/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11594083
meh, if not alone for the fact the universe went supposedly from being 4bln years old to 13 billion years in a matter of no time, it is safe to say anything intelligent idea humans come up with is flawed and incomplete.
Also the 13 billion is definitely not incorrect.

>>11594083
No. I don't remember the exact reason why it's unreliable, but in one of Tsarion's presentations from the Origins & Oracles series (you might find a torrent of it somewhere) he debunked the Carbon 14 method.

>>11594094
by those standards so must your statement be.

>>11594126
right back at ya, faggot

>>11594083

https://st3.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2584252725?profile=original

quote:

>Radiocarbon Dating
Invented by Willard Libby and first applied in 1949. Radioactive dating techniques are far less reliable than was previously thought; the Earth could be much younger than has been supposed by Darwinists; and nothing like the billions of years required by evolution have elapsed since the Earth’s formation. (p. 30) Note: The amount of carbon 14 in the world erroneously thought to be constant. Dr. Melvin Cook Cook showed for example that if you used the uranium-decay method on the rocks of the crust you got the conventionally accepted age of over four thousand million years. But if you used the selfsame method on the atmosphere, you got an age of only a few hundred thousand years. He also showed that the entire amount of “radiogenic” lead in the world’s two largest uranium deposits could be entirely modern. Clearly, something was wrong. Funkhouser and Naughton at the Hawaiian Institute of Geophysics used the potassium-argon method to date volcanic rocks from Mount Kilauea and got ages up to 3 thousand million years—when the rocks are known to have been formed in a modern eruption in 1801. McDougall at the Australian National University found ages of up to 465,000 years from lava in New Zealand that is independently known to be less than 1,000 years old.

I remember him going into it more in depth in one of the Origins & Oracles videos though.

>>11594083
how does wikipedia work?

>>11594083
up to about 30k years

anything younger than ww2 gets messed by the atmosphere atom bomb tests

>>11594146
The guy was an utter idiot. He conflate Ur/Th dating with radiocarbon.

>The amount of carbon 14 in the world erroneously thought to be constant. Dr. Melvin Cook Cook showed for example that if you used the uranium-decay method on the rocks of the crust you got the conventionally accepted age of over four thousand million years.
There's very little chemistry ongoing in rock. That's why they're called rock. Carbon in the atmosphere is constantly cycled between biosphere, surface ocean, deep ocean (through bio pump, i.e., organic matter from life rich surface ocean raining down to the bottom of the ocean), silica weathering (reaction of silica rock with water droplet + CO2 that combines into carbonic acid turns rock into mud), and volcano.

>>11594116
>I don't remember the exact reason why it's unreliable, but in one of Tsarion's presentations from the Origins & Oracles series (you might find a torrent of it somewhere) he debunked the Carbon 14 method.
Sounds like a reliable source...

>>11594146
Yeah, well, you know... I remember some Creationists which "debunked" carbon dating. They "measured" the age of a ballpoint pen and surprise, surprise they got some pretty strange and impossible data according to which it was some million years old or something.
Well, you know, problem is, you can't measure the age of a ballpoint pen (which most of the time doesn't even include fucking carbon) with the carbon dating method since the age of the pen (when it was produced) has nothing to do with the age of its raw materials. Methods of radiometric dating simply vary in the timescale over which they are accurate and the materials to which they can be applied. That's why some charlatans can easily "debunk" such methods when they intentionally use them in a wrong way to provoke absurd outcomes.

>>11594146
>>11594175
> The amount of carbon 14 in the world erroneously thought to be constant.

No. That's just radiocarbon 101 for babbies AP chemistry. We know 14C was not constant, hence the radiocarbon calibration curve. Look up INTCAL (pic related)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/intcal13-and-marine13-radiocarbon-age-calibration-curves-050000-years-cal-bp/FB97C1341F452BD6A410C6FE4E28E090

The idea behind INTCAL is that the material needs a way for independent dating method. From 0-12ka, this uses tree ring. The 14C content of tree (wood) in each rings represent the atmospheric 14CO2. Beyond 12ka, there is no tree rings anymore. So the calibration switches to combination of speleothem (the C in CaCO3 is reflective of dissolved CO2 in the freshwater, which in turn reflect atmospheric 14CO2. A correction needs to be made, in this case it's called "reservoir effect" and it is well known) or corals (the C is CaCO3 of coral again reflect dissolved CO2, this time in the ocean which in turn equlibrate with atmospheric CO2)

>>11594177
>surprise they got some pretty strange and impossible data according to which it was some million years old or something.
>Well, you know, problem is, you can't measure the age of a ballpoint pen (which most of the time doesn't even include fucking carbon
I don't really remember much about carbon dating, but I think it's only accurate up to like 10000 years or something like that. And also ballpoint pens are made out of plastic and plastic is made out of hydrocarbons which are made out of petroleum which is made out of dinosaurs.

>>11594146
>He also showed that the entire amount of “radiogenic” lead in the world’s two largest uranium deposits could be entirely modern. Clearly, something was wrong.
How is uranium-lead dating related to radioCARBON?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium%E2%80%93lead_dating

>>11594146
>Funkhouser and Naughton at the Hawaiian Institute of Geophysics used the potassium-argon
Same deal, how is potassium argon dating relevant to radiocarbon dating?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%E2%80%93Ar_dating

Ur-Lead decay has a halflife of 710 million years. Potassium-Argon decay has halflife of 1250 million years. Radiocarbon has halflife of 5780 years.

If you try to date something that just recently erupted (1801) with a tracer that has 1250 million years half-life, the amount of Argon in the sample would be so miniscule that it would be way below or very close to the detection limit.

What an utter fraud.

>>11594083
>>11594146

Whitelaw subjected 15,000 published carbon 14 dates to statistical analysis by ranking, and then applied the correction factors using the acknowledged 30 % difference in rates, and the entire data reduce to a remarkably sharp beginning point, about 5,000 years ago. This is a good reason to question openly all the long ages given by the other radiometric methods, reckonings we have been assured are based on sound scientific principles. Taylor comments on carbon 14 dating:

“We may reasonably conclude that within the dating range of calibration standards, perhaps the past five thousand years, the carbon 14 method is probably a good indicator of true age, especially when carried out by the new high - energy technique. For material believed to be older than this, however, the results obtained are all subject to interpretation, according to the presuppositions of the investigator, and the exercise then passes from the area of true science into that of pseudoscience.”

Nobel Prize medalist Melvin Cook determined that carbon 14 was still building up, which could only happen if the process had begun recently. He calculates that the discrepancy between formation and decay indicates an age for our atmosphere of no more than 10,000 years. The likelihood that carbon 14 was produced at a rate up to three times greater in the past, would reduce this figure to a mere 60 00 to 7000 years.

There are problems with potassium argon dating. For example, potassium can be easily leached out of rock by rainwater percolating through it. Argon, produced by the decay of potassium, can easily diffuse through rock. Pressure will also affect the rate of d iffusion. Melvin Cook has found that lead may change its isotopic va l ue by the capture of free neutrons from the environment and that the age of such uranium - bearing rocks containing lead may be essentially zero.

>>11594083
>>11594146
>>11594193

Paul Giem, who has written on dating methodologies, writes: “for potassium argon dates, the assumption that argon is driven off is demonstrably not valid, and one cannot be sure that the clock is reset... There is a gradient of argon in the geologic column, with more argon in the older rocks and less in the younger rocks, regardless of their potassium content. This creates a sort of instant time scale – just add potassium... Rubidium-strontium dating isochrones could be mimicked by mixing lines, which require essentially no time to form. There were multiple examples of inaccurate dates by anyone’s timescale, including ones that matched potassium - argon dates. Uranium - lead dating was also done by isochrones, and when incorrect dates were explained by Discordia lines, these lines could also be reproduced by mixing lines. There were multiple examples of lower Concordia ages which were not accurate by anyone’s time scale. There was the data set on uranium dates on pleiotropic haloes in coal, which seemed to indicate an age for the coal (conventional age around 100 million years) of less than 300,000 year s. Uranium disequilibrium dating, fission - track dating, and amino acid dating (which is not radiome tric) all had their problems, as did other, less established methods. Often the data were more easily explained on the basis of a short time scale rather than a long one.”

Colin W. Mitchell, professor of geography , writes that radiogenic dating is dependent on a number of unprovable assumptions, including: “the original ratio of parent and daughter isotopes, the constancy of decay rates, the occurrence of apparently parentless isotopes with very short half-lives and the possibilities of neuron flux and of the migration of chemically mobile atoms.”

>>11594193
>He calculates that the discrepancy between formation and decay indicates an age for our atmosphere of no more than 10,000 years

The age of fresh C in the atmosphere is no longer than 4 years m8, due to active equilibration with the ocean. See >>11594175

But if you measure radiocarbon age of the atmosphere today, of course you get wack answer because humans are burning fossil fuel (14C dead carbon), combusting it into the CO2, making the atm C older than it looks

>>11594083
>>11594146
>>11594194

Robert E. Lee concludes : “The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliabl e results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy."

John Baumgardner, a geophysicist, writes that many geological or geophysical processes that yield age estimates are orders of magnitude smaller than radiometric techniques. These include:

“the current rate of sodium increase in the oceans versus the present ocean sodium content, or the current rate of sediment accumulation into the ocean basins versus the current ocean sediment volume, or the current net rate of loss of continental rock (primarily by erosion) versus the current volume of continental crust, or the current rate of uplift of the Himalayan mountains (accounting for erosion) versus their present height, we infer time estim a tes dramatically at odds with the radiometric time scale. These time estimates are further reduced dramatically if we do not make the uniformitarian assumption but account or the global catastrophism. There are other processes which are not as easy to express in quantitative terms, such as the degradation of protein in a geological environment, that also point to a much shorter time scale for the geological record. I therefore believe the case is strong from a scientific standpoint to reject radiometric methods as a valid means for dating geological materials.”

----

These kinds of things, including the dates given by carbon dating, make perfect sense when considering the cataclysms which occured during the violent breakup of the Polar Configuration.

Very relevant -- see this: https://www.mrctv.org/embed/113935

>Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and DNA fragments in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.

>Members of the Paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS).

>Since dinosaurs are thought to be over 65 million years old, the news is stunning - and more than some could tolerate. After the AOGS-AGU conference in Singapore, the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings. Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors. When the authors inquired, they received this letter:

http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
https://archive.is/LXYQh

>>11594215
dinosaur died 65 million years ago. That is more than 3 orders of magnitude the halflife of C14. This is nonsense.

First fossil are different than bones. You can radiocarbon date skeleton that you find in grandpa's backyard, because it still contain the carbon from original specimen. The fossil are not bones, they are imprints of bones that is replaced by minerals, thus the C content in the fossil do not belong in the original specimen. The scientists who tried to radiocarbon fossils are idiots.

>>11594227
>muh 65 billion years ago
Imagine actually believing that.

>>11594227
>muh 65 million years ago
Imagine actually believing that.

>>11594180
If data didn't show what I wanted it to show I would "calibrate" it too if you know what I mean...

>The idea behind INTCAL is that the material needs a way for independent dating method. From 0-12ka, this uses tree ring.
How is this not circular reasoning?
-use uncalibrated dating method
-must calibrate
-use dead tree
-how old is dead tree?
-use uncalibrated dating method

If poltards and schizos say it's not accurate it has to be accurate.

>>11594253
The tree rings are independently dated via layer counting. Literally a poor grad student count the rings.

You can find dead trees up to 12k. They're not continuous, but splice around like pic related. So each tree ring would be a "floating" tree ring when their 14C content overlap with other established tree rings.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379109002911?casa_token=J9cQE0rXifMAAAAA:hQWYJV7CzVb-RpaF4n8XLRgLK2wlR5UrXch4_X9atZUZr5ksRFqYa96xp7OrSWYBLQDCLg#fig1

>>11594261
This would be the final product. Calibrated yr vs. 14C year

>>11594193
>>11594194
>>11594205
>NO WAIT STOP! I'LL INCREASE THE RATE FROM 50% TO 51%

>>11594215
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/154588/is-it-a-problem-with-radiometric-dating-that-carbon-14-is-found-in-materials-dat/154606

>When the museum provided the bone fragments, they emphasized that they had been heavily contaminated with "shellac" and other chemical preservatives. Miller and his group accepted the samples and reassured the museum that such containments would not be problematic for the analysis at hand.

>Robert Kalin senior research specialist at the University of Arizona’s radiocarbon dating laboratory, performed a standard independent analysis of the specimens submitted by Hugh Miller and concluded that the samples identified as “bones” did not contain any collagen. They were, in fact, not bone.

>As it turns out, Miller's research group obtained their sample in quite a remarkable way. In fact, the creationist posed as chemists in order to secure a number of fragments of fossilized dinosaur bone from a museum of natural history

tl;dr: the 'scientists' associated with this work knowingly acquired contaminated samples, derived 'collagen' that was rock, and committed small-time fraud to do it.

shameful display, anon

>>11594243
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/history-of-life-on-earth/radiometric-dating/v/potassium-argon-k-ar-dating

>>11594261
>They're not continuous, but splice around like pic related
Ok this was exactly my initial guess as to how you fudge the data since there are no 12k year old dead trees...

You cherry pick dead trees until the carbon content on the outside rings of one tree mostly matches the carbon content of the inside of another tree and then via circular reasoning assume that it means there's a chronological order between the two trees. Repeat. Seems like your poor grad students were pretty lazy too. I'm only seeing 4 trees

>You can find dead trees up to 12k.
And you "establish" the samples are "12k years" via the uncalibrated method, then use the established age via uncalibrated method to calibrate the uncalibrated method which you USED to establish the initial age in the first place..... I'm laughing my ass off at this.

You have no idea if that "1st" tree's inner rings are 12k years old and that same complete uncertainty follows all the way through the rest of your "calibration" chart. I guarantee the grad students went through dozens of trees before they found ones that matched their expectations. You think they just randomly got 4 fucking trees that lived and died exactly 3000 years apart on the first try??

>>11594304
The tree rings goes from present-5000 years continuously. Beyond that you need to anchor the tree rings 14C to the younger tree rings. The tree rings are not cherry-picked. To anchor a floating tree ring into INTCAL you need 50-100 years of overlap. We do 14C measurements on each ring. The chance of 10 years in a row, an anchor point overlap is already low. 50-100 years overlap essentially guarantee the anchoring method.

The paper only have 4 tree samples because those samples were novel. The paper was about extending the tree ring record by exact anchoring method I described.

Beyond the anchoring, the tree ring 14C are cross calibrated with berilium-10 in ice cores. Both 14C in atmosphere and 10Be are produced via cosmic rays, so they should show coherent signal. The ice cores are independently dated, also via annual layer counting of winter-summer layers.

Finally, the tree ring 14C calibration curve is checked against the speleothems, corals, and organic C in lakes. All 3 of these don't have annual resolution, and need to be corrected for reservoir effects - but the average 14C should be about the same.

tldr there are about 3 independent checks before you can anchor a tree ring chronology

>>11594322
based anon. you're wasting an educated mind on trying to reason with retards. run from this place

>>11594322
>The tree rings goes from present-5000 years continuously.
already knew that, there happened to be a big flood around that time and at least one tree has been continually growing ever since, until very recently
>Beyond that you need to anchor the tree rings 14C to the younger tree rings
already covered this, remember it was my initial guess as to how you fudge the data?

> The tree rings are not cherry-picked. To anchor a floating tree ring into INTCAL you need 50-100 years of overlap. We do 14C measurements on each ring. The chance of 10 years in a row, an anchor point overlap is already low. 50-100 years overlap essentially guarantee the anchoring method.
So the 4 trees were carbon dated already and that's how they ended up in the study. Exactly like I said. It's entirely circular reasoning. You carbon date a tree that is the time frame you expect then match it up with other carbon dated trees to verify that the idea of carbon dating is correct.

Everything older than 5k years is completely meaningless.

Also, and WOW this is big, it's a direct contradiction to say you don't cherry pick but require 100 years of C14 overlap to anchor a tree to another. WTF do you do if there isn't overlap?? You toss the sample and find another one. ERGO you are cherry picking. You test FIRST if C14 dating says it "should be the right age" then CHECK for overlap and if it's not the overlap YOU WANT you toss it. Complete and fundamental CHERRY PICKING.

This is unbelievable how dogmatic your thinking is. How have you never questioned this methodology??

>tldr there are about 3 independent checks before you can anchor a tree ring chronology
There were 2 independent checks that found actual 65 million year old dinosaur DNA in march of this year. It means nothing, especially when you're in such a dogmatic branch of science where you will lose your job if you start questioning C14 dating.

>>11594351
>WTF do you do if there isn't overlap??
You tie it to 10Be in ice cores, like this paper
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379117300641?casa_token=q1jcfi_azKcAAAAA:HpvW7-uPkpaqoy7J5eS3oK5orP5LwNHqQOhCx_sV3YPJV9PSDj8Qb5O7sPJvALDXkCVdZQ

>>11594351
>there happened to be a big flood around that time and at least one tree has been continually growing ever since, until very recently

why would anyone holding this viewpoint willingly browse a board dedicated to science?

it's gotta be that you're trolling. I don't roll up to Sunday services at the Baptist church to debate radioisotope dating - so why should I believe you're actually sincere?

>>11594351
No data is thrown away. Usually if someone find a chunk of dead tree, they're just younger than 12k. Trees older than 12k is extremely rare. I can bet you for any chunk of wood with rings, including your desk, house studs, we can find the exact age of that wood and match it to INTCAL.

However these are not novel, so they do not merit a scientific publication.

>>11594359
So it's not used to link to a tree to another tree and thus it's tossed for use in the intended experiment exactly like I said. Recycling data that doesn't fit the narrative for junk branch of science (1) and instead using it to further junk branch of science (2) doesn't magically mean you were not cherry picking data for (1). That's pretty basic reasoning.

What is absolutely astounding is how you actually think leftover junk/unused data from (1) that is given to (2) actually represents an independent check for the veracity of (1). It boggles my mind how you can be so dogmatically incapable of seeing your own contradictions.

But thanks for the papers I guess. I'll finish reading them someday. I had no idea there was this much complete nonsense in dendrochronology that is so ripe for debunking.

>>11594362
>why would anyone holding this viewpoint willingly browse a board dedicated to science?
"dedicated to science" ... that's cute. I know you believe the circular reasoning and cherry picking I just debunked is "science" so this was quite an ironic statement.

>I don't roll up to Sunday services at the Baptist church to debate radioisotope dating
Because your religion is taught in the classroom. I haven't been to church in 12 years.

>>11594396
> I can bet you for any chunk of wood with rings, including your desk, house studs, we can find the exact age of that wood and match it to INTCAL.
I would bet the same thing. Wood in my desk is not 12k years into a past a timeline that didn't exist. It can also be compared to wood that we know exists, not speculative wood that is arbitrarily assumed to have existed at a certain time via circular reasoning and dogmatic thinking. You're basically saying you bet we can find the age of an 100 year old historical document when the discussion was about why we can't determine the age of what you believe is a 12k year old leprechaun fossil lol.

>>11594429
https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/

Go for it anon, be a hero and tear it down if you can get your insane rambling past peer review