radiocarbon dating 'failure' = another blow to pagan evolution beliefs

If I make ice cues 5 minutes ago, you may be correct in saying the ice is 5 minutes old, but how old is the water that forms those cubes?

If I make ice cues 5 minutes ago, you may be correct in saying the ice is 5 minutes old, but how old is the water that forms those cubes?


This is the exact reason why it fails, because the initial data is not known, but speculated 'as needed'.

If I make ice cues 5 minutes ago, you may be correct in saying the ice is 5 minutes old, but how old is the water that forms those cubes?


This is the exact reason why it fails, because the initial data is not known, but speculated 'as needed'.


Radiocarbon dating dates the material of which the object is composed.
Nobody has ever claimed it to be otherwise, and in this respect it is perfectly valid.

If I make ice cues 5 minutes ago, you may be correct in saying the ice is 5 minutes old, but how old is the water that forms those cubes?


This is the exact reason why it fails, because the initial data is not known, but speculated 'as needed'.


Radiocarbon dating dates the material of which the object is composed.
Nobody has ever claimed it to be otherwise, and in this respect it is perfectly valid.


Which is only true, if the object has been kept isolated from the rest of the environment by perfect vacuum layer. The 'accuracy' of the method is well, very far stretched.

Radioactive ‘dating’ failure


Warning brain failure!

Below is a proper explanation of why recent mount saint Helens lava flows can't be dated either (and yes it is quite well known a recent eruptions can't be dated properly);

[link to www.epicidiot.com]

Lava dating Comments

Radiometric dating requires that the object is old enough so that the ratio of the parent and daughter elements can be accurately measured. This varies for the different dating types. In general, the longer the half life of the parent isotope, the longer time that is needed.

Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dating, such as used by Dr. Austin on the Mt. St. Helens samples, is used for items greater than 100,000 years old. Using K-Ar to date rocks from Mt. St. Helens is clearly an invalid use of this dating technique and one should expect to get erroneous results.

Dr. Austin is a geologist. It's hard to imagine that he isn't aware of this well-known requirement for the use of K-Ar dating. Remember the cell phone example above?

See the following for what is considered the usable dating range for K-Ar. (If you meet Dr. Austin, please pass these on to him)

* Isotopes Commonly used for Radiometric Dating
* Radiometric measurements of time
* Wikipedia - Potassium-argon dating

But why did the lava samples give such an old date?
One might reasonably note that since the samples are young, they simply should not have been able to measure the daughter elements, therefore giving an un-measurable or very young date as opposed to a very old date.

This misconception is based on a common misconception about how radiometric dating works. It is not the amount of daughter element that determines the date, but the ratio of parent to daughter that determines the age. Lava samples will usually have some Argon contamination. When the sample is very young, the ratio of contamination Argon to decay Argon (daughter Argon) can be fairly high. This will make the ratio of daughter to parent appear to be too large, giving an apparent old age date. Once the sample has had time (i.e. is old enough) for true daughter Argon to accumulate, the contamination, unless it was extreme, becomes insignificant and has only a small effect on dating. This is why very young samples should not be dated using K-Ar. Remember, there is practically ZERO true daughter when the sample is formed, therefore even a small amount of contamination will be significant compared to the true daughter. Once enough time has passed, then there is enough true daughter Argon so that small amounts of contamination Argon do not greatly affect the ratio of parent to daughter. Remember, it's the ratio, not the amount that counts.
Young Sample

Click to Enlarge

The RED is the Parent isotope (potassium)

The BLUE is the Daughter Isotope (Argon).

The MAGENTA is the contamination Argon
Old
Sample

Click to Enlarge

In the Young Sample the contamination Argon is significant compared to the daughter Argon. This would make the ratio of daughter to Parent seem much higher than it actually is. This makes the sample appear to be much older than it really is.

In the Old Sample the contamination Argon is not significant compared to the daughter Argon. This would make the ratio of daughter to Parent fairly close to the true ratio and therefore the contamination would have little affect on the dating of this sample.

Note: The hourglass represents the transformation of parent to daughter element across time. As time passes, the parent transforms to its daughter element. The amount of the parent decreases while the amount of the daughter increases.
See Radiometric Dating for more information

A common source of Argon contamination is xenoliths that are trapped in the lava. These are bits of older rocks that contain Argon and will cause a false old age date as described above. When geologists are collecting samples, they will watch for these sources of contamination. Dr. Austin mentions in his other papers that he detected xenoliths in the samples. Once those were detected, he should have known that K-Ar was not an appropriate dating technique. This obvious source of contamination pretty much guaranteed that he was going to get a false old age date with such a young sample. Yet he did it anyway. Again, remember the cell phone. To be fair, he does claim he tried to remove the contamination. But this is an extremely difficult task and isn't likely that he got it all. Knowing that the sample was contaminated, it simply shouldn't have been used for K-Ar dating.

Did Dr. Austin check for contamination?
Yes he did.

Did he find evidence of contamination?
Yes he did.

Did he send the sample in anyway?
Yes he did.

Should he have expected to get a false old age date?
Yes he should have.

Did he get a false old age date?
Amazing!!!!


Dr. Austin might be interested in reading this article about how excess Argon causes false dating.

All radiometric dating techniques have problems with contamination. There are ways to detect when these contaminations are likely, such as the presence of xenoliths. Sometimes the signs of contamination will be missed and the radiometric dating will give an unexpected wrong result. Young Earth creationists make much of these instances. But an occasional hiccup doesn't mean the technique is invalid. A policeman's radar gun gives accurate results most of the time. Every once in a while radio interference (i.e. contamination) will cause it to give a false reading. Does this mean that radar guns don't work -or- does it simply mean that they just need to be used with caution? If you know that you are in a radio interference zone (i.e. you see the xenoliths), then don't use the radar gun there. Exercise a little common sense.

Note: K-Ar dating has its problems, mostly from contamination and leaching. That's why it has fallen out of favor to other dating systems such as Ar-Ar which aren't as susceptible to these problems. There are methods for dating lava flows of relatively young age. Argon-Argon gives the correct date for samples from Vesuvius (which erupted in 79 A.D.). Uranium-234 and thorium-230 can also be used to date geologic samples that are only one or two thousand years old. But for many well-known reasons (except maybe to Dr. Austin) K-Ar is a bad choice for the samples Dr. Austin dated.

Dr. Austin is a legitimate geologist with good credentials, so he should be fully aware of the proper methods for collecting and dating geologic samples.

Which begs the question: Why did he use a dating technique that was inappropriate for the samples he collected?

Thread title failure.

If I make ice cues 5 minutes ago, you may be correct in saying the ice is 5 minutes old, but how old is the water that forms those cubes?

An unscientific answer. The similarity would only be true with steamed water.

Radioactive ‘dating’ failure
________________________

Warning brain failure!

Below is a proper explanation of why recent mount saint Helens lava flows can't be dated either (and yes it is quite well known a recent eruptions can't be dated properly);

[link to www.epicidiot.com]

Thread title failure.

--------------

You may not like the title, but the truth does not fail.

it seems quite likely to me that tha lava is made up of very old rocks so of course it will show up as on older date despite reaching the surface recently

Radioactive ‘dating’ failure
________________________

Warning brain failure!

Below is a proper explanation of why recent mount saint Helens lava flows can't be dated either (and yes it is quite well known a recent eruptions can't be dated properly);

[link to www.epicidiot.com]


An apologetic reply for their failures. You are saying the lab doesn't know how to date rocks.

"The samples were sent progressively in batches to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston"

I'm waiting on a more precise dating method. There has to be a better way. Too many questions/problems with the present system/s used.
( and, science has become too much "political science". That, I do not trust nor believe it's accuracy.)

Thread title failure.

You may not like the title, but the truth does not fail.


If I make ice cues 5 minutes ago, you may be correct in saying the ice is 5 minutes old, but how old is the water that forms those cubes?

An unscientific answer. The similarity would only be true with steamed water.

OH, OK, you're right. The earth is 5,000 years old and it's flat and there's no such thing as climate change. Man was given this earth by your 'god' to use as we see fit, even if that includes the rape and pillage of it's nonrenewable energy sources. We have been given 'dominion' over it. It is ours to destroy, just like Adam was given 'Eve' and dominion over her. It's all in the 'book'.

According to the laws of flight [science] humming birds cannot fly !!!

Funny when you start reading about formation and decay of c14 you also find out that anthropogenic global warming is a fraud as well. Since the whole premise behind c14 is that its always been constant.

I'm waiting on a more precise dating method. There has to be a better way. Too many questions/problems with the present system/s used.
( and, science has become too much "political science". That, I do not trust nor believe it's accuracy.)


Political science?

Wut?

The only ones making it a political problem are fundamentalist believers who know they can't win an argument purely on facts.

Sure some ideas need a few decades before being accepted as science, but if it's right it tends to work out right the next generation. Science tends to self correct, religion assumes being perfectly correct to start with even if the evidence shows it's not.