(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?

Probably because dead bones can't really creep into rocks, Einstein. If the mineralized remnants are encased inside the stone, odds are they were there before the sediment solidified into stone.

You claim to be one of the smartest in the world, and yet you ask such horribly stupid questions.

(June 8, 2025 at 9:43 pm)ubtleVirtue Wrote:

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


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.

can you tell me exactly how to do the test... as if I would do it myself?

piltdown man.... you may be right. is there any paper on lucy?

Papers on Lucy? Countless.  The Wikipedia article will probably be more help to you and you can check the citations on Google Scholar.

I can tell you how to do a geochron analysis, but it's costly and a bit of a learning curve to get a meaningful date. It's all too easy to get useless rubbish. Much less costly to go online and look for published ages. Those will usually include the raw analytical data that the ages were generated from. The basic steps are:

1. Find a cool rock that you want to date. I'm guessing that you'll want to date a fossil. Fossils don't often have minerals that can be directly dated with much reliability, so we'll need to date overlying and underlying or crosscutting strata instead. If you want direct dating, look for material that was buried in volcanic ash or something else that can be directly dated. That happens, but isn't common.
   
2. Identify dateable minerals within the rocks of interest. This will probably be the trickiest step. Some rocks suck at having anything that you can pull a date off of. For example, basalt is pretty common but frequently lacks dateable minerals, especially if a little light metamorphism has overprinted and reset the igneous age. By contrast, silica-rich volcanics are awesome! I've already mentioned zircons for U-Pb and Th-Pb systematics. Potassium feldspars are a common mineral that works well for K-Ar and Ar-Ar ages and gives good results with Rb-Sr. Most silica-rich volcanics have both. Check the integrity of the minerals. The fact that zircon is virtually indestructible means that you can get detrital grains entrained in magma and that'll get you inherited ages that are too old. Happily that's really easy to check for with cathodoluminescence. Check igneous minerals for metamorphic resetting, which should be blindingly obvious. If it looks gnawed upon don't use it for a date.
   
3. Now that you have some useful mineral samples, submit them to an accredited geochron lab. The analyses will run you a few thousand each, but that's a lot less than the million or two plus budget for staff that you'd need for a fully functional geochron lab of your own.
   

If that sounds like a lot of work, you're right. It's easy to do rubbish science. If it's just a matter of personal interest then it's always much simpler and cheaper to look up published ages.

Good zircon! 
Compromised zircon

Pristine K-feldpar

Microcline K-feldspar

Bad feldspar

(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?

Like this: Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods

(June 7, 2025 at 10:09 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote:

(June 7, 2025 at 7:26 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: In my life, I’ve know roughly a double dozen actual, working scientist, and not ONE of them was confused about radiometric dating.

Boru

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???

Could you give a layman's description of what radio carbon dating is, what specific material is used as the dating medium, and how the dating is accomplished?

(June 8, 2025 at 11:11 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: I'm guessing that you'll want to date a fossil.

Dude, did you hack my contacts list?

(June 8, 2025 at 9:35 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote:

(June 7, 2025 at 10:22 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote:  Then study more.

feel free to teach me or link to a site that actually teaches it

K-Ar dating
Uranium series dating
Thermoluminescence (TL) Dating
ESR dating
Fission track dating

All non carbon based ways to date fossils.

I'm not responsible for your inability to learn or have better than 2/10 trolling.

That's on you. Thoughts and prayers. RAmen

(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

I did know the limits of c14 dating.

If you did, then you wouldn't suggest using it to date a 70 million year old sample.

Boru

(June 9, 2025 at 1:03 am)Nay_Sayer Wrote:

(June 8, 2025 at 9:35 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote: feel free to teach me or link to a site that actually teaches it

K-Ar dating
Uranium series dating
Thermoluminescence (TL) Dating
ESR dating
Fission track dating

All non carbon based ways to date fossils.

I'm biased, but U-Pb dating really is the gold standard for most hard rock applications. It's hard to beat zircons with two clocks ticking simultaneously and a third running as backup. K-Ar and Ar-Ar both work reasonably well with a few caveats. Rb-Sr and Sm-Nd can both be useful too, though the latter finds more use in provenance tracing and modelling.

Thermoluminescence and fission track dating both find more use in archeology or timing of uplift and erosion. They're uselul for surface phenomena in the short-term but suffer limitations in the longer term due to low closure temperatures.  I've never done anything with ESR but have heard that it has very low closure temperatures for most minerals and suffers reset even under conditions common to most sedimentary rocks. You can get older ages off of it under the right cicumstances but you have to be much more careful.

There are a slew of other, less common methods including molecular racemization rates, cosmogenic isotope accumulation, and a host of other niche techniques. We can even use tritium to date water. If you get into meteorites you can end up using some of the shorter-lived isotopes that have long since burnt out to trace of processes in the early solar system. At the end of the day it all depends on the question that you're trying to answer and the materials that you're likely to be able to analyze.

(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

It doesn't matter how many 'carbons' they contained. It matters how much carbon-14 they contained. Since the half-life of C14 is ~5000 years, there's no point trying to use that method to date ANYTHING that's 70 million years old.

Boru

(June 6, 2025 at 4:29 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote:

(June 6, 2025 at 12:22 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: If this is regarding your proof from observation, it seems to be a string of assertions followed by a loosely-connected conclusion. You should get rid of any premises not needed to reach the conclusion.

For instance 'monism exists' doesn't seem to add anything to the argument. If you were trying to assert that monism is the case and dualism is not, that ought to be the conclusion of a different argument. And I say that as a monist.

(10) F; "energy exists"
(11) F; "every experiment ever constructed shows that everything is made of energy"
(12) (10,11) C; "monism exists"


12 is a natural deduction from 10 and 11

The reason I prove monism... is to demonstrate there is but one supreme God.

Mentioning monism isn't the same thing as proving it. Wait, was 'monism exists' supposed to be the conclusion of 'energy exists' and 'every experiment, etc.'?