Radio dating assumptions

Beta Decay: By , it was found to be 1. In , science firmly established that the earth was 3. The study of geology grew out of field studies associated with mining and engineering during the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries. In these early studies the order of sedimentary rocks and structures were used to date geologic time periods and events in a relative way. Although there were attempts to make relative age estimates, no direct dating method was available until the twentieth century.

Radiometric Dating Methods

Terms of Use Agreement. What's New? Results 1 to 26 of Radiometric Dating and it's "Assumptions". November 16th, , I've been exchanging emails recently with a seemingly more reasonable young earth creationist. I am more knowledgeable about evolutionary biology and while I should know radiometric dating and how it works like the back of my hand, after reading books on Paleontology and taking Physical Geology and Archaeology classes, I do not.

I tend to forget those details. So to make it easier for me and save some time, if any of you on the boards would care to help me out, and point out where the e-cquaintance is mistaken or correct that would be awesome. I do have a book by Eugenie C. Scott that might have answers to this, and I will refer to my Geology and Archaeology books, which I kept, but I may not find time for that until tomorrow or the next day.

Below is the email in spoilers for space and wrapped in a quote Related Discussions: Stop right there. Just shove the argument right back at the creationist. Reverse logic. Throw back argument at opponent. This makes much more sense than to go into a pointless debate with a moron. Especially when the information he needs can be googled without any effort. Doesn't the convergence on the same dates by other Radioisotopes support even further that the dates are correct? The thing about assumptions is this: For instance, an unknown light dances across the sky.

Among many, two hypotheses can be made: UFO was observed ; 2 car headlights from a highway on the other side of the hill were observed. The second hypothesis assumes there were low-clouds to reflect, that automobiles exist and have headlights, that headlights can reflect on clouds, that it was dark, etc. The first hypothesis assumes that aliens exist, that they visit Earth, that they are able to traverse vast distances, that they have overcome the barrier of lightspeed or that they are very patient as the trip would take millions of years, that visiting Earth is worth the expense, that they would then "dance" their spacecraft across the sky like car headlights reflecting from clouds.

Creationist arguments are very much along the same lines. Radioisotope analysis has long been corroborated and calibrated with other methods such as dendrochronology, paleomagnatism, astronomy, electron spin resonance, thermoluminescence, etc. Find me at: John Galt. Assumptions 2, 3 and 4 are not actually made by practioners of dating techniques.

The reverse is true. Analysts, for example, assume a sample may have been contaminated and use a variety of methods to exclude this possibility, or to correct for it. Of course this leads to creationists claiming evolutionists pick and choose samples. November 17th, , Originally Posted by Erebus. Then the following calibration methods; "The raw radiocarbon dates, in BP years, are calibrated to give calendar dates.

Standard calibration curves are available, based on comparison of radiocarbon dates of samples that can be dated independently by other methods such as examination of tree growth rings dendrochronology , deep ocean sediment cores, lake sediment varves, coral samples, and speleothems cave deposits. November 18th, , What creationists also overlook is that a single dating method is rarely used today.

Here is an example form the current edition of PNAS. So the researchers use two different materials and two different techniques to determine and age, with both methods providing a check against the other. There is an assumption here, of course. We assume that careful, well validated, systematic analyses, founded on diligent sample collection and preparation, and rigorous, consistent application of technique will produce meaningful results unless interfered with by a spiteful, supernatural being.

Socratic Spelunker. November 21st, , Not only does this young man not seem to be acquainted with science, but he also doesn't seem to know the scriptures. The earth is 6k years old starting from the fall of Adam and Eve, not from it's creation. Still doesn't answer a lot of questions brought up by archeology and such, though November 24th, , January 7th, , How do you know there was no daughter in the rock tested, or, conversely, how do you know how much of the daughter was originally in the rock tested.

August 21st, , Originally Posted by marnixR. Extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence. The crux of creationist arguements is that science can't prove that at some point in the past the rate of radiologic decay was not much faster than the rate observed now, by scientists. This is true, however, the corresponding question to creationists is can they show any experimental data that demonstrates that radiologic rate of decay can be increased?

If you are saying it happened in the past it is reasonable to ask you to prove it can happen. If I accuse you of burning the records, then it is appropriate for you to ask me to demonstrate that the material the records were written on can actually be burned. Originally Posted by Alan Last edited by pineapples; August 23rd, at August 22nd, , If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.

August 25th, , The claim that the rate of readiologic decay was not constant in the past still requires some evidence that under some set of conditions the rale of decay can be speeded up. So far there is no such evidence. The ball is in the creationists court. You are challenged to do some real science or shut up. Quantum immortal.

August 31st, , Originally Posted by Paleoichneum. Incorrect, as macroevolution has been observed, and is simply micorevolution over a longer number of generations, not time. They are not creationist terms, as I have used them and seen them used and defined in college level text books and curricula. While creationists see a distinction that is insurmountable, evolutionary biologists do not and simply look at the time frames as to which is being referenced. Originally Posted by Quantum immortal.

Microevolution and macroevolution are creationist terms. They are not valid scientific terms. September 1st, , Originally Posted by billvon. Originally Posted by exchemist. How does one observe and experiment with events which occurred beyond observation and expermentation. Macroevolution cannot be confirmed using the scientific method. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them. September 3rd, , But this doesn't put a large group of religious nuts at ease, while disproving radiometric dating would.

Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society. Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..

Bookmarks Bookmarks Digg del. Contact Us TheScienceForum. All times are GMT The time now is All rights reserved. All Rights Reserved. Add Thread to del. Bookmarks Digg del.

I will attempt to give you a few answers to your questions concerning radiometric dating. If you want to study what creationists say about radiometric dating in. Once you understand the basic science of radiometric dating, you can see how wrong assumptions lead to incorrect dates.

Lead in your family you understand the topic of radio shows in carbon 14 dates is based. History H ow old.

Terms of Use Agreement. What's New?

As I will demonstrate, coral growth rates, radioactive decay rates, etc. Rather, they are the conclusions of simple inductive logic. A more restrictive definition is that an assumption is something that was not directly observed.

Assumptions of radiometric dating

I will attempt to give you a few answers to your questions concerning radiometric dating. These books contain an exhaustive study of radiometric dates that do not fit the results evolutionists expect. There are several methods of radiometric dating. Carbon dating has limited value for evolution because its half-life is too short. The method assumes that the production of Carbon in the atmosphere from nitrogen is a process that is in equilibrium, and it is not.

Assumptions of Radioactive Dating

These claims generally land in three different categories: Most young earth creationists reject all of these points. As a scientific skeptics, we ask ourselves: Let us critically examine each of these claims and see if they hold up against the science. While doing so, we will have to learn about how radiometric dating actually works. There are many different kinds of radiometric dating and not all conclusions we will reach can be extrapolated to all methods used. Also, different radiometric dating techniques independently converges with each other and with other dating techniques such as dendrochronology, layers in sediment, growth rings on corals, rhythmic layering of ice in glaciers, magnetostratigraphy, fission tracks and many other methods. This serves as strong evidence for the reliability of radiometric dating methods. A lot of atoms are stable.

With the exception of Carbon, radiometric dating is used to date either igneous or metamorphic rocks that contain radioactive elements such as uranium.

The belief that radiodating methods give absolute measurements of time is widespread as a result of scientific popularization in journals, conferences, and the media. In fact, due to the difficulties in applying the experimental method to events in the past, all chronometers based on natural or artificial nuclear disintegration need a calibration. This calibration supposes a great number of basic assumptions concerning initial conditions. The choice of these initial conditions affects the results.

Radio dating assumptions

The first is that atoms have always decayed at the same rate. The other is that the decay products of various atoms are always the same. This is also actually kind of trivial and easily determined in the lab. I guess we have to start at the top and work our way down… sigh. So much for low hanging fruit. Something that this particular website has none of. Indeed, this is a classic Gish Gallop. This is obviously in reference to carbon dating of formerly living tissue. During an organisms life, it takes in CO 2 and uses that carbon to build things or an organism eats an organism that has taken in CO 2. This is carbon Somewhat obviously, this is carbon

Refuting “Radiometric Dating Methods Makes Untenable Assumptions!”

Objectives Unit Labs Quiz Home. Section 4. Read These Notes: Radiometric dating is based on several premises. Scientists are frequently involved in determining the nature of a universe that they cannot observe directly. It may be that the object of study may be not directly observable because of its great distance, its small size or having occurred at some time in the distant past. Since he has not observed the crime directly, he must make some initial assumptions in order to deduce how and when the crime was committed.





Check This Out: Radiometric Dating
Related publications