Innuendo in place of actual data
Innuendo in place of actual data
But, lacking that, let me comment on some of the ideas in your post anyway. Look at the quoted material very carefully, and see if it actually carries its point.
But additionally, and this is my overarching concern that applies to the entire article, is that this is no more than an unsupported generalized assertion. What specific experiments are they speaking of?
I would really like to see this article in context, because of the reference to iron-57 decay. Iron is an end product of many decay chains, and so is considered, for all practical purposes, stable. My CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (far more than a thousand pages of measured technical physical data on a vast array of substances) doesn’t even list a Half-life for Fe-57.
Overall, I am highly unimpressed with this article. The grammar is lousy, and the science is even worse. Not a single specific study, data set, measurement, or anything that rises beyond speculation is to be found. Please tell me, Michael, that this is not the level of criticism of C-14 dating that you have had to stoop to. Please?
Innuendo in place of actual data
Scienceforums seems to be open to lots of ideas, some good and some wacko, just as TOL is. I am interested in what the response was to the quotes you offer. I was not able to quickly find the thread in ScienceForums containing the quote you provided, so if you can supply a more detailed path to it in ScienceForums, I would be appreciative.
But, lacking that, let me comment on some of the ideas in your post anyway. Look at the quoted material very carefully, and see if it actually carries its point.
My hiccup here is due to probably a typo: “date of decay for the element …”. I know the date. It was February 29, 1997. Everyone knows that. Or do you think they might have meant to say “rate of decay for the element …”?
Here we see what may be sloppiness in terminology, when they refer to “isotopes of uranium-238”. Uranium has isotopes. U238 does not have isotopes, it IS an isotope. The way they word it makes no more sense than to speak of the “the species of homo sapiens”, instead of “the homo sapiens species”. It would have been better if they had worded it as “Using iron-57 and uranium-238 isotope experiments…”.
But additionally, and this is my overarching concern that applies to the entire article, is that this is no more than an unsupported generalized assertion. What specific experiments are they speaking of?
I would really like to see this article in context, because of the reference to iron-57 decay. Iron is an end product of many decay chains, and so is considered, for all practical purposes, stable. My CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (far more than a thousand pages of measured technical physical data on a vast array of substances) doesn’t even list a Half-life for Fe-57.
Dalrymple, in his book “The Age of the Earth” discusses tests that were done subjecting radioactive materials to extreme conditions, such as high heat and pressure. It was found that only minor variations in decay rates could be detected in a few samples. As I recall, one of the most extreme changes in decay rate was on the order of 10 or 15%. If that were true of C-14, then the worst case might be that a measured radiological date of 40,000 years ago might actually be closer to 30,000 years ago. Either value makes a 7,000 year old earth into poppycock.
The Barbarian has already discussed this, and shown that it is simply false. Science is perfectly aware that C-14 levels have fluctuated over time, and recognizing and calibrating for those fluctuations is a part of the dating process.
Here again I see a significant lack of attention to scientific accuracy. The first of these sentences is speaking about the FORMATION of carbon-12, which formation humans have had very little to do with. Almost every one of those C-12 atoms was in existence long before you or I existed, and will be around long after we have ceased to be. The second sentence is not referring to the formation of C-12, but the concentrations (presumably the concentrations present in the atmosphere). And it is true, the burning of various fossil fuels and things like deforestation release substantial quantities of C-12 into the air. Note that that not FORMING C-12, it is just releasing it from the organic molecules it was locked into for a gazillion years, into mostly CO2 gas. All that will do is slightly change the C-14 to C-12 ratio, but as noted just above, that can be compensated for.
So what? Are you aware of C-14 dating on anything pertinent to age-of-the-earth dating that relies on radiological dates as recent as the last 65 years? The huge majority of applications of C-14 dating deals with ancient archaeological sites (usually at least a few thousand years old), and numerous other studies reaching back several tens of thousands of years. Certainly dates of interest corresponding to the whole Old Testament period far predate any effect of atomic bomb tests.
There’s always a small number of scientists on the fringe who support a broad range of goof-ball ideas. What is significant here, though, is that the percentage of scientists in the Western cultures (read “Christian” cultures) that buy into the flood of Noah has dropped dramatically as our understanding of geology, history, archaeology, and related fields has increased.
A flood that impacted vegetation – so what? The C-14 decay “clock” starts the moment something living dies, whether due to drowning, or old age, or whatever. As to suggesting that the flood might have impacted C-14, how?
Overall, I am highly unimpressed with this article. The grammar is lousy, and the science is even worse. Not a single specific study, data set, measurement, or anything that rises beyond speculation is to be found. Please tell me, Michael, that this is not the level of criticism of C-14 dating that you have had to stoop to. Please?
