3 assumptions of radiometric dating
These three assumptions are important to know when performing measurements, but it is unwise to make these assumptions because although the test results may produce long ages, how can you really know the test is valid? To help you better understand the three assumptions of radiometric dating, please see this example. Previous Post Has radiometric dating always been accurate? Next Post What is an example of the three radiometric dating assumptions? Using the rubidium-strontium isochron dating method, an age of 1. These results have been repeated and confirmed over and over. The parent-daughter assumptions in isochron dating simply replace the initial conditions assumption in simple dating methods.
All these are claims without any evidence. However, there are plenty of opportunity for contamination. Geologists and paleontologists can easily tell if such sources of contamination are present. For example, Dahmer makes a critical error in talking about total carbon, not dividing it in inorganic and organic carbon. Thus, the carbon-based preservatives shellac and epoxies and ends up dating bone with no appreciable amount of organic carbon. Think about using acetic acid or methanol to clean dinosaur bones. Oops, those have modern carbon in them. Then you have to account for modern microorganisms that may live in the matrix of the bone itself.
So, no, you provide a paper and we can fisk it. But with the known issues already presented, the attempt to get a valid carbon date from something that is older than 50kk years is fraught with peril. Rb has a half-life of almost 50 billion years. Using it to date samples that are really million years old is a mistake. This is another common creationist tactic: So any contamination will alter that date by a huge range.
Which means your date is probably within the error for that dating method. Have attached a table with dino C14 findings. Cool scientific method man! You have to provide evidence of said soft tissue. This has been quite well refuted. It was not dinosaur tissue. Flesh and tendons have been preserved in Pleistocene fossils, but under permafrost or hyper-arid cave conditions that mummify the tissue and do not carbonize it.
Restoring the Authority of the Bible, Starting with the very first Book
Animal skeletons preserved under anoxic conditions have well preserved bone that can be either white Dansie et al. Decayed flesh is not preserved under these anoxic conditions.
The logical source for the carbonaceous scrapings is the preservatives applied by museum technicians. I can look at the evidence. I can be swayed by evidence. You can be swayed by anything that says what you want to hear. That is contrary to the scientific method and utterly illogical. As far as you can see all the correct processing has been followed …. But you just did date it! And you got a date that you believed … so why is it now suddenly wrong? Now you need to find a rescuing device to explain why the C14 reading is wrong.
I prefer to stick to the scientific explanations rather than just making stuff up. Oh and the fact that even isochron dating gives consistently unexpected results even for samples taken from the same rock, and especially for lava flows of known age. Personal webpages are allowed by most universities for faculty and students.
Throw so much shit and hope some of it sticks. And not a single reference in the bunch. Why do you use the internet? The deposit in which the Tyrannosaurus rex fossil was found is dated at 70 million years. Not only were blood cells found, but soft and pliable tissue as well, including flexible blood vessels.
Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer, who made the discovery in Montana, exclaimed: Soft and pliable tissue only after it was soaked in an acidic bath and minerals removed. Radiocarbon dating works quite well even matches across multiple types. I do continue to find it interesting that you quote large amounts of text without a reference. Is it Dahmer et al. They have Found C14 in Diamonds. Made up fairy tale. Tell me, which Bible do you use? What about 1, 2, 3, and 4 Esdras, Psalms — , Odeas? What abour Prayer of Manasseh? The Gospel of Judas or the Gospel of Thomas? Enoch, Jubilees, 1, 2, 3 Meqabyan?
Will nothing shake your faith? The Fossils date the rocks, and the rocks date the fossils! Except that there are known explanations for this: The small apparent non-zero values are less than measurement error. Thus things like cosmic rays and imperfect vacuums can contribute to the C content even with modern techniques. While that same level of contamination will add some error to the dating of some reasonably aged sample, the error will be small, so long as the sample is not too old. Alternate source of C14 production. Natural diamonds are not pure carbon.
The most common contaminant is nitrogen, 0. Cosmic rays and other sources of radiation can form C14 from N Another possible avenue is C13, which has a small but non-zero neutron absorption cross section. By either mechanism, this is essentially internal contamination. Other methods of dating are more appropriate. You believe what you like. You are meaningless to the scientific community and if you try to promote teaching of your religion in schools, then I will be involved with the groups who stop you.
The evidence for evolution and physics working is unbelievably massive and the evidence that creationists lie and misrepresent real science is also massive. Many of the same principles that are important to things like computers, clocks, and GPS systems are also the same principles that define why radiometric dating works. You accept some, but not all, not because of evidence, but because your beliefs refuse to allow you accept it. You really need to think about a belief system that prevents you from seeing reality for what it is.
Geeze, Creepto-guru, what a load of malarky you can generate. Did you write a word salad program? Well, you did a great job. The paper you referenced is totally useless, as are you, to your argument. The variation was on the order of 1. From your little avatar you look like a happy sort of hobbit. The paper I referenced was useful, as you mentioned, in showing testable and measurable variation in a decay-rate. That was the point. Are they indeed constant? Minerals form by recognized chemical processes that depend on the chemical activity of the elements involved.
The chemical behavior of an element depends on its size and the number of electrons in its outer shell. This is the foundation of the periodic table of the elements, a basic part of chemistry that has stood without challenge for a hundred and fifty years. The shell structure depends only on the number of electrons the nuclide has, which is the same as the number of protons in its nucleus.
K39 is chemically identical to K40; the only way we can distinguish between them is to use a nonchemical technique like mass spectrometry. Water molecules containing oxygen are lighter and therefore evaporate faster than water molecules with oxygen However, as far as is known such fractionation occurs only with light nuclides: Sr86 atoms and Sr87 atoms behave identically when they bond with other atoms to form a mineral molecule. If there are ten Sr86 atoms for every Sr87 atom in the original magma melt, there will be ten Sr86 atoms for every Sr87 atom in the minerals that crystallize from that melt.
The only other possible source of error is in laboratory technique. To translate theory into useful measurements, the lab procedures must be accurate. A contaminated rock sample is useless for dating. A sample that is taken from the surface, where atoms could get in and out easily, is also useless.
What are the assumptions used with radiometric dating?
Samples must be taken by coring, from deep within a rock mass. To date a rock, chemists must break it down into its component elements using any of several methods, then analyze nuclide ratios using a mass spectrometer. But we can try to minimize error. And when we do, the dates produced can be accepted as accurate. When samples taken from different parts of a given igneous rock formation are dated by different people at different labs over many years, the possibility that all those measurements could be wrong is vanishingly small.
Some may well be wrong. If nine analyses agree, and a tenth produces radically different results, the odd-man-out is usually considered a result of some kind of error and discarded. And some radiometric techniques have a much better success ratio than that. Creationist objections to radiometric dating techniques basically fall into three categories: The assumptions that are used in radiometric dating techniques are perfectly justified given current physics. Creationist geologist John Woodmorappe is the best known of the creationists who attempt this approach. Based on this, he claims that radiometric dating methods don't produce consistent results, that geologists conceal radiometric dates which don't match what's expected, and that therefore the whole methodology of radiometric dating is worthless.
In an article for the creationist journal Creation Science Research Quarterly , Woodmorappe listed odd aberrant dates, and claimed that there are many, many more. What he did not say is that those were winnowed out of tens of thousands of radiometric dates which do give more reasonable results. But if we run dating tests on 10, samples and get aberrant results 3. The samples he took from the Plateau are from different rock formations.
For any type of radiometric dating to work properly, all samples must come from the same formation. But we have more than that. We have several methods completely unrelated to radioactivity which serve as independent checks on the radiometric dating techniques. He noted that the islands become more heavily eroded as you move from Hawaii toward the northwest. He interpreted this to mean that the islands become older as you move northwest along the chain.
An Essay on Radiometric Dating
The islands do indeed become older as you move northwest. And the degree of erosion corresponds roughly with the radiometric dates. No island in the chain is dated as being significantly older than the erosion rate implies, nor is any island in the chain dated as being significantly younger than the erosion rate indicates. Both modern corals and fossil corals deposit daily and annual growth bands.
By careful analysis of these bands, we can tell how many days there were in a year when the coral was growing. For modern corals, this technique yields day-bands per year, more or less, just as it should. For corals that grew in formations identified as Early Devonian, the technique shows a little over day-bands per year.
Assuming the rate of slowing has remained constant, a day-count of days per year indicates an age of roughly million years. And when Early Devonian rocks are dated radiometrically , we get dates of roughly million years. Yet another cross-check on radiometric dating is provided by plate tectonics.
There are several ways of measuring this movement that themselves have nothing to do with radiometric dating.
The plate that forms the Pacific Ocean basin is moving northwest at at a known rate. The Pacific Plate is moving; the hot spot remains fixed; and the result is a series of volcanic islands growing upward over the hot spot. Between Hawaii and Midway Island km northwest of Hawaii are some thirty volcanoes, active and extinct. Many of these volcanoes have had lava flows dated by the potassium-argon method.
In all these cases, the radiometric date agrees substantially with the date derived from extrapolation of plate motion. Particularly striking is the correlation for Midway Island itself. By drift rate it should be about 27 million years old.
By K- Ar dating, the volcanic rock that forms Midway's core is Two other island chains that are located over Pacific Plate hot spots show substantially similar patterns of motion to the Hawaiian Islands. And their radiometric dates match as well. Three independent methods of dating these islands, and they all agree within acceptable ranges of error. What are the chances of all three being wrong in such ways as to produce the same wrong answer?
- what is the dating app bumble!
- genuine adult dating sites;
- cougar dating free melbourne.
One more example, just to wrap things up. Olduvai Gorge is famous as one of the best sites in the world for early hominid fossils. They called this reversal the Olduvai Event. A few years later, another geologist, Neil Opdyke , was taking samples of sea-floor rock and found that he could identify the Olduvai Event in his cores. Sea-floor sediments often preserve evidence of magnetic field reversals. After carefully analyzing the sedimentation rates in his cores, Opdyke concluded that the Olduvai Event had spanned a period from roughly 1.
This tuff occurs near the bottom of the Olduvai Event.
- finance guy dating.
- swedish dating service.
- Assumptions of Radioactive Dating.
- dating site saudi arabia.
It was dated in using the potassium-argon method. The date produced was approximately 1. Far from being rickety constructs full of sources of error and unproven assumptions, radiometric dating techniques are actually on a very sound theoretical and procedural basis. To destroy that basis, creationists would have to destroy much of chemistry and a lot of atomic physics too.
The periodic table is the bedrock on which modern chemistry is built. The constancy of radioactive decay rates follows from quantum mechanics, which has also passed every test physicists can create. In short, everything we know in chemistry and in physics points to radiometric dating as being a viable and valuable method of calculating the ages of igneous and metamorphosed igneous rocks.
To question it seems to be beyond the bounds of reason. To charge thousands of chemists all over the world with mass incompetence also seems to be beyond the bounds of reason. Radiometric dating has been used ever more widely for the past forty years. The dates produced have gotten steadily more precise as lab techniques and instrumentation has been improved. There is simply no logical reason to throw this entire field of science out the window. There is no reason to believe the theory is faulty, or to believe that thousands of different chemists could be so consistently wrong in the face of every conceivable test.
Further, radiometric dates can be checked by other dating techniques. When they are, the dates almost always agree within the range of expected error. Creationists are forced to challenge radiometric dating because it stands as the most powerful and most damning evidence against their idea of a young Earth. But in the end, they are reduced to saying that "radiometric dating must be wrong, because we know it happened this way. If theory says it happened this way and evidence says it happened that way, theory must be revised to fit the evidence. Information on the nature of atoms, half-lives, and types of radioactive decay was taken from ATOM: Information on radiometric dating techniques comes from a variety of sources, including the Asimov book cited above, and these: Montgomery and David Dathe c.
The Mislabeled Debate" Kenneth R. Oxford Press, This essay contains an excellent explanation of the rubidium-strontium isochron dating method. Information on creationist critiques of radiometric dating, and the flaws in those critiques, comes primarily from these sources: Glenn Morton is an old-Earth creationist, not an "evolutionist".
Information on the independent cross-checks for radiometric dates comes mainly from these sources: On the Hawaiian Islands chain: