Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

The Assumptions of Pb-U Dating of ZrSiO4 Rock

tejretics
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 6:53:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have seen, various times, on the Science forum where people claim uranium-lead dating of zirconium silicate rock has unsound assumptions. I'd like to see people justify that claim.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 10:21:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 6:53:25 AM, tejretics wrote:
I have seen, various times, on the Science forum where people claim uranium-lead dating of zirconium silicate rock has unsound assumptions. I'd like to see people justify that claim.

I've never claimed so, Tej, but curious, I looked it up and found a paper on what I think for most purposes would be minor issues in U238/U235 ratios, but which might affect Pb-U dating due to varying decay rates. Dated from 2012, the paper is here: [http://www.sciencemag.org...] and was covered in New Scientist in the same year: [https://www.newscientist.com...]

As NS reports:
The team found that, while most of their samples had similar uranium ratios, some were wildly different.

"It"s no longer safe to assume that it doesn"t vary. It clearly does," says Gregory Brennecka of Arizona State University, who was not involved in either study. "Nobody thought that was the case five years ago."

The team produced a new, average figure for the uranium ratios. It shifts the ages of Earth"s oldest rocks slightly, by just under a million years, Hiess says. The oldest rocks will have the biggest corrections: sediments that are 4.4 billion years old are now younger by 700,000 years. "To put it into a human perspective, if the Earth was only 18 years old, we have taken 1 day off the life of its oldest materials," Hiess says.

Now that scientists know they need to measure the ratio of uranium isotopes in all of their samples " as well as the ratio of lead isotopes " they"ll be able to date rocks more accurately.

That"s important for putting events in order. If a mass extinction occurred just before a meteorite struck, say, that paints a different picture than if the meteorite hit first.

"These are two big steps in improving the way we do geochronology, both in the solar system and terrestrial rocks," Brennecka says.

So it looks like geology diligently detecting and fixing a minor inaccuracy that would only matter when absolute accuracy was critical anyway.

This of course, has no bearing on creationist objections, which I've found to be ignorant, generic and misleading. A sample of such objections can be found in that overflowing garderobe of benighted scientific misinformation, AIG.org: [https://answersingenesis.org...]

Hope that might assist.
tejretics
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 2:17:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm interested in creationist attacks on these assumptions. Please, go ahead and justify :) I'm looking for some fun!

Bump.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 1:27:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 6:53:25 AM, tejretics wrote:
I have seen, various times, on the Science forum where people claim uranium-lead dating of zirconium silicate rock has unsound assumptions. I'd like to see people justify that claim.

The assumptions in dating methods are-

What the initial conditions where
No contamination
Constant decay rate

There are unprovable assumptions in dating methods. Therefor, the dating methods are unreliable.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 7:30:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 1:27:49 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 7/30/2015 6:53:25 AM, tejretics wrote:
I have seen, various times, on the Science forum where people claim uranium-lead dating of zirconium silicate rock has unsound assumptions. I'd like to see people justify that claim.

The assumptions in dating methods are-

What the initial conditions where
No contamination
Constant decay rate

There are unprovable assumptions in dating methods. Therefor, the dating methods are unreliable.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You aren't serious. You can't be.

It's called a decay constant for a reason.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 8:38:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 1:27:49 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 7/30/2015 6:53:25 AM, tejretics wrote:
I have seen, various times, on the Science forum where people claim uranium-lead dating of zirconium silicate rock has unsound assumptions. I'd like to see people justify that claim.

The "unprovable" assumptions in dating methods are-

I have inserted the word "unprovable" into this quote, because you used it earlier.

What the initial conditions where

Pb-U dating in Zircon crystals, relies upon measuring the ratio of Uranium to Lead in a sample.

The ratio of parent/daughter products is independant of how much uranium was in the original sample; so the amount of uranium initially present is irrelevant and thus not a relevant "initial condition".

So, given that the starting amount of Uranium doesn't matter, the only things that do matter, are related to this:

a) how much uranium "got into" the sample after formation
b) how much lead "got into" the sample after formation.
c) how much lead was in the original sample.

A and B are related to your second point:
No contamination

A and B are pretty easy. A would make a sample appear younger, B would make it appear older. But both are relatively moot, as Zircons are crystals so after their formation nothing can easily get in and out.

C, we know the chemistry of ZiSi04, and we know that it strongly rejects lead from the crystal lattice; which means it's very chemically difficult for lead to get into them before formation. Moreover, naturally occuring lead is a specific isotope; Lead 204, whereas the lead that comes uranium decay is lead 206; so it can actually be fairly easy to determine whether lead gets into the crystal too.

But what if the Zircon crystal melted and reformed? Turns out that doesn't matter either; as if it did, when it reformed, it would reject most of the lead and incorporate only uranium. Effectively resetting the clock!

The same aspects of this dating apply almost across the board to other forms of dating too; so in most cases we can make demonstrable statements about the initial conditions based on what we know now.

More importantly, a multitude of different methods are normally used to date rocks; multiple decay chains involving chemicals with different chemical properties.

These different methods almost always give complete concordance with each other.

Given that the amount of parent isotope are irrelevant, the other three influencing factors (more child isotope in the original sample, parent or child isotope leaching into the sample after creation) can be pretty easily ruled out: for dates of 2 dating methods to give the same answers despite contamination, there needs to be two sets of contamination involving the chemicals in both samples; a level of contamination that happens to have exactly the right amount of contaminent to make the two dating methods give the same date. Given the chemical nature and rarity of the chemicals involved, this would have to be one of the most massive coincidences, and to broadly "always happen" is impossible.

Constant decay rate

We know enough about radioactive decay to know there are some specific types that can be affected by chemical conditions, and some that can't. Creationists group normally cite the ones that can. But most of the ones used in dating do not change.

Now, we know enough about the physics to know what "could" affect rates of radioactive decay; and these are all contained within a number that is called the "fine structure constant" (a constant that is derived from a number of physical universal constant).

The biggest problem with this, is changing these constances would affect different radioactive decays differently. Which, like contamination, would prevent all dates lining up almost exactly; which they do.

We can test whether the fine structure has changed in several ways. Firstly, we can use distant stars; which show the FSC hasn't changed in the time we have dated by any significant amount, and most measurements show a deviation with a meaningful margin of error. You can also measure radioactive decay in ancient supernovae, which again show no significant deviation than what we see now.

A minor triviality on top of this, is that if radioactivity rates have changed, the physical constants have to change "just right", because if they didn't; stars would not be able to shine and we kinda know the sun was shining for the largest proportion of earths life. Moreover if 4bn years of radioactive decay occurred in 10,000 years as proposed by many YEC, we would be able to tell, primarily because the earth would still be a mass of molten magma....

There are unprovable assumptions in dating methods. Therefor, the dating methods are unreliable.

As shown, really no.

The biggest evidence that demonstrates these assumptions are valid, is the concordance of multiple dating methods almost all of the time. That quite exquisitely demostrates that there has not been any significant contamination and certainly no appreciable change in radioactive decay.
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 10:12:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 8:38:29 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/2/2015 1:27:49 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 7/30/2015 6:53:25 AM, tejretics wrote:
I have seen, various times, on the Science forum where people claim uranium-lead dating of zirconium silicate rock has unsound assumptions. I'd like to see people justify that claim.

The "unprovable" assumptions in dating methods are-

I have inserted the word "unprovable" into this quote, because you used it earlier.

What the initial conditions where

Pb-U dating in Zircon crystals, relies upon measuring the ratio of Uranium to Lead in a sample.

The ratio of parent/daughter products is independant of how much uranium was in the original sample; so the amount of uranium initially present is irrelevant and thus not a relevant "initial condition".

So, given that the starting amount of Uranium doesn't matter, the only things that do matter, are related to this:

a) how much uranium "got into" the sample after formation
b) how much lead "got into" the sample after formation.
c) how much lead was in the original sample.

A and B are related to your second point:
No contamination

A and B are pretty easy. A would make a sample appear younger, B would make it appear older. But both are relatively moot, as Zircons are crystals so after their formation nothing can easily get in and out.

C, we know the chemistry of ZiSi04, and we know that it strongly rejects lead from the crystal lattice; which means it's very chemically difficult for lead to get into them before formation. Moreover, naturally occuring lead is a specific isotope; Lead 204, whereas the lead that comes uranium decay is lead 206; so it can actually be fairly easy to determine whether lead gets into the crystal too.

But what if the Zircon crystal melted and reformed? Turns out that doesn't matter either; as if it did, when it reformed, it would reject most of the lead and incorporate only uranium. Effectively resetting the clock!

The same aspects of this dating apply almost across the board to other forms of dating too; so in most cases we can make demonstrable statements about the initial conditions based on what we know now.


More importantly, a multitude of different methods are normally used to date rocks; multiple decay chains involving chemicals with different chemical properties.

These different methods almost always give complete concordance with each other.

Given that the amount of parent isotope are irrelevant, the other three influencing factors (more child isotope in the original sample, parent or child isotope leaching into the sample after creation) can be pretty easily ruled out: for dates of 2 dating methods to give the same answers despite contamination, there needs to be two sets of contamination involving the chemicals in both samples; a level of contamination that happens to have exactly the right amount of contaminent to make the two dating methods give the same date. Given the chemical nature and rarity of the chemicals involved, this would have to be one of the most massive coincidences, and to broadly "always happen" is impossible.

Constant decay rate

We know enough about radioactive decay to know there are some specific types that can be affected by chemical conditions, and some that can't. Creationists group normally cite the ones that can. But most of the ones used in dating do not change.

Now, we know enough about the physics to know what "could" affect rates of radioactive decay; and these are all contained within a number that is called the "fine structure constant" (a constant that is derived from a number of physical universal constant).

The biggest problem with this, is changing these constances would affect different radioactive decays differently. Which, like contamination, would prevent all dates lining up almost exactly; which they do.

We can test whether the fine structure has changed in several ways. Firstly, we can use distant stars; which show the FSC hasn't changed in the time we have dated by any significant amount, and most measurements show a deviation with a meaningful margin of error. You can also measure radioactive decay in ancient supernovae, which again show no significant deviation than what we see now.

A minor triviality on top of this, is that if radioactivity rates have changed, the physical constants have to change "just right", because if they didn't; stars would not be able to shine and we kinda know the sun was shining for the largest proportion of earths life. Moreover if 4bn years of radioactive decay occurred in 10,000 years as proposed by many YEC, we would be able to tell, primarily because the earth would still be a mass of molten magma....


There are unprovable assumptions in dating methods. Therefor, the dating methods are unreliable.

As shown, really no.

The biggest evidence that demonstrates these assumptions are valid, is the concordance of multiple dating methods almost all of the time. That quite exquisitely demostrates that there has not been any significant contamination and certainly no appreciable change in radioactive decay.

How do you know what the initial conditions where?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 10:18:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 10:12:07 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 8:38:29 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/2/2015 1:27:49 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 7/30/2015 6:53:25 AM, tejretics wrote:
I have seen, various times, on the Science forum where people claim uranium-lead dating of zirconium silicate rock has unsound assumptions. I'd like to see people justify that claim.

The "unprovable" assumptions in dating methods are-

I have inserted the word "unprovable" into this quote, because you used it earlier.

What the initial conditions where

Pb-U dating in Zircon crystals, relies upon measuring the ratio of Uranium to Lead in a sample.

The ratio of parent/daughter products is independant of how much uranium was in the original sample; so the amount of uranium initially present is irrelevant and thus not a relevant "initial condition".

So, given that the starting amount of Uranium doesn't matter, the only things that do matter, are related to this:

a) how much uranium "got into" the sample after formation
b) how much lead "got into" the sample after formation.
c) how much lead was in the original sample.

A and B are related to your second point:
No contamination

A and B are pretty easy. A would make a sample appear younger, B would make it appear older. But both are relatively moot, as Zircons are crystals so after their formation nothing can easily get in and out.

C, we know the chemistry of ZiSi04, and we know that it strongly rejects lead from the crystal lattice; which means it's very chemically difficult for lead to get into them before formation. Moreover, naturally occuring lead is a specific isotope; Lead 204, whereas the lead that comes uranium decay is lead 206; so it can actually be fairly easy to determine whether lead gets into the crystal too.

But what if the Zircon crystal melted and reformed? Turns out that doesn't matter either; as if it did, when it reformed, it would reject most of the lead and incorporate only uranium. Effectively resetting the clock!

The same aspects of this dating apply almost across the board to other forms of dating too; so in most cases we can make demonstrable statements about the initial conditions based on what we know now.


More importantly, a multitude of different methods are normally used to date rocks; multiple decay chains involving chemicals with different chemical properties.

These different methods almost always give complete concordance with each other.

Given that the amount of parent isotope are irrelevant, the other three influencing factors (more child isotope in the original sample, parent or child isotope leaching into the sample after creation) can be pretty easily ruled out: for dates of 2 dating methods to give the same answers despite contamination, there needs to be two sets of contamination involving the chemicals in both samples; a level of contamination that happens to have exactly the right amount of contaminent to make the two dating methods give the same date. Given the chemical nature and rarity of the chemicals involved, this would have to be one of the most massive coincidences, and to broadly "always happen" is impossible.

Constant decay rate

We know enough about radioactive decay to know there are some specific types that can be affected by chemical conditions, and some that can't. Creationists group normally cite the ones that can. But most of the ones used in dating do not change.

Now, we know enough about the physics to know what "could" affect rates of radioactive decay; and these are all contained within a number that is called the "fine structure constant" (a constant that is derived from a number of physical universal constant).

The biggest problem with this, is changing these constances would affect different radioactive decays differently. Which, like contamination, would prevent all dates lining up almost exactly; which they do.

We can test whether the fine structure has changed in several ways. Firstly, we can use distant stars; which show the FSC hasn't changed in the time we have dated by any significant amount, and most measurements show a deviation with a meaningful margin of error. You can also measure radioactive decay in ancient supernovae, which again show no significant deviation than what we see now.

A minor triviality on top of this, is that if radioactivity rates have changed, the physical constants have to change "just right", because if they didn't; stars would not be able to shine and we kinda know the sun was shining for the largest proportion of earths life. Moreover if 4bn years of radioactive decay occurred in 10,000 years as proposed by many YEC, we would be able to tell, primarily because the earth would still be a mass of molten magma....


There are unprovable assumptions in dating methods. Therefor, the dating methods are unreliable.

As shown, really no.

The biggest evidence that demonstrates these assumptions are valid, is the concordance of multiple dating methods almost all of the time. That quite exquisitely demostrates that there has not been any significant contamination and certainly no appreciable change in radioactive decay.

How do you know what the initial conditions where?

We know how ZrSiO4 forms, it's chemical properties and the conditions in which it forms are fairly specific. It still forms today.

The initial amount of uranium has no effect on measuring dates. The chemistry prevents lead from accumulating in the sample, and is detectable because of it's different isotopic content.

We also can determine our assumptions about the initial conditions are accurate, because if they weren't, the dates Pb-U gives us would regularly and significantly differ from any other forms of dating.

All information I presented in this post.

Did you actually read this post? Do you have any detailed argument against any of it?
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 10:20:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 10:18:08 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:12:07 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 8:38:29 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/2/2015 1:27:49 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 7/30/2015 6:53:25 AM, tejretics wrote:
I have seen, various times, on the Science forum where people claim uranium-lead dating of zirconium silicate rock has unsound assumptions. I'd like to see people justify that claim.

The "unprovable" assumptions in dating methods are-

I have inserted the word "unprovable" into this quote, because you used it earlier.

What the initial conditions where

Pb-U dating in Zircon crystals, relies upon measuring the ratio of Uranium to Lead in a sample.

The ratio of parent/daughter products is independant of how much uranium was in the original sample; so the amount of uranium initially present is irrelevant and thus not a relevant "initial condition".

So, given that the starting amount of Uranium doesn't matter, the only things that do matter, are related to this:

a) how much uranium "got into" the sample after formation
b) how much lead "got into" the sample after formation.
c) how much lead was in the original sample.

A and B are related to your second point:
No contamination

A and B are pretty easy. A would make a sample appear younger, B would make it appear older. But both are relatively moot, as Zircons are crystals so after their formation nothing can easily get in and out.

C, we know the chemistry of ZiSi04, and we know that it strongly rejects lead from the crystal lattice; which means it's very chemically difficult for lead to get into them before formation. Moreover, naturally occuring lead is a specific isotope; Lead 204, whereas the lead that comes uranium decay is lead 206; so it can actually be fairly easy to determine whether lead gets into the crystal too.

But what if the Zircon crystal melted and reformed? Turns out that doesn't matter either; as if it did, when it reformed, it would reject most of the lead and incorporate only uranium. Effectively resetting the clock!

The same aspects of this dating apply almost across the board to other forms of dating too; so in most cases we can make demonstrable statements about the initial conditions based on what we know now.


More importantly, a multitude of different methods are normally used to date rocks; multiple decay chains involving chemicals with different chemical properties.

These different methods almost always give complete concordance with each other.

Given that the amount of parent isotope are irrelevant, the other three influencing factors (more child isotope in the original sample, parent or child isotope leaching into the sample after creation) can be pretty easily ruled out: for dates of 2 dating methods to give the same answers despite contamination, there needs to be two sets of contamination involving the chemicals in both samples; a level of contamination that happens to have exactly the right amount of contaminent to make the two dating methods give the same date. Given the chemical nature and rarity of the chemicals involved, this would have to be one of the most massive coincidences, and to broadly "always happen" is impossible.

Constant decay rate

We know enough about radioactive decay to know there are some specific types that can be affected by chemical conditions, and some that can't. Creationists group normally cite the ones that can. But most of the ones used in dating do not change.

Now, we know enough about the physics to know what "could" affect rates of radioactive decay; and these are all contained within a number that is called the "fine structure constant" (a constant that is derived from a number of physical universal constant).

The biggest problem with this, is changing these constances would affect different radioactive decays differently. Which, like contamination, would prevent all dates lining up almost exactly; which they do.

We can test whether the fine structure has changed in several ways. Firstly, we can use distant stars; which show the FSC hasn't changed in the time we have dated by any significant amount, and most measurements show a deviation with a meaningful margin of error. You can also measure radioactive decay in ancient supernovae, which again show no significant deviation than what we see now.

A minor triviality on top of this, is that if radioactivity rates have changed, the physical constants have to change "just right", because if they didn't; stars would not be able to shine and we kinda know the sun was shining for the largest proportion of earths life. Moreover if 4bn years of radioactive decay occurred in 10,000 years as proposed by many YEC, we would be able to tell, primarily because the earth would still be a mass of molten magma....


There are unprovable assumptions in dating methods. Therefor, the dating methods are unreliable.

As shown, really no.

The biggest evidence that demonstrates these assumptions are valid, is the concordance of multiple dating methods almost all of the time. That quite exquisitely demostrates that there has not been any significant contamination and certainly no appreciable change in radioactive decay.

How do you know what the initial conditions where?

We know how ZrSiO4 forms, it's chemical properties and the conditions in which it forms are fairly specific. It still forms today.


The initial amount of uranium has no effect on measuring dates. The chemistry prevents lead from accumulating in the sample, and is detectable because of it's different isotopic content.

We also can determine our assumptions about the initial conditions are accurate, because if they weren't, the dates Pb-U gives us would regularly and significantly differ from any other forms of dating.

All information I presented in this post.

Did you actually read this post? Do you have any detailed argument against any of it?

Yes I read it. So how do you know the initial conditions?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 10:35:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 10:20:27 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:18:08 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:12:07 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 8:38:29 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/2/2015 1:27:49 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 7/30/2015 6:53:25 AM, tejretics wrote:
I have seen, various times, on the Science forum where people claim uranium-lead dating of zirconium silicate rock has unsound assumptions. I'd like to see people justify that claim.

The "unprovable" assumptions in dating methods are-

I have inserted the word "unprovable" into this quote, because you used it earlier.

What the initial conditions where

Pb-U dating in Zircon crystals, relies upon measuring the ratio of Uranium to Lead in a sample.

The ratio of parent/daughter products is independant of how much uranium was in the original sample; so the amount of uranium initially present is irrelevant and thus not a relevant "initial condition".

So, given that the starting amount of Uranium doesn't matter, the only things that do matter, are related to this:

a) how much uranium "got into" the sample after formation
b) how much lead "got into" the sample after formation.
c) how much lead was in the original sample.

A and B are related to your second point:
No contamination

A and B are pretty easy. A would make a sample appear younger, B would make it appear older. But both are relatively moot, as Zircons are crystals so after their formation nothing can easily get in and out.

C, we know the chemistry of ZiSi04, and we know that it strongly rejects lead from the crystal lattice; which means it's very chemically difficult for lead to get into them before formation. Moreover, naturally occuring lead is a specific isotope; Lead 204, whereas the lead that comes uranium decay is lead 206; so it can actually be fairly easy to determine whether lead gets into the crystal too.

But what if the Zircon crystal melted and reformed? Turns out that doesn't matter either; as if it did, when it reformed, it would reject most of the lead and incorporate only uranium. Effectively resetting the clock!

The same aspects of this dating apply almost across the board to other forms of dating too; so in most cases we can make demonstrable statements about the initial conditions based on what we know now.


More importantly, a multitude of different methods are normally used to date rocks; multiple decay chains involving chemicals with different chemical properties.

These different methods almost always give complete concordance with each other.

Given that the amount of parent isotope are irrelevant, the other three influencing factors (more child isotope in the original sample, parent or child isotope leaching into the sample after creation) can be pretty easily ruled out: for dates of 2 dating methods to give the same answers despite contamination, there needs to be two sets of contamination involving the chemicals in both samples; a level of contamination that happens to have exactly the right amount of contaminent to make the two dating methods give the same date. Given the chemical nature and rarity of the chemicals involved, this would have to be one of the most massive coincidences, and to broadly "always happen" is impossible.

Constant decay rate

We know enough about radioactive decay to know there are some specific types that can be affected by chemical conditions, and some that can't. Creationists group normally cite the ones that can. But most of the ones used in dating do not change.

Now, we know enough about the physics to know what "could" affect rates of radioactive decay; and these are all contained within a number that is called the "fine structure constant" (a constant that is derived from a number of physical universal constant).

The biggest problem with this, is changing these constances would affect different radioactive decays differently. Which, like contamination, would prevent all dates lining up almost exactly; which they do.

We can test whether the fine structure has changed in several ways. Firstly, we can use distant stars; which show the FSC hasn't changed in the time we have dated by any significant amount, and most measurements show a deviation with a meaningful margin of error. You can also measure radioactive decay in ancient supernovae, which again show no significant deviation than what we see now.

A minor triviality on top of this, is that if radioactivity rates have changed, the physical constants have to change "just right", because if they didn't; stars would not be able to shine and we kinda know the sun was shining for the largest proportion of earths life. Moreover if 4bn years of radioactive decay occurred in 10,000 years as proposed by many YEC, we would be able to tell, primarily because the earth would still be a mass of molten magma....


There are unprovable assumptions in dating methods. Therefor, the dating methods are unreliable.

As shown, really no.

The biggest evidence that demonstrates these assumptions are valid, is the concordance of multiple dating methods almost all of the time. That quite exquisitely demostrates that there has not been any significant contamination and certainly no appreciable change in radioactive decay.

How do you know what the initial conditions where?

We know how ZrSiO4 forms, it's chemical properties and the conditions in which it forms are fairly specific. It still forms today.


The initial amount of uranium has no effect on measuring dates. The chemistry prevents lead from accumulating in the sample, and is detectable because of it's different isotopic content.

We also can determine our assumptions about the initial conditions are accurate, because if they weren't, the dates Pb-U gives us would regularly and significantly differ from any other forms of dating.

All information I presented in this post.

Did you actually read this post? Do you have any detailed argument against any of it?

Yes I read it. So how do you know the initial conditions?

I've explained it twice now.

Maybe you should be more specific?

What initial conditions are assumed that have an effect on the date produced by Pb-U dating that isn't already covered in my explanation?

Because two dating methods giving pretty much always giving the same dates is not possible if the initial conditions were different from that which has been defined.
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 12:15:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 10:35:52 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:20:27 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:18:08 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:12:07 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 8:38:29 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/2/2015 1:27:49 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 7/30/2015 6:53:25 AM, tejretics wrote:
I have seen, various times, on the Science forum where people claim uranium-lead dating of zirconium silicate rock has unsound assumptions. I'd like to see people justify that claim.

The "unprovable" assumptions in dating methods are-

I have inserted the word "unprovable" into this quote, because you used it earlier.

What the initial conditions where

Pb-U dating in Zircon crystals, relies upon measuring the ratio of Uranium to Lead in a sample.

The ratio of parent/daughter products is independant of how much uranium was in the original sample; so the amount of uranium initially present is irrelevant and thus not a relevant "initial condition".

So, given that the starting amount of Uranium doesn't matter, the only things that do matter, are related to this:

a) how much uranium "got into" the sample after formation
b) how much lead "got into" the sample after formation.
c) how much lead was in the original sample.

A and B are related to your second point:
No contamination

A and B are pretty easy. A would make a sample appear younger, B would make it appear older. But both are relatively moot, as Zircons are crystals so after their formation nothing can easily get in and out.

C, we know the chemistry of ZiSi04, and we know that it strongly rejects lead from the crystal lattice; which means it's very chemically difficult for lead to get into them before formation. Moreover, naturally occuring lead is a specific isotope; Lead 204, whereas the lead that comes uranium decay is lead 206; so it can actually be fairly easy to determine whether lead gets into the crystal too.

But what if the Zircon crystal melted and reformed? Turns out that doesn't matter either; as if it did, when it reformed, it would reject most of the lead and incorporate only uranium. Effectively resetting the clock!

The same aspects of this dating apply almost across the board to other forms of dating too; so in most cases we can make demonstrable statements about the initial conditions based on what we know now.


More importantly, a multitude of different methods are normally used to date rocks; multiple decay chains involving chemicals with different chemical properties.

These different methods almost always give complete concordance with each other.

Given that the amount of parent isotope are irrelevant, the other three influencing factors (more child isotope in the original sample, parent or child isotope leaching into the sample after creation) can be pretty easily ruled out: for dates of 2 dating methods to give the same answers despite contamination, there needs to be two sets of contamination involving the chemicals in both samples; a level of contamination that happens to have exactly the right amount of contaminent to make the two dating methods give the same date. Given the chemical nature and rarity of the chemicals involved, this would have to be one of the most massive coincidences, and to broadly "always happen" is impossible.

Constant decay rate

We know enough about radioactive decay to know there are some specific types that can be affected by chemical conditions, and some that can't. Creationists group normally cite the ones that can. But most of the ones used in dating do not change.

Now, we know enough about the physics to know what "could" affect rates of radioactive decay; and these are all contained within a number that is called the "fine structure constant" (a constant that is derived from a number of physical universal constant).

The biggest problem with this, is changing these constances would affect different radioactive decays differently. Which, like contamination, would prevent all dates lining up almost exactly; which they do.

We can test whether the fine structure has changed in several ways. Firstly, we can use distant stars; which show the FSC hasn't changed in the time we have dated by any significant amount, and most measurements show a deviation with a meaningful margin of error. You can also measure radioactive decay in ancient supernovae, which again show no significant deviation than what we see now.

A minor triviality on top of this, is that if radioactivity rates have changed, the physical constants have to change "just right", because if they didn't; stars would not be able to shine and we kinda know the sun was shining for the largest proportion of earths life. Moreover if 4bn years of radioactive decay occurred in 10,000 years as proposed by many YEC, we would be able to tell, primarily because the earth would still be a mass of molten magma....


There are unprovable assumptions in dating methods. Therefor, the dating methods are unreliable.

As shown, really no.

The biggest evidence that demonstrates these assumptions are valid, is the concordance of multiple dating methods almost all of the time. That quite exquisitely demostrates that there has not been any significant contamination and certainly no appreciable change in radioactive decay.

How do you know what the initial conditions where?

We know how ZrSiO4 forms, it's chemical properties and the conditions in which it forms are fairly specific. It still forms today.


The initial amount of uranium has no effect on measuring dates. The chemistry prevents lead from accumulating in the sample, and is detectable because of it's different isotopic content.

We also can determine our assumptions about the initial conditions are accurate, because if they weren't, the dates Pb-U gives us would regularly and significantly differ from any other forms of dating.

All information I presented in this post.

Did you actually read this post? Do you have any detailed argument against any of it?

Yes I read it. So how do you know the initial conditions?

I've explained it twice now.

Maybe you should be more specific?

What initial conditions are assumed that have an effect on the date produced by Pb-U dating that isn't already covered in my explanation?

Because two dating methods giving pretty much always giving the same dates is not possible if the initial conditions were different from that which has been defined.

How do you know that?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 12:21:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 12:15:29 AM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:35:52 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:20:27 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:18:08 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:12:07 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 8:38:29 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/2/2015 1:27:49 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 7/30/2015 6:53:25 AM, tejretics wrote:
I have seen, various times, on the Science forum where people claim uranium-lead dating of zirconium silicate rock has unsound assumptions. I'd like to see people justify that claim.

The "unprovable" assumptions in dating methods are-

I have inserted the word "unprovable" into this quote, because you used it earlier.

What the initial conditions where

Pb-U dating in Zircon crystals, relies upon measuring the ratio of Uranium to Lead in a sample.

The ratio of parent/daughter products is independant of how much uranium was in the original sample; so the amount of uranium initially present is irrelevant and thus not a relevant "initial condition".

So, given that the starting amount of Uranium doesn't matter, the only things that do matter, are related to this:

a) how much uranium "got into" the sample after formation
b) how much lead "got into" the sample after formation.
c) how much lead was in the original sample.

A and B are related to your second point:
No contamination

A and B are pretty easy. A would make a sample appear younger, B would make it appear older. But both are relatively moot, as Zircons are crystals so after their formation nothing can easily get in and out.

C, we know the chemistry of ZiSi04, and we know that it strongly rejects lead from the crystal lattice; which means it's very chemically difficult for lead to get into them before formation. Moreover, naturally occuring lead is a specific isotope; Lead 204, whereas the lead that comes uranium decay is lead 206; so it can actually be fairly easy to determine whether lead gets into the crystal too.

But what if the Zircon crystal melted and reformed? Turns out that doesn't matter either; as if it did, when it reformed, it would reject most of the lead and incorporate only uranium. Effectively resetting the clock!

The same aspects of this dating apply almost across the board to other forms of dating too; so in most cases we can make demonstrable statements about the initial conditions based on what we know now.


More importantly, a multitude of different methods are normally used to date rocks; multiple decay chains involving chemicals with different chemical properties.

These different methods almost always give complete concordance with each other.

Given that the amount of parent isotope are irrelevant, the other three influencing factors (more child isotope in the original sample, parent or child isotope leaching into the sample after creation) can be pretty easily ruled out: for dates of 2 dating methods to give the same answers despite contamination, there needs to be two sets of contamination involving the chemicals in both samples; a level of contamination that happens to have exactly the right amount of contaminent to make the two dating methods give the same date. Given the chemical nature and rarity of the chemicals involved, this would have to be one of the most massive coincidences, and to broadly "always happen" is impossible.

Constant decay rate

We know enough about radioactive decay to know there are some specific types that can be affected by chemical conditions, and some that can't. Creationists group normally cite the ones that can. But most of the ones used in dating do not change.

Now, we know enough about the physics to know what "could" affect rates of radioactive decay; and these are all contained within a number that is called the "fine structure constant" (a constant that is derived from a number of physical universal constant).

The biggest problem with this, is changing these constances would affect different radioactive decays differently. Which, like contamination, would prevent all dates lining up almost exactly; which they do.

We can test whether the fine structure has changed in several ways. Firstly, we can use distant stars; which show the FSC hasn't changed in the time we have dated by any significant amount, and most measurements show a deviation with a meaningful margin of error. You can also measure radioactive decay in ancient supernovae, which again show no significant deviation than what we see now.

A minor triviality on top of this, is that if radioactivity rates have changed, the physical constants have to change "just right", because if they didn't; stars would not be able to shine and we kinda know the sun was shining for the largest proportion of earths life. Moreover if 4bn years of radioactive decay occurred in 10,000 years as proposed by many YEC, we would be able to tell, primarily because the earth would still be a mass of molten magma....


There are unprovable assumptions in dating methods. Therefor, the dating methods are unreliable.

As shown, really no.

The biggest evidence that demonstrates these assumptions are valid, is the concordance of multiple dating methods almost all of the time. That quite exquisitely demostrates that there has not been any significant contamination and certainly no appreciable change in radioactive decay.

How do you know what the initial conditions where?

We know how ZrSiO4 forms, it's chemical properties and the conditions in which it forms are fairly specific. It still forms today.


The initial amount of uranium has no effect on measuring dates. The chemistry prevents lead from accumulating in the sample, and is detectable because of it's different isotopic content.

We also can determine our assumptions about the initial conditions are accurate, because if they weren't, the dates Pb-U gives us would regularly and significantly differ from any other forms of dating.

All information I presented in this post.

Did you actually read this post? Do you have any detailed argument against any of it?

Yes I read it. So how do you know the initial conditions?

I've explained it twice now.

Maybe you should be more specific?

What initial conditions are assumed that have an effect on the date produced by Pb-U dating that isn't already covered in my explanation?

Because two dating methods giving pretty much always giving the same dates is not possible if the initial conditions were different from that which has been defined.

How do you know that?

You didn't read my post; I have gone back and bolded the relevant part.
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 12:24:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 12:21:03 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/3/2015 12:15:29 AM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:35:52 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:20:27 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:18:08 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/2/2015 10:12:07 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 8:38:29 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/2/2015 1:27:49 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 7/30/2015 6:53:25 AM, tejretics wrote:
I have seen, various times, on the Science forum where people claim uranium-lead dating of zirconium silicate rock has unsound assumptions. I'd like to see people justify that claim.

The "unprovable" assumptions in dating methods are-

I have inserted the word "unprovable" into this quote, because you used it earlier.

What the initial conditions where

Pb-U dating in Zircon crystals, relies upon measuring the ratio of Uranium to Lead in a sample.

The ratio of parent/daughter products is independant of how much uranium was in the original sample; so the amount of uranium initially present is irrelevant and thus not a relevant "initial condition".

So, given that the starting amount of Uranium doesn't matter, the only things that do matter, are related to this:

a) how much uranium "got into" the sample after formation
b) how much lead "got into" the sample after formation.
c) how much lead was in the original sample.

A and B are related to your second point:
No contamination

A and B are pretty easy. A would make a sample appear younger, B would make it appear older. But both are relatively moot, as Zircons are crystals so after their formation nothing can easily get in and out.

C, we know the chemistry of ZiSi04, and we know that it strongly rejects lead from the crystal lattice; which means it's very chemically difficult for lead to get into them before formation. Moreover, naturally occuring lead is a specific isotope; Lead 204, whereas the lead that comes uranium decay is lead 206; so it can actually be fairly easy to determine whether lead gets into the crystal too.

But what if the Zircon crystal melted and reformed? Turns out that doesn't matter either; as if it did, when it reformed, it would reject most of the lead and incorporate only uranium. Effectively resetting the clock!

The same aspects of this dating apply almost across the board to other forms of dating too; so in most cases we can make demonstrable statements about the initial conditions based on what we know now.


More importantly, a multitude of different methods are normally used to date rocks; multiple decay chains involving chemicals with different chemical properties.

These different methods almost always give complete concordance with each other.

Given that the amount of parent isotope are irrelevant, the other three influencing factors (more child isotope in the original sample, parent or child isotope leaching into the sample after creation) can be pretty easily ruled out: for dates of 2 dating methods to give the same answers despite contamination, there needs to be two sets of contamination involving the chemicals in both samples; a level of contamination that happens to have exactly the right amount of contaminent to make the two dating methods give the same date. Given the chemical nature and rarity of the chemicals involved, this would have to be one of the most massive coincidences, and to broadly "always happen" is impossible.

Constant decay rate

We know enough about radioactive decay to know there are some specific types that can be affected by chemical conditions, and some that can't. Creationists group normally cite the ones that can. But most of the ones used in dating do not change.

Now, we know enough about the physics to know what "could" affect rates of radioactive decay; and these are all contained within a number that is called the "fine structure constant" (a constant that is derived from a number of physical universal constant).

The biggest problem with this, is changing these constances would affect different radioactive decays differently. Which, like contamination, would prevent all dates lining up almost exactly; which they do.

We can test whether the fine structure has changed in several ways. Firstly, we can use distant stars; which show the FSC hasn't changed in the time we have dated by any significant amount, and most measurements show a deviation with a meaningful margin of error. You can also measure radioactive decay in ancient supernovae, which again show no significant deviation than what we see now.

A minor triviality on top of this, is that if radioactivity rates have changed, the physical constants have to change "just right", because if they didn't; stars would not be able to shine and we kinda know the sun was shining for the largest proportion of earths life. Moreover if 4bn years of radioactive decay occurred in 10,000 years as proposed by many YEC, we would be able to tell, primarily because the earth would still be a mass of molten magma....


There are unprovable assumptions in dating methods. Therefor, the dating methods are unreliable.

As shown, really no.

The biggest evidence that demonstrates these assumptions are valid, is the concordance of multiple dating methods almost all of the time. That quite exquisitely demostrates that there has not been any significant contamination and certainly no appreciable change in radioactive decay.

How do you know what the initial conditions where?

We know how ZrSiO4 forms, it's chemical properties and the conditions in which it forms are fairly specific. It still forms today.


The initial amount of uranium has no effect on measuring dates. The chemistry prevents lead from accumulating in the sample, and is detectable because of it's different isotopic content.

We also can determine our assumptions about the initial conditions are accurate, because if they weren't, the dates Pb-U gives us would regularly and significantly differ from any other forms of dating.

All information I presented in this post.

Did you actually read this post? Do you have any detailed argument against any of it?

Yes I read it. So how do you know the initial conditions?

I've explained it twice now.

Maybe you should be more specific?

What initial conditions are assumed that have an effect on the date produced by Pb-U dating that isn't already covered in my explanation?

Because two dating methods giving pretty much always giving the same dates is not possible if the initial conditions were different from that which has been defined.

How do you know that?

You didn't read my post; I have gone back and bolded the relevant part.

I'm not talking about contamination though. I'm talking about the original conditions
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 12:27:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 12:24:17 AM, Alpha3141 wrote:
The "unprovable" assumptions in dating methods are-

I have inserted the word "unprovable" into this quote, because you used it earlier.

What the initial conditions where

Pb-U dating in Zircon crystals, relies upon measuring the ratio of Uranium to Lead in a sample.

The ratio of parent/daughter products is independant of how much uranium was in the original sample; so the amount of uranium initially present is irrelevant and thus not a relevant "initial condition".

So, given that the starting amount of Uranium doesn't matter, the only things that do matter, are related to this:

a) how much uranium "got into" the sample after formation
b) how much lead "got into" the sample after formation.
c) how much lead was in the original sample.

A and B are related to your second point:
No contamination

A and B are pretty easy. A would make a sample appear younger, B would make it appear older. But both are relatively moot, as Zircons are crystals so after their formation nothing can easily get in and out.

C, we know the chemistry of ZiSi04, and we know that it strongly rejects lead from the crystal lattice; which means it's very chemically difficult for lead to get into them before formation. Moreover, naturally occuring lead is a specific isotope; Lead 204, whereas the lead that comes uranium decay is lead 206; so it can actually be fairly easy to determine whether lead gets into the crystal too.

But what if the Zircon crystal melted and reformed? Turns out that doesn't matter either; as if it did, when it reformed, it would reject most of the lead and incorporate only uranium. Effectively resetting the clock!

The same aspects of this dating apply almost across the board to other forms of dating too; so in most cases we can make demonstrable statements about the initial conditions based on what we know now.


More importantly, a multitude of different methods are normally used to date rocks; multiple decay chains involving chemicals with different chemical properties.

These different methods almost always give complete concordance with each other.

Given that the amount of parent isotope are irrelevant, the other three influencing factors (more child isotope in the original sample, parent or child isotope leaching into the sample after creation) can be pretty easily ruled out: for dates of 2 dating methods to give the same answers despite contamination, there needs to be two sets of contamination involving the chemicals in both samples; a level of contamination that happens to have exactly the right amount of contaminent to make the two dating methods give the same date. Given the chemical nature and rarity of the chemicals involved, this would have to be one of the most massive coincidences, and to broadly "always happen" is impossible.

Constant decay rate

We know enough about radioactive decay to know there are some specific types that can be affected by chemical conditions, and some that can't. Creationists group normally cite the ones that can. But most of the ones used in dating do not change.

Now, we know enough about the physics to know what "could" affect rates of radioactive decay; and these are all contained within a number that is called the "fine structure constant" (a constant that is derived from a number of physical universal constant).

The biggest problem with this, is changing these constances would affect different radioactive decays differently. Which, like contamination, would prevent all dates lining up almost exactly; which they do.

We can test whether the fine structure has changed in several ways. Firstly, we can use distant stars; which show the FSC hasn't changed in the time we have dated by any significant amount, and most measurements show a deviation with a meaningful margin of error. You can also measure radioactive decay in ancient supernovae, which again show no significant deviation than what we see now.

A minor triviality on top of this, is that if radioactivity rates have changed, the physical constants have to change "just right", because if they didn't; stars would not be able to shine and we kinda know the sun was shining for the largest proportion of earths life. Moreover if 4bn years of radioactive decay occurred in 10,000 years as proposed by many YEC, we would be able to tell, primarily because the earth would still be a mass of molten magma....


There are unprovable assumptions in dating methods. Therefor, the dating methods are unreliable.

As shown, really no.

The biggest evidence that demonstrates these assumptions are valid, is the concordance of multiple dating methods almost all of the time. That quite exquisitely demostrates that there has not been any significant contamination and certainly no appreciable change in radioactive decay.

How do you know what the initial conditions where?

We know how ZrSiO4 forms, it's chemical properties and the conditions in which it forms are fairly specific. It still forms today.


The initial amount of uranium has no effect on measuring dates. The chemistry prevents lead from accumulating in the sample, and is detectable because of it's different isotopic content.

We also can determine our assumptions about the initial conditions are accurate, because if they weren't, the dates Pb-U gives us would regularly and significantly differ from any other forms of dating.

All information I presented in this post.

Did you actually read this post? Do you have any detailed argument against any of it?

Yes I read it. So how do you know the initial conditions?

I've explained it twice now.

Maybe you should be more specific?

What initial conditions are assumed that have an effect on the date produced by Pb-U dating that isn't already covered in my explanation?

Because two dating methods giving pretty much always giving the same dates is not possible if the initial conditions were different from that which has been defined.

How do you know that?

You didn't read my post; I have gone back and bolded the relevant part.

I'm not talking about contamination though. I'm talking about the original conditions

It applies to initial conditions for the same reason ; the only change in initial conditions that would cause incorrect dates is if the amount of daughter isotope in the sample is not 0. If that isn't the case, it would be close to impossible for two different methods to the same date for the same reasons.
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 12:30:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 12:27:28 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/3/2015 12:24:17 AM, Alpha3141 wrote:
The "unprovable" assumptions in dating methods are-

I have inserted the word "unprovable" into this quote, because you used it earlier.

What the initial conditions where

Pb-U dating in Zircon crystals, relies upon measuring the ratio of Uranium to Lead in a sample.

The ratio of parent/daughter products is independant of how much uranium was in the original sample; so the amount of uranium initially present is irrelevant and thus not a relevant "initial condition".

So, given that the starting amount of Uranium doesn't matter, the only things that do matter, are related to this:

a) how much uranium "got into" the sample after formation
b) how much lead "got into" the sample after formation.
c) how much lead was in the original sample.

A and B are related to your second point:
No contamination

A and B are pretty easy. A would make a sample appear younger, B would make it appear older. But both are relatively moot, as Zircons are crystals so after their formation nothing can easily get in and out.

C, we know the chemistry of ZiSi04, and we know that it strongly rejects lead from the crystal lattice; which means it's very chemically difficult for lead to get into them before formation. Moreover, naturally occuring lead is a specific isotope; Lead 204, whereas the lead that comes uranium decay is lead 206; so it can actually be fairly easy to determine whether lead gets into the crystal too.

But what if the Zircon crystal melted and reformed? Turns out that doesn't matter either; as if it did, when it reformed, it would reject most of the lead and incorporate only uranium. Effectively resetting the clock!

The same aspects of this dating apply almost across the board to other forms of dating too; so in most cases we can make demonstrable statements about the initial conditions based on what we know now.


More importantly, a multitude of different methods are normally used to date rocks; multiple decay chains involving chemicals with different chemical properties.

These different methods almost always give complete concordance with each other.

Given that the amount of parent isotope are irrelevant, the other three influencing factors (more child isotope in the original sample, parent or child isotope leaching into the sample after creation) can be pretty easily ruled out: for dates of 2 dating methods to give the same answers despite contamination, there needs to be two sets of contamination involving the chemicals in both samples; a level of contamination that happens to have exactly the right amount of contaminent to make the two dating methods give the same date. Given the chemical nature and rarity of the chemicals involved, this would have to be one of the most massive coincidences, and to broadly "always happen" is impossible.

Constant decay rate

We know enough about radioactive decay to know there are some specific types that can be affected by chemical conditions, and some that can't. Creationists group normally cite the ones that can. But most of the ones used in dating do not change.

Now, we know enough about the physics to know what "could" affect rates of radioactive decay; and these are all contained within a number that is called the "fine structure constant" (a constant that is derived from a number of physical universal constant).

The biggest problem with this, is changing these constances would affect different radioactive decays differently. Which, like contamination, would prevent all dates lining up almost exactly; which they do.

We can test whether the fine structure has changed in several ways. Firstly, we can use distant stars; which show the FSC hasn't changed in the time we have dated by any significant amount, and most measurements show a deviation with a meaningful margin of error. You can also measure radioactive decay in ancient supernovae, which again show no significant deviation than what we see now.

A minor triviality on top of this, is that if radioactivity rates have changed, the physical constants have to change "just right", because if they didn't; stars would not be able to shine and we kinda know the sun was shining for the largest proportion of earths life. Moreover if 4bn years of radioactive decay occurred in 10,000 years as proposed by many YEC, we would be able to tell, primarily because the earth would still be a mass of molten magma....


There are unprovable assumptions in dating methods. Therefor, the dating methods are unreliable.

As shown, really no.

The biggest evidence that demonstrates these assumptions are valid, is the concordance of multiple dating methods almost all of the time. That quite exquisitely demostrates that there has not been any significant contamination and certainly no appreciable change in radioactive decay.

How do you know what the initial conditions where?

We know how ZrSiO4 forms, it's chemical properties and the conditions in which it forms are fairly specific. It still forms today.


The initial amount of uranium has no effect on measuring dates. The chemistry prevents lead from accumulating in the sample, and is detectable because of it's different isotopic content.

We also can determine our assumptions about the initial conditions are accurate, because if they weren't, the dates Pb-U gives us would regularly and significantly differ from any other forms of dating.

All information I presented in this post.

Did you actually read this post? Do you have any detailed argument against any of it?

Yes I read it. So how do you know the initial conditions?

I've explained it twice now.

Maybe you should be more specific?

What initial conditions are assumed that have an effect on the date produced by Pb-U dating that isn't already covered in my explanation?

Because two dating methods giving pretty much always giving the same dates is not possible if the initial conditions were different from that which has been defined.

How do you know that?

You didn't read my post; I have gone back and bolded the relevant part.

I'm not talking about contamination though. I'm talking about the original conditions

It applies to initial conditions for the same reason ; the only change in initial conditions that would cause incorrect dates is if the amount of daughter isotope in the sample is not 0. If that isn't the case, it would be close to impossible for two different methods to the same date for the same reasons.

That's why dating methods are inconsistent with each other most of the time
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 12:41:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 12:30:29 AM, Alpha3141 wrote:
It applies to initial conditions for the same reason ; the only change in initial conditions that would cause incorrect dates is if the amount of daughter isotope in the sample is not 0. If that isn't the case, it would be close to impossible for two different methods to the same date for the same reasons.

That's why dating methods are inconsistent with each other most of the time

That is not even close to factually accurate.

They in fact do correlate significantly the majority of the time.
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 1:07:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 12:41:39 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/3/2015 12:30:29 AM, Alpha3141 wrote:
It applies to initial conditions for the same reason ; the only change in initial conditions that would cause incorrect dates is if the amount of daughter isotope in the sample is not 0. If that isn't the case, it would be close to impossible for two different methods to the same date for the same reasons.

That's why dating methods are inconsistent with each other most of the time

That is not even close to factually accurate.

They in fact do correlate significantly the majority of the time.

How come whenever we date the rocks from a recent volcano the dates are wrong? Things such as that
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 1:09:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 1:07:11 AM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/3/2015 12:41:39 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/3/2015 12:30:29 AM, Alpha3141 wrote:
It applies to initial conditions for the same reason ; the only change in initial conditions that would cause incorrect dates is if the amount of daughter isotope in the sample is not 0. If that isn't the case, it would be close to impossible for two different methods to the same date for the same reasons.

That's why dating methods are inconsistent with each other most of the time

That is not even close to factually accurate.

They in fact do correlate significantly the majority of the time.

How come whenever we date the rocks from a recent volcano the dates are wrong? Things such as that

How does the rather generic, non specific example you gave imply that "dating methods are inconsistent with each other most of the time".
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 1:11:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 1:09:37 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/3/2015 1:07:11 AM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/3/2015 12:41:39 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/3/2015 12:30:29 AM, Alpha3141 wrote:
It applies to initial conditions for the same reason ; the only change in initial conditions that would cause incorrect dates is if the amount of daughter isotope in the sample is not 0. If that isn't the case, it would be close to impossible for two different methods to the same date for the same reasons.

That's why dating methods are inconsistent with each other most of the time

That is not even close to factually accurate.

They in fact do correlate significantly the majority of the time.

How come whenever we date the rocks from a recent volcano the dates are wrong? Things such as that

How does the rather generic, non specific example you gave imply that "dating methods are inconsistent with each other most of the time".

What?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 1:12:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 1:11:03 AM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/3/2015 1:09:37 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/3/2015 1:07:11 AM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/3/2015 12:41:39 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/3/2015 12:30:29 AM, Alpha3141 wrote:
It applies to initial conditions for the same reason ; the only change in initial conditions that would cause incorrect dates is if the amount of daughter isotope in the sample is not 0. If that isn't the case, it would be close to impossible for two different methods to the same date for the same reasons.

That's why dating methods are inconsistent with each other most of the time

That is not even close to factually accurate.

They in fact do correlate significantly the majority of the time.

How come whenever we date the rocks from a recent volcano the dates are wrong? Things such as that

How does the rather generic, non specific example you gave imply that "dating methods are inconsistent with each other most of the time".

What?

A recent volcano giving innacurate dates is not the same thing as claiming "dating methods are inconsistent with each other most of the time".

Are you changing your argument? how the two related?