Does Radiometric Dating Yield Inaccurate Results?

[-0_0-]

http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp#top

Read the whole thing.

Now, after reading this, how can anyone be so certain of the accuracy of radiometric dating techniques?

[micatala]

Yes, it is an old and tired debate. But, as Jose has pointed out on a number of occasions, many creationists continue to push bad and discredited arguments and information no matter how many times or how thoroughly they have been refuted.

[Curious]

Am I meant to debate here or just critique this particular article?

[Jose]

Debate away!

There are other threads here on this issue, too, but since this is the active one, we can follow it. The real issue, I think, is that there is a tremendous need, in some quarters, to have the vast amount of data on the age of the earth be wrong. We always say that the theory is falsifiable, provided one finds data that contradict it. So, by this logic, an "impossible" result from radiometric dating should prove the method is unreliable. Ergo, the earth's age is unknown.

What's difficult is getting beyond this. We need to compare the numbers of replicate measurements that fit into the general picture (in the tens of thousands of measurements) with the ones that the creationists bring up that do not fit that picture (a few). Then, we need to look at the methods that were used, and assess their appropriateness, the degree of care that the workers used, their attention to sources of error, etc. It's rare, in these discussions, that we get through this sort of stuff. It's tedious. And, in the long run, it has always shown that the errors are with the measurements that "show" the earth is 6000 years old. By the time we get that far, the creationists have become bored with the details and wandered off to another conversation.

[QED]

Given that there is a whole slew of different dating methods available, and that correlations exist between the results obtained using different methods, it requires a very good argument indeed to prove that the data is wrong. We're not simply trading one philosophy against another here. Unlike most debates that take place on theses forums, where evidence is lacking on both sides, there is a wealth of scientific information from many disciplines pointing to a very old Earth. I would even go as far as calling evolution speculative relative to the certainty of our planet being as ancient as science indicates.

[Jose]

That's a good point, QED. I've just checked the Global Stratotype Sections and Points info, which uses these methods to define the boundaries between stratigraphic sections:

• C-14;exactly 10,000 Carbon-14 years (= 11.5 ka calendar years BP) at the end of the Younger Dryas cold spell
• Astronomical cycles in sediments;base of the Eemian interglacial stage (= base of marine isotope stage 5e) before final glacial episode of Pleistocene (or other events for other strata)
• Calibrated magnetic anomaly scale; Near first occurrence of planktonic foraminifer Praeorbulina glomerosa and top of magnetic polarity chronozone C5Cn.1n (or other events for other strata)
• Ar-Ar and U-Pb age agreement; Iridium geochemical anomaly. Associated with a major extinction horizon (foraminifers, calcareous nannofossils, dinosaurs, etc.);
• Estimated placement relative to Ar-Ar calibrated Sr-curve; Mean of 12 biostratigraphic criteria of equal importance. Closely above is lowest occurrence of ammonite Pachydiscus neubergicus. Boreal proxy is lowest occurrence of belemnite Belemnella lanceolata.
• Spline fit of Ar-Ar ages and ammonite zones; Crinoid, extinction of Marsupites testudinarius (different ammonites for different strata)
• Spline fit of Ar-Ar ages and ammonite zones, plus monitor standard correction. Then cycle stratigraphy to place foraminifer datum relative to ammonite zonation; Planktonic foraminifer, lowest occurrence of Rotalipora globotruncanoides
• Estimated placement relative to bases of Cenomanian and Aptian, with large uncertainty due to lack of GSSP criteria. Ar-Ar age of 114.6 +/- 0.7 Ma from Parahoplites nutfieldensis below; Calcareous nannofossil, lowest occurrence of Praediscosphaera columnata (= P. cretacea of some earlier studies), is one potential marker
• Base of M0r, as recomputed from Ar-Ar age from MIT guyot; Magnetic polarity chronozone, base of M0r
• Pacific spreading model for magnetic anomaly ages (variable rate), using placement at M5n.8; Ammonite, lowest occurrence of Spitidiscus hugii – Spitidiscus vandeckii group
• Pacific spreading model for magnetic anomaly ages (variable rate), using placement at base M11n; Ammonite, lowest occurrence of genus Acanthodiscus (especially A. radiatus)
• Pacific spreading model for magnetic anomaly ages (variable rate), using placement at M14r.3 (base T. pertransiens); Calpionellid, lowest occurrence of Calpionellites darderi (base of Calpionellid Zone E); followed by the lowest occurrence of ammonite “Thurmanniceras” pertransiens (Pacific spreading model for magnetic anomaly ages and correlations with other fossil zones for other strata)
• Equal subzones scale Bajo-Bath-Callov;Ammonite, lowest occurrence of the genus Kepplerites (Kosmoceratidae) (defines base of Macrocephalites herveyi Zone in sub-Boreal province of Great Britain to southwest Germany)
• Duration of Aalenian-Toarcian from cycle stratigraphy;Ammonite, lowest occurrence of Leioceras genus
• Cycle-scaled linear Sr trend;Ammonite, lowest occurrences of Bifericeras donovani and of genera Apoderoceras and Gleviceras.
• U-Pb age just below proposed GSSP for base-Jurassic; Near lowest occurrence of smooth Psiloceras planorbis ammonite group
• Magnetostratigraphic correlation to cycle-scaled Newark magnetic polarity pattern; Near lowest occurrence of ammonite Cochlocera, conodonts Misikella spp. and Epigondolella mosheri, and radiolarian Proparvicingula moniliformis
• U-Pb array by Mundil et al. on levels near Nevadites (= Secedensis) ammonite zone in Dolomites, plus placement relative to magnetostratigraphy corrlations to cycle-scaled Newark magnetic polarity pattern
• Composite standard from conodonts scaled to base-Anisian and base-Triassic; Near lowest occurrence of Hedenstroemia or Meekoceras gracilitatis ammonites, and of the conodont Neospathodus waageni
• Average of U-Pb constraints from Bowring et al. (1998); Conodont, lowest occurrence of Hindeodus parvus; termination of major negative carbon-isotope excursion. About 1 myr after peak of Late Permian extinctions
• Permian-Carboniferous time scale is derived from calibrating a master composite section to selected radiometric ages; boundaries set by conodont species
• Devonian time scale is a statistical fit of a zonal composite using zonal data by M. House and composite data by Tucker et al. (1989); boundaries set by conodont species
• Silurian and Ordovician time scales are from calibrating a CONOP composite graptolite zonation to selecte radiometric ages; boundaries set by graptolite and conodont species
• U-Pb age from Oman coinciding with the negative carbon excursion; Trace fossil, lowest occurrence of Treptichnus (Phycodes) pedum. Near base of negative carbon-isotope excursion
• Age suggested by Ediacaran Subcomm.; bracketed by radiometric ages of 600 and 635 Ma; Termination of Varanger (or Marinoan) glaciation
• subdivisions of the Precambrian defined chronometrically

This is a work in progress. Not all of the specific locations that define the boundaries have been agreed upon. Still, it's pretty impressive that there is world-wide agreement on so much. I might point out that this agreement crosses nationalities, religions, races, etc--scientific collaboration often unites people from countries that "officially" are enemies. The ones who disagree tend to be fundamentalists of one flavor or another, who base their disagreements on the failure of the earth to fit their particular holy tradition.

[Jose]

deleted duplicate post

[QED]

That's a very impressive resource Jose.

The International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) is the largest scientific body within the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS). It is also the only organisation concerned with stratigraphy on a global scale. One of its major objectives are the establishment of a standard, globally applicable stratigraphic scale, which it seeks to achieve through the co-ordinated contributions of a network of Subcommissions and Working Groups with a specific, limited mandate.

Now I suppose the YEC's will take one look at this organisations credentials and declare that it is an anti-religious consortium set up to deny the biblical accounts of Genesis. But should such a blanket denial be tolerated? I can think of no other field in which so much corroborative data is available from so many independent sources. Of all the issues regularly debated on these forums, this has to be the one that demands the most patience among the followers of mainstream research.

Just how do YEC's go about tackling such a vast edifice?

[Curious]

Just how do YEC's go about tackling such a vast edifice?

That's easy. The data is obviously Satan's lie which has deceived the atheist but which the faithful clearly sees as a lie. Failing this, simply ignoring the fact that such data exists appears to work just as well.

[Jose]

Just how do YEC's go about tackling such a vast edifice?

That's easy. The data is obviously Satan's lie which has deceived the atheist but which the faithful clearly sees as a lie. Failing this, simply ignoring the fact that such data exists appears to work just as well.

I think it's more straightforward than that. They don't even know about it. Well, maybe the noisy ones do--the ones who write books and give lectures to deceive the innocent. But most people don't look up data, and generally don't know what's out there. Most people rely on their high school science courses for all of their scientific knowledge--and that means the few things they memorized and didn't forget after the test. Generally, science is taught as facts to memorize, not as data to interpret.

So, if they don't know it exists, they have no reason to tackle it. They generally assume the age of the earth is based on one C-14 measurement, and maybe a K/Ar measurement. Well, maybe four or five measurements; certainly not something in the range of 50,000 measurements. I've been trying to find the original data for many of these, but a lot of 'em are in the private logs of oil companies, and not easily accessible (ie no links on the web). (If anyone knows of papers that give the original data, I'd like the references!)

[Nyril]

Here's some more along the lines of your list from here.

The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001).
Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997).
Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999).
Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older" (Lindsay 2000).


TO also has an excellent set of what I believe to be the information you requested.