A question on radiometric dating (more than the basics)

[mijopaalmc]

So I have a question about how radiometric dating is actually performed. I understand the basic theory and mathematics behind the general method, but I error more interested in how the the laboratory process of radiometric dating "introduces" error into the dating system.

For instance, are the amounts of the daughter nuclei or remaining mother nuclei measured as masses or numbers of nuclei? Is it possible for some of the nuclei to get lost in the mass spectrometer? Is the error (often published as a mean age plus/minus a standard deviation or a confidence interval) due to the fact that multiple samples are taken and therefore statistical measures makes sense?

I ask because I was talking with my boyfriend and his cousin who are both creationists, and my boyfriend's cousin mentioned that his pastor (who apparently had some undergraduate experience in geology before "coming to Christ" and going into theology) had done some radiometric dating (he didn't mention the specific method(s)) on rock strata (or at least that was my understanding of the gist of the conversation) and come up with differences of "thousands of years" for a single stratum. Now, this didn't seem at all strange to me because a single stratum can span thousands to hundreds of millions of years, but I didn't know how exactly to explain why errors of thousands of years were to be expected in radiometric dating, so I mumbled something about the general range of ages in strata.

Can I get some help?

 

[PingOfPong]

I can help.

Would you like a non-creationist boyfriend? That is, unless you're a guy, in which case your having a Christian creationist boyfriend doesn't make any sense at all.

cue the serious answers please

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I can help.

Would you like a non-creationist boyfriend? That is, unless you're a guy, in which case your having a Christian creationist boyfriend doesn't make any sense at all.

cue the serious answers please

As someone who has done undergraduate lab work, I respectfully suggest that measurements done in an undergraduate lab do not equate to the results done by experts with training. If they did, I would be living in a strange world where the electron was 10% lighter than yours or possible ten times the weight!

 

[casebro]

Is radiometric dating affiliated with Match.Com ?

 

[Reality Check]

So I have a question about how radiometric dating is actually performed. I understand the basic theory and mathematics behind the general method, but I error more interested in how the the laboratory process of radiometric dating "introduces" error into the dating system.

For instance, are the amounts of the daughter nuclei or remaining mother nuclei measured as masses or numbers of nuclei? Is it possible for some of the nuclei to get lost in the mass spectrometer? Is the error (often published as a mean age plus/minus a standard deviation or a confidence interval) due to the fact that multiple samples are taken and therefore statistical measures makes sense?

I ask because I was talking with my boyfriend and his cousin who are both creationists, and my boyfriend's cousin mentioned that his pastor (who apparently had some undergraduate experience in geology before "coming to Christ" and going into theology) had done some radiometric dating (he didn't mention the specific method(s)) on rock strata (or at least that was my understanding of the gist of the conversation) and come up with differences of "thousands of years" for a single stratum. Now, this didn't seem at all strange to me because a single stratum can span thousands to hundreds of millions of years, but I didn't know how exactly to explain why errors of thousands of years were to be expected in radiometric dating, so I mumbled something about the general range of ages in strata.

Can I get some help?

You need to get your boyfriend's cousin to get more details from his pastor.
I would interpret "thousands of years" for a single stratum as the usual measurement error seen any any mesurement in physiscs, e.g. the pastor measured an age of 100 million years with a measurement error of 10,000 years (a 0.01% error).

 

[Tubbythin]

As someone who has done undergraduate lab work, I respectfully suggest that measurements done in an undergraduate lab do not equate to the results done by experts with training. If they did, I would be living in a strange world where the electron was 10% lighter than yours or possible ten times the weight!

That's nothing. I got light to have a negative speed in water.

 

[articulett]

I want to know why anyone would date a creationist... and why would a homosexual be a creationist?

You'd think that the supposed expressions of god towards homosexuality (along with a lot of other barbarism) would lead a smart homosexual to question the veracity of the text they were relying on to get whatever creation story they subscribe to.

It seems that your creationist boyfriend has placed his trust in the wrong people. It appears to take no evidence at all to believe in a barbaric god that seems to amazingly reflect the prejudices and lack of knowledge common to the people of the time-- and yet no amount of evidence seems to help him understand the facts that humans have uncovered since that time.

You can't fix stupid. And you really can't fix stupid when that stupid person believes they need to believe a certain unbelievable story to be "saved". The cognitive dissonance required to be both a creationist and a homosexual tells me this is a relationship doomed for failure. In my experience, no amount of evidence can convince a creationist... or an apologist... or an intelligent design proponent (cdesign propenecist) of anything. They pretend to want answers, but they just want to believe that scientists don't have them, and therefore their pastor's woo is true. The creationist believes he has "higher knowledge". He has no interest in silly things, like facts. Facts threaten faith.. and some people have been convinced that faith is the key to salvation-- not "biting from the tree of knowledge" facts.

 

[Dancing David]

Radiometric dating is just chock full of sources of error. In theory you start with uncontaminated material, you run it through the process and you get a count of parent/child isotope ratios.

But there is just the margin of error on the equipment, that translates to so many years depending on the isotopes involved. Then there are other sources of error, what was the orininal parent/child ratio? Then there is contamination, especialy in carbon dating.

 

[articulett]

That's why you test using multiple elements and several different measurements... you get a convergence factor that gives you increasing accuracy.

But I doubt one could explain this to someone who needs to believe the earth is young. That doesn't sound like a person who has enough intelligence or interest in understanding the facts.

 

[JJM]

I think you can read about this at http://www.talkorigins.org/

Reality Check had an important observation- every measurement has an error associated with it, and a small relative error in a very old object might look BIG out of context. The creationists, may have a further problem if they are of the Young Earth variety and think the few-thousand-year variation spans the life of the Earth. They have another misleading story (explained at TalkOrigins) of a particular mineral measuring as much older than the recent lava in which it was found. However, we know the age of that mineral is not affected by that volcanism.

Methods of dating are developed and standardized. One need not be concerned with counting every nucleus, a sample of known composition is made and measured, and the instrument is calibrated. Also, there are many ways of dating material (some- not radiometric) and they are cross-checked and validated. At this point, creationists claim this is a cyclic argument. It is not, the methods are developed independently from different principles.

Then the creationists hit you with the irrefutable argument that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Earth to look old, that impetuous imp. Aaarrr!

 

[blutoski]

So I have a question about how radiometric dating is actually performed. I understand the basic theory and mathematics behind the general method, but I error more interested in how the the laboratory process of radiometric dating "introduces" error into the dating system.

For instance, are the amounts of the daughter nuclei or remaining mother nuclei measured as masses or numbers of nuclei? Is it possible for some of the nuclei to get lost in the mass spectrometer? Is the error (often published as a mean age plus/minus a standard deviation or a confidence interval) due to the fact that multiple samples are taken and therefore statistical measures makes sense?

I ask because I was talking with my boyfriend and his cousin who are both creationists, and my boyfriend's cousin mentioned that his pastor (who apparently had some undergraduate experience in geology before "coming to Christ" and going into theology) had done some radiometric dating (he didn't mention the specific method(s)) on rock strata (or at least that was my understanding of the gist of the conversation) and come up with differences of "thousands of years" for a single stratum. Now, this didn't seem at all strange to me because a single stratum can span thousands to hundreds of millions of years, but I didn't know how exactly to explain why errors of thousands of years were to be expected in radiometric dating, so I mumbled something about the general range of ages in strata.

Can I get some help?

I appreciate that he can create a lot of credibility on this, but without more details for context, it's hard to evaluate the meaningfulness of his claim.

I don't usually hear the word 'strata' associated with C/C dating, so he was probably doing K/Ar or U/Pb or Rb/Sr dating with a standard mass spectrometer, whose sensitivity is mostly dependent on the quality of its magnetic field and Faraday cups. Which means he was using something designed for quick-and-dirty estimates. The guy before probably used it to look at fish oil, and the guy after to look at plastic.

A SHRIMP is a specially-designed version of a mass spec customized to get better results for radiometric dating. It is much more accurate, and more expensive, so he probably wasn't using one of these.

Thousands of years in the context of billions can't really be said to shed doubt on the technique. That's just background noise from the realities of lab technique and a relatively cheap instrument that they let students muck around with, and the relatively inexperienced handling technique of students.

 

[JJM]

{snip} how the the laboratory process of radiometric dating "introduces" error into the dating system. {snip}

Sorry, I missed this part. In a professional lab (as, possibly, opposed to undergrad lab) there is no error introduced by the process. That is just more wishful thinking on the part of creationists trying to discredit results. Funny, they never consider the possibililty of error in their scripture.

 

[JJM]

Radiometric dating is just chock full of sources of error. {snip}

I know you cannot, meaningfully, document your assertions.

 

[drkitten]

I know you cannot, meaningfully, document your assertions.

Common knowledge does not usually need to be documented. Any bench scientist will comfortably agree that contamination and calibration of samples is a very serious issue, and made worse if the lab technicians are inexperienced.

I remember a pulley I had in high school physics that was 130% efficient. A pity I didn't steal it and use it to win Randi's millions. Of course, I might simply have been lousy at taking measurements.

 

[articulett]

Which is why multiple measurements are used to obtain convergence. If all your measurements point to the same date or same range-- bingo!

When they went looking for tiktaalik... they knew exactly what age rock they needed to look at for the transitional fish to land species. And they found what they were looking for. Science has advanced since your high school physics class. Catch up.

 

[JJM]

Common knowledge does not usually need to be documented. Any bench scientist will comfortably agree that contamination and calibration of samples is a very serious issue, and made worse if the lab technicians are inexperienced.

What is the "common knowledge?" Poorly handled samples yield poor results?! Stop the presses, rip out the front page!! Who knew??

You are citing a potential problem. Properly handled samples are properly dated.

I remember a pulley I had in high school physics that was 130% efficient. A pity I didn't steal it and use it to win Randi's millions. Of course, I might simply have been lousy at taking measurements.

I made the distinction between professional labs vs student labs. I take it that you are not very good in the lab; many of us are better, and we don't rely on screw-ups like you. You just don't learn ...

 

[drkitten]

What is the "common knowledge?" Poorly handled samples yield poor results?! Stop the presses, rip out the front page!! Who knew??

You are citing a potential problem.

No, I'm not even citing it. I'm alluding to it, and wondering why you think such an obvious statement needs citation.

I made the distinction between professional labs vs student labs.

Not very well, in light of the OP:

[H]is pastor (who apparently had some undergraduate experience in geology before "coming to Christ" and going into theology) had done some radiometric dating (he didn't mention the specific method(s)) on rock strata (or at least that was my understanding of the gist of the conversation) and come up with differences of "thousands of years" for a single stratum.

An undergraduate does some radiometric dating and gets student-quality results. Actually, in light of some of the students I've had, if he only gets "thousands of years" difference, he's doing quite well.

Now, since you seem to know so much about how professional labs are run as opposed to the student labs that were evidently the subject of the OP --- would you like to outline some of the errors that his pastor is likely to have introduced in the process of his (mis)handling of the materials? How the equipment available to students is likely to have differed? How technology has improved since his pastor was in the lab?

There are a whole slew of reasons why his pastor got the results he did. You might think about them.

 

[JJM]

No, I'm not even citing it. I'm alluding to it, and wondering why you think such an obvious statement needs citation.]...Not very well, in light of the OP:

I will let the readers decide if your distinction is meaningful.

An undergraduate does some radiometric dating and gets student-quality results. Actually, in light of some of the students I've had, if he only gets "thousands of years" difference, he's doing quite well.

Your point??

Now, since you seem to know so much about how professional labs are run as opposed to the student labs that were evidently the subject of the OP --- would you like to outline some of the errors that his pastor is likely to have introduced in the process of his (mis)handling of the materials? How the equipment available to students is likely to have differed? How technology has improved since his pastor was in the lab?

You aren't very bright, are you?

There are a whole slew of reasons why his pastor got the results he did. You might think about them.

As well you might.

Please keep the tone civil. Thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[Civilized Worm]

I want to know why anyone would date a creationist...

The rock dating sounds more appealing.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The rock dating sounds more appealing.

To date a creationist can't you just look at its teeth like you do with a horse? Or do the layers get laid down every time you lead it to water?