... on Radiometric Dating with Tony Reed (update : and others)

1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Geological Column · 2) ... on Radiometric Dating · 3) Creation vs. Evolution : Guy Berthault's Results May Not Prove the Flood Factual, They Prove it Possible · 4) back to Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Radiometric Dating with Tony Reed · 5) ... on Presentation of my Inquest on Geological Column, with Tony Reed · 6) ... on Flood Stories vs Tony Reed

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Carbon 14 dating?

You might enjoy this:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Letter A of ex oriente - I - preliminary to recalibrating
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2016/02/letter-of-ex-oriente-i-preliminary-to.html

Tony Reed

What was I supposed to enjoy?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

A Creationist redating of Natufian etc. cultures.

Using one of my own recalibrations of the C14 method.

As you may know, if only x is left, that means so many thousand years old. 35% > 8000.

So, if at a certain period there were only 35%, organic things that were breathing back then (wood or other plant derivatives felled orharvested back then, dead or killed men or animals), they get 8000+ years "for free" - by the dating method not taking possibility of C14 rise into account.

Now, I did one scenario of at what pace this could have happened, in French essay here:

New blog on the kid : Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/avec-un-peu-daide-de-fibonacci-jai-une.html

And I used that exact scenario to readjust Natufian into the Biblical timescale. In the English essay I just linked to.

Tony Reed

Imagine that.

You calibrated your measurements to coincide with your preconclusion and then present them as if I should be surprised that they coincide with your preconclusion.

Well done.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No.

I am just showing that C14 CAN be calibrated so as to agree with Biblical chronology.

I am giving more than one redating (though I linked only one to you here) according to that table, so far neither of two things has happened:

• 1) I have not found something in my conclusion which I considered totally absurd;
  
  
• 2) an evolutionist archaeologist having access to my redating has not either found anything he considers absurd (or nothing apart from my departure from evolutionist scenario).

In other words, I have proven (preliminarily and so far) that Carbon 14 levels in old objects CAN be reconciled with Biblical timescale. In other words, I have proven that C14 has not disproven the Biblical timescale.

Tony Reed

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Like I said. You calibrated it to match your predetermined conclusion. Ignoring the fact that this calibration also affects items of known age and that your recalibration can not be cross-checked with other dating methods.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Ignoring the fact that this calibration also affects items of known age"

Such as?

"and that your recalibration can not be cross-checked with other dating methods."

Can - in any historically known item - your calibration of C14 be so cross checked?

And others

The exchange with Tony Reed is marked as 2 years ago, the following as 1 year ago.

frankos rooni

Yeah --convincing
Show us your peer reviewed paper in a credible journal and then we might take you a little more seriously

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dating-gets-reset/

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That article presumes several things which are not absolutely guaranteed to be accurate and on which any creationist, including me, would say they are inaccurate.

• 1) That carbon dating is only affected by fluctuations around present level, not by a major rise;
• 2) That tree ring dating accurately goes back to 14000 years.
• 3) That the Japanese lake accurately shows traces of 50000 years.

With C14, I already pointed out the difficulty, with tree rings, it is a question of which matches you choose, with lake a question of how often the layers are laid down (present and past, which need not go together).

So, for not detecting those flaws in the method, Scientific American is perhaps supposed to lose credibility as a journal? I give very little for the peer reviewers either intelligence or honesty, if not detecting and signalling those problems. To do their intelligence justice, I think they are just being dishonest, primarily with themselves, about anything which could point to the, by them, so hated creationist paradigm.

frankos rooni

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Actually flaws in C14 dating have already been addressed

You seem to think that scientists just "assume" vasts amount of data without cross referencing it

That is absurd bearing in mind the numerous dating techniques used , and the fact there are blind tests on most of them

However your problems are far deeper

A 6000 yr old planet is so absurd that most scientists would not even bother to counter it

One has though and you are so wildly wrong

Scientific evidences from every discipline for an old earth
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

Sorry , but science says 4.5b --live with it

[Note : he considers a writer on rationalwiki as a scientist without further checking!]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You seem to think that scientists just 'assume' vasts amount of data without cross referencing it"

In many cases they have to.

"That is absurd bearing in mind the numerous dating techniques used"

Not when you bear in mind that most are inapplicable to any given dating.

"and the fact there are blind tests on most of them"

Some of which on Mount St Helens were very discrediting.

"However your problems are far deeper A 6000 yr old planet is so absurd that most scientists would not even bother to counter it One has though and you are so wildly wrong"

So you pretend.

"Sorry , but science says 4.5b --live with it"

That would be Uranium Lead dating of meteorites.

Which meteorites have not been cross examined by say C14 or even Ka-Ar.

As for article, I'll probably read it later and make a list of my own taking into account each evidence offered and countering it - on my own or referring to Creationist experts.

frankos rooni

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wild assumptions based on nothing more than your opinions
Supply actual evidence and make sure it is from credible sources

• 1) Why did they use inappropriate tests on Mt St Helens
  Cite your sources and their peer reviewed papers
  
  
• 2) Actually dating techniques are basic physics
  If you have a credible paper which says that radioactivity can be heavily affected by pressure or heat do show me
  
  
• 3) Show me your article on dating meteorites

Why do you not show any links on your posts ?
Very annoying

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Why did they use inappropriate tests on Mt St Helens"

How do you know the tests on Laetoli lavas are not similarily inappropriate?

One test, like another, involved Ka-Ar dating.

"Actually dating techniques are basic physics"

Part of them, perhaps.

"If you have a credible paper which says that radioactivity can be heavily affected by pressure or heat do show me"

Show me with a citation where in my comment I said that as the flaw of U-Pb-dating? I did say: which meteorites have not been cross examined by say C14 or even Ka-Ar, which is true enough and appropriate answer to your previous claim it has all been cross examined by different methods.

I did not say that my doubts about U-Pb are mainly about radioactive decay being affected by pressure or heat.

"Show me your article on dating meteorites"

I think that was wikipedia ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium%E2%80%93lead_dating

Lead me here, sorry, led me here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth#Why_meteorites_were_used

_______________________________
An age of 4.55 ± 0.07 billion years, very close to today's accepted age, was determined by Clair Cameron Patterson using uranium-lead isotope dating (specifically lead-lead dating) on several meteorites including the Canyon Diablo meteorite and published in 1956.[33] The quoted age of Earth is derived, in part, from the Canyon Diablo meteorite for several important reasons and is built upon a modern understanding of cosmochemistry built up over decades of research.

Most geological samples from Earth are unable to give a direct date of the formation of Earth from the solar nebula because Earth has undergone differentiation into the core, mantle, and crust, and this has then undergone a long history of mixing and unmixing of these sample reservoirs by plate tectonics, weathering and hydrothermal circulation.

All of these processes may adversely affect isotopic dating mechanisms because the sample cannot always be assumed to have remained as a closed system, by which it is meant that either the parent or daughter nuclide (a species of atom characterised by the number of neutrons and protons an atom contains) or an intermediate daughter nuclide may have been partially removed from the sample, which will skew the resulting isotopic date. To mitigate this effect it is usual to date several minerals in the same sample, to provide an isochron. Alternatively, more than one dating system may be used on a sample to check the date.

Some meteorites are furthermore considered to represent the primitive material from which the accreting solar disk was formed.[34] Some have behaved as closed systems (for some isotopic systems) soon after the solar disk and the planets formed.[citation needed] To date, these assumptions are supported by much scientific observation and repeated isotopic dates, and it is certainly a more robust hypothesis than that which assumes a terrestrial rock has retained its original composition.
____________________________
...
The text here leads (!) to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93lead_dating

"There are three stable "daughter" Pb isotopes that result from the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium in nature; they are 206Pb, 207Pb, and 208Pb. 204Pb is the only non-radiogenic lead isotope, therefore is not one of the daughter isotopes."

OK, no radioactive decay leads to lead 204, but the question which is salient about this issue of 4~sth billion years is : can lead-206, 207 and 208 ever be there without resulting from radioactive decay?

If not, we can start discussing how you measure a decay rate as slow as that one, but for starters, prove that lead-206 invariably comes from uranium-238 and never was anywhere to start with.

frankos rooni

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Lovely --all your links confirm that radiometric dating is both reliable and that the earth is truly ancient
So why are you arguing otherwise??

It appears you ignored the data on early volcanic reactions on earth?

https://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth.html

On top of that you have ignored the rather obvious fact that many of these dating techniques are not only cross reference with similar ones but totally different methods as well

https://ncse.com/library-resource/radiometric-dating-does-work

So is every point of data somehow wrong???

This is an absurd argument and you lost decades ago

Just move on and accept the planet is not 6000 years old

Jesus wept !!!

BTW --instead of boring people like me with your nonsense on yourtube why aren't you addressing actual scientists with your half baked idea??

We are done --have fun selling your nonsense to real scientists lol

[Note : he just confessed to not being a scientist, right?]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Lovely --all your links confirm that radiometric dating is both reliable and that the earth is truly ancient"

A very global and superficial conclusion. You did not go into the details I argued about.

"So why are you arguing otherwise??"

Because while author of article obviously concluded your way, he/they gave facts about method which to me conclude the other way.

"It appears you ignored the data on early volcanic reactions on earth?"

The link you gave says this: If we know the number of radioactive parent atoms present when a rock formed and the number present now, we can calculate the age of the rock using the decay constant.

A big "if". Their next sentence is: The number of parent atoms originally present is simply the number present now plus the number of daughter atoms formed by the decay, both of which are quantities that can be measured.

That is supposing that all parent atom of parent element (like Potassium 40) remain in sample and that all of daughter element in sample (like Argon 40) really is made up exclusively of daughter atoms, which once were parent atoms. Also a huge "if".

*Samples for dating are selected carefully to avoid those that are altered, contaminated, or disturbed by later heating or chemical events." = Samples for dating are selected carefully to avoid those that are traceably altered, traceably contaminated, or traceably disturbed by later heating or chemical events.

"On top of that you have ignored the rather obvious fact that many of these dating techniques are not only cross reference with similar ones but totally different methods as well"

The link you give is a biassed anti-Creationist one.

I did shortly peruse it and did not find one item where two different techniques had been cross referenced with same sample and great difference.

Unless you mean K-Ar with history. I am not at all certain on how many samples were taken on Etna, and I am certain there is a freemasonry in Italy which would be happy to fake results making the theory look reliable, after Mount St Helens. But supposing the things they say on Etna are correct, the last lava flow has there been exposed to the air for centuries, which would give an opportunity for excess Argon 40 to leak out. In Mount St Helen's there has not been that time - and in Flood event eruptions, the lava has been too quickly covered with other layers, making sure there is not the air.

"BTW --instead of boring people like me with your nonsense on yourtube why aren't you addressing actual scientists with your half baked idea?? We are done --have fun selling your nonsense to real scientists lol"

Unfortunately for your idea, the scientists are in a glass tower these days - at least when it comes to creationists, and very especially when it comes to THIS creationist.

If you can get a real scientist to do the debate, I'll be happy. But the one on the video gave up when he saw I did not consider miracles as explanations which are out of the question. So, basically he lives in a glass tower too. At least when debating me a few weeks. Or, after that.

frankos rooni

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes science is biased against creationism , flat earthers and geocentrists too

Most scientists have no interest in debating someone like you that automatically ignores the data and cherry picks his own because they are actually doing genuine research

GIGO --creationism in a nutshell

Saying that igneous rock contains unknown proportions of parent daughter atoms is silly , we know not only from basic physics but from recent and less recent volcanoes that this is a fact

This article makes that pretty clear and also details the different types and their ratios

http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens211/radiometric_dating.htm

It also cross references the different igneous samples because you were too lazy to too this up for some reason

Babbling on about free masons and institutional bias when you clearly have no intenetion of doing any honest research into this topic makes you just sound absurd

I suggest you actually read this article by a bible believing christian who finds you creationists not only embarrassing but a hinderance to encouraging new christian scientists

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

I'm also curious as to how you think isotopes "leak out" of sealed igneous lava flows

See his explanation

Odd logic you got there

It appears you are at odds with the actual experts and perhaps might need to give them a ring

Your Mt St Helens creationist claims are garbage of course by so called expert "Dr" Steve Austin (a man with no qualifications in geology at all)

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm

The dishonesty displayed by these clowns is almost comical

We are done --you are far too lazy to do any actual research of your own , so why should I do it for you???

Get an actual education in this subject or stop making claims

[My answers back then missed that Steve Austin actually has qualifications in preciselu geology, "francos rooni" was ignorant or bluffing. Since he was no real scientist, he could be ignorant.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Usually, we know the amount, N, of an isotope present today, and the amount of a daughter element produced by decay, D*."

Well, but this sentence does NOT tell how we "know" that all D* really is from N.

I am reading on.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Read on a bit:
________________
"We still don't know 87^Sr0 , the amount of 87^Sr daughter element initially present.
To account for this, we first note that there is an isotope of Sr, 86^Sr, that is:

• (1) non-radiogenic (not produced by another radioactive decay process),
• (2) non-radioactive (does not decay to anything else).
  Thus, 86^Sr is a stable isotope, and the amount of 86^Sr does not change through time

If we divide equation (4) through by the amount of 86^Sr, then we get:
We can measure the present ratios of (87^Sr/86^Sr)t and (87^Rb/86^Sr)t with a mass spectrometer, thus these quantities are known.
The only unknowns are thus (87^Sr/86^Sr)0 and t.
__________________________

So far I follow, and do not see a real opening for dating.

THE REST of Rb/Sr discussion is beyond me.

reading on ...

The discussion on discordia and concordia for U, Th, Pb is similarily above my head.

What is not is, I don't see any way of knowing there was no Sr other than 86^Sr and no lead other than 204^Pb to start with.

That these of themselves NEVER result from radioactive decay does not mean the other isotopes always do so.

If the complex mathematical discussions are meant to imply a way of getting around that, I don't see how it could do that.

Do you have a site (on your side, since you mistrust all and everything coming from RATE) which explains exactly what the equations are supposed to relate to in real life?

nikolaneberemed

Hans, what convinced you to depart from atheism?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Excuse me, when was I ever exactly an "atheist"?

As a child* I was a pagan agnostic and evolutionbeliever, but not a believing atheist.

I got a New Testament from my mother and the instruction that it was true, not just a storybook.

As I had never been atheist, I never found a reason to doubt that.

It gave me, especially when later reading Old Testament, starting from Genesis, reason to ask questions about evolution, esp. if there was a way to match timescales (day-age, gap theory were more or less the lines I was thinking of), and concluded there wasn't really. I also had other problems with evolution, as I came to conclude that (even as a tool of God, or am I projecting back?) evolution would be stimied by irreducible complexity problems, about origin of human language and origin of genetic code.

So, the question was a bit badly put, since I never was exactly an atheist.

* Previous to nine.

nikolaneberemed

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You seem confused about the terminology. The prefix a- in the English language means 'not' or 'without'. Atheist means not theist. You can think of it as a Venn diagram. It's just a paper with a circle on it. The whole paper represents all the people. The people inside the circle hold some god beliefs while the people outside the circle do not. Everyone who believes in any god is inside the circle, everyone else is outside. Theists are inside the circle, atheists are outside. And every person ever was born outside the circle.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You can repeat and repeat your equivocation of identifying falsely positive tenets of Western Atheism with simple fact of non-Theism. They are not the same.

nikolaneberemed

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Sorry if it offends you in any way, but that's just how English language and logic work. The prefix a- in English is the same as ¬ in logic. At any rate, newborns hold no god beliefs. So they are non-believers if that word makes you more comfortable. What caused you to depart from the default position, from being a non-believer?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The meaning of "atheism" is not only defined by the rules of derivation of English.

If you call someone a pedophile, do you mean he is a friend of school age children?

As to small children being absolutely non-believers, I don't think so. They can have faith, if baptised, or seeds of faith, if (as in my case) not yet baptised.