(June 7, 2025 at 11:20 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(June 7, 2025 at 10:10 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote: determinism is cause and effect or causation

did that help?

You're ignoring quantum effects that may or may not be known. You need to demonstrate that these cannot effect the results of any particular cause.

Did that help you?

Probably not. You didn't even know about the limits of C-14 dating, Wile E.

(June 7, 2025 at 11:22 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:

(June 7, 2025 at 9:59 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote: Are you claiming that trilobite fossils have carbon such that they have been carbon dated?

Nope, 14-C is useless for anything that old. You asked for "a sample of life based material that is older than 50k years old". For that you'll need a much slower radiometric system. U-Pb is the gold standard, and works to several times the age of the Earth. Ar-Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and several other can also be used and provide independent cross-checks.

Quote:What is the evidence for Lucy? Was it debunked?

They've extracted single crystal Ar-Ar ages from the underlying volcanic ash that date to 3.18 and 3.20 million years. Here's the 1994 paper with the ages.

Not debuked, you must be thinking Piltdown Man or some other foolishness.

(June 7, 2025 at 11:52 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:

(June 7, 2025 at 10:09 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote: the only radiometric dating I know how to do is carbon dating...

I don't understand how to do the other dating methods... do you???

Yes. I've obtained radiometric ages from rocks as old as 2.9 billion years old. I could easily get ages from older rocks but haven't worked with any yet.

The underlying principle is the same as for 14-C dating, you simply use a different radiometric system. No radiometric system can be used much beyond 10 half-lives of the radioactive isotope. There won't be enough of it left to date. Your rock keeps aging, but because there's no 14-C left, the clock stops "ticking". Instead, we use isotopes with much longer half-lives. 14-C has a half-life of just 5730 years, but 235-U has a half-life of 703.8 million years. 238-U, 40-K, and 87-Rb are even longer-lived.

The big difference is that living organisms don't typically contain any Uranium, and precious little potassium or rubidium. Occasionally, fossils are formed in ways that introduce U, K, or Rb, but that's rare and unreliable. Instead, we date volcanic rocks laid down in the same strata. By logical necessity, a rock can't be older than material that it includes and can't be younger than material that cuts it. So all you need to do is find some volcanic material immediately above and below your fossil that you can date. There you go, age bracketed to better than the error bars on the dating technique.

Zircon U-Pb ages are the gold standard because zircon is nigh on indestructible. When zircon forms, the chemistry that produces it excludes any "common lead"  that may be lurking but incorporates abundant uranium, so you don't typically need to correct for common lead. You also get two independent clocks ticking away: 235-U decaying to 207-Pb and 238-U decaying to 206-Pb. You also typically get 232-Th decaying to 208-Pb for independent verification. You can get ages from a single zircon crystal that's too small to be seen with the naked eye by a variety of techniques, including wet chemical techniques and TIMS, in situ laser techniques coupled to ICP-MS, or in situ secondary ion sputtering.

(June 8, 2025 at 12:02 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: You can look in many of DK popular science books and see illustrations of how radiometric dating is done.

---

---

(June 8, 2025 at 9:38 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote:

(June 7, 2025 at 10:53 pm)Astreja Wrote: No; all that proves is that you've bought into Paul's "God is love" myth and are now claiming that you love everyone because you believe that you know God.

I also don't see any value in this universal love that you claim you have.  Five parsecs wide and a nanometer deep.

I realized that I loved everyone from learning about Christ.

intending well-being for all is a fundamental need for mankind

(June 8, 2025 at 9:39 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote:

(June 7, 2025 at 11:06 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: What part of "They want to but don't have anything like enough material" did you miss? If it was possible it would have been done. You can't carbon date individual cells. Nowhere near enough mass.

The fact that you think stuff is locked up in the fossil simply shows that you don't know what you're talking about. They had to dissolve the fossil to release the "blood cells".

the connective tissue found in the fossils are rather meaty and have lots of carbons

(June 8, 2025 at 9:47 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote:

(June 8, 2025 at 12:02 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: You can look in many of DK popular science books and see illustrations of how radiometric dating is done.

---

---

how does dating the nearest rock date the fossil?

(June 8, 2025 at 9:45 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote:

(June 7, 2025 at 11:52 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Yes. I've obtained radiometric ages from rocks as old as 2.9 billion years old. I could easily get ages from older rocks but haven't worked with any yet.

The underlying principle is the same as for 14-C dating, you simply use a different radiometric system. No radiometric system can be used much beyond 10 half-lives of the radioactive isotope. There won't be enough of it left to date. Your rock keeps aging, but because there's no 14-C left, the clock stops "ticking". Instead, we use isotopes with much longer half-lives. 14-C has a half-life of just 5730 years, but 235-U has a half-life of 703.8 million years. 238-U, 40-K, and 87-Rb are even longer-lived.

The big difference is that living organisms don't typically contain any Uranium, and precious little potassium or rubidium. Occasionally, fossils are formed in ways that introduce U, K, or Rb, but that's rare and unreliable. Instead, we date volcanic rocks laid down in the same strata. By logical necessity, a rock can't be older than material that it includes and can't be younger than material that cuts it. So all you need to do is find some volcanic material immediately above and below your fossil that you can date. There you go, age bracketed to better than the error bars on the dating technique.

Zircon U-Pb ages are the gold standard because zircon is nigh on indestructible. When zircon forms, the chemistry that produces it excludes any "common lead"  that may be lurking but incorporates abundant uranium, so you don't typically need to correct for common lead. You also get two independent clocks ticking away: 235-U decaying to 207-Pb and 238-U decaying to 206-Pb. You also typically get 232-Th decaying to 208-Pb for independent verification. You can get ages from a single zircon crystal that's too small to be seen with the naked eye by a variety of techniques, including wet chemical techniques and TIMS, in situ laser techniques coupled to ICP-MS, or in situ secondary ion sputtering.

how do you know it was that old; can you give a solid deduction axiom for axiom to deduce your claim?

(June 8, 2025 at 9:40 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote:

(June 7, 2025 at 11:20 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: You're ignoring quantum effects that may or may not be known. You need to demonstrate that these cannot effect the results of any particular cause.

Did that help you?

Probably not. You didn't even know about the limits of C-14 dating, Wile E.

we would include quantum effects with the causal chain of events

(June 8, 2025 at 9:40 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote: I did know the limits of c14 dating.