to carbon dating. Those are two entirely different means of dating, they can only be done for certain times periods in the past, etc. Can we stick with radiometric dating? Let's finish that up, then we'll move to carbon dating.

Care to change your comment due to this statement below from the link provided in this post?

"The passage of time can be measured in many ways. For humans, the steady movement of the hands on a clock marks off the seconds and the hours. In nature, the constant decay of radioactive isotopes records the march of years. Scientists can use the clocklike behavior of these isotopes to determine the age of rocks, fossils, and even some long-lived organisms." end of quote

I clicked on the link you provided and found it made a few statements and then provided another link to a creationist website. This website has a short summary on carbon 14 and then referenced a number of papers that supposedly showed wild dates for carbon dating. But at least it has references to original articles. Note by the way that all the references on this page were dated from 1963 to 1984. Seriously, science has moved on a bit since then.

In any case, I accessed the article in question (Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61) to find that it was indeed a study looking at some problems with carbon dating, but instead of this being a negative as the creationist site wanted to push it as, the study provided a great deal of imformation about why inaccurate results might be obtained under certain conditions. In this case the erroneous results were attributed to fixation of dissolved hydrogen carbonate ions with which the shells are in carbon isotope equilibrium.

You see this is what scientists do, they not only work out methods that provide answers to scientific questions, but they also continue to work out the scope and limitations of the methods, what matrices, contaminants, or conditions can affect the results and how such issues can be identified and taken into account, so that they can be confident in the validity of test results.

At the link provided in this post is this statement below;

"Isotopes are forms of an element that have the same number of electrons and protons but different numbers of neutrons. Some of these atomic arrangements are stable, and some are not. The unstable isotopes change over time into more stable isotopes, in a process called radioactive decay. The original unstable isotope is called the parent isotope, and the more stable form is called the daughter isotope."

Throw in the Biblical global flood, thus with contaminants from the upheaval & the deluge, then the constant rate of decay has been changed, yes? That is why you have conflicting dating results even with living marine life.

 

[Yttrium]

Throw in the Biblical global flood, thus with contaminants from the upheaval & the deluge, then the constant rate of decay has been changed, yes? That is why you have conflicting dating results even with living marine life.

No. Contaminants don't change the half-lives of radioactive isotopes.

 

[ChristB4us]

A catastrophic global flood would have no effect on the half-lives of radioactive isotopes.

You know about the reservoir effect, right? Marine life absorbs carbon 14 at a less rate than living things on land.

Now you throw in a catastrophic global flood that would create a variety of environment that effects the rate of decay, and so I ask you how reliable are those dating results now?

This same wooly mammoth was carbon dated at two different labs with huge difference between them.

CARBON 14 DATING INACCURATE ON MAMMOTH SKIN

"The same skin of a mammoth was sent to two different labs for carbon dating to test for accuracy. Surprisingly, the results differed in each test, in one case the results varied by more than 14,000 years. This test exposed error rates as high as more than 32%, which of course is well beyond any meaningful scientific perimeter. In the end, scientists pick the dates from their tests which best fit their evolutionary guesstimates of age." end of quote

I would say epic fail every time they overlook the obvious in favoring their evolutionary time table.

They all died in the global Biblical flood.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Care to change your comment due to this statement below from the link provided in this post?

I don't see why. Can you be specific as to what in my statement should change, and why? I"m happy to change something, by the way, if I said something inaccurate.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Throw in the Biblical global flood, thus with contaminants from the upheaval & the deluge, then the constant rate of decay has been changed, yes? That is why you have conflicting dating results even with living marine life.

Exactly why would a global flood or contaminants affect radiometric dating?

 

[Gus Bovona]

Now you throw in a catastrophic global flood that would create a variety of environment that effects the rate of decay, and so I ask you how reliable are those dating results now?

How does a variety of environments affect the rate of decay?

 

[ChristB4us]

No. Contaminants don't change the half-lives of radioactive isotopes.

@Gus Bovona

You are still thinking as if there was no global Biblical flood.

this article does address contaminants in how it can affect rate of decay if it is radioactive.

How the rate of decay affects temperature, water & oxygen availability

"Yes, that’s correct. Contaminants can affect the constant rate of radiometric decay. The rate of decay of radioactive isotopes is determined by the half-life of the isotope and is not affected by external factors such as temperature, pressure, or chemical environment. However, if the sample contains impurities or contaminants that are radioactive, then these can affect the rate of decay of the sample. This is because the radioactive impurities can cause additional radioactive decay events to occur in the sample, which can lead to an apparent increase in the rate of decay 12." end of quote

Getting back to the cause of the Biblical global flood; those asteroids hitting the moon & the earth would provide external radioactive contaminants.

Meteorites Reveal Radioactive Heating in Asteroids

"The authors identified three possible heat sources: solar radiation, impacts by other asteroids, and the decay of radioactive materials. Given the rapid formation of the calcite crystals, the authors concluded that radioactive decay is the most likely heat source for this asteroid; impact heating and solar heating occur intermittently or slowly over billions of years, while radioactive materials churn out heat for just a few million years."

Course, they are only speculating about how long the heat would churn out by this isolated find of a meteorite, but with the view of asteroids hitting the earth that would cause the fountains of the deep to rise up at the time of the Biblical global flood, those are your external contaminants that can affect determining that supposedly established rate of decay.

 

[Gus Bovona]

This is because the radioactive impurities can cause additional radioactive decay events to occur in the sample, which can lead to an apparent increase in the rate of decay 12." end of quote

I did not find that verbiage at the site linked to. Can you correct either the verbiage or the link?

 

[TB2]

No. Contaminants don't change the half-lives of radioactive isotopes.

Correct. C-14 is certainly trickier and subject to more variables, but like you (and/or others have) said C-14 dating doesn't really apply to radiometric dating via uranium, zircons, etc. We have no evidence that those decay rates are affected by changes in heat, pressure, etc. I think you're spot on.

The bigger problem is that to make a flood model work requires accelerating radioactive decay (which again, no evidence decay rates change). But even YECs acknowledge that much accelerated decay in a one year flood would release so much heat that it would boil the oceans away and partially melt the Earth's crust.