Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their . It turns out that there are some cases where one can make that assumption quite reliably. .. The most obvious constraint is the age of the oldest rocks. Read These Notes: Radiometric dating is based on several premises. Scientists are frequently involved in determining the nature of a universe. List at least 9 of the false assumptions made with radioactive dating methods. .. Constraints on stellar yields and Sne from gamma-ray line.
Analytical limitations encompass the limitations of the machinery that is being used to date a material. This technique bombards the sample, slowly drawing material out and then sending it through to an ion counter. This is then transformed into isotopic ratios and then used to date the material. The machinery you use has to be tuned and calibrated to which isotopes you want to measure and needs to be set with the correct running conditions.
Think of it as making a roast dinner, you're going to need to set the oven at the correct temperature and leave it for the right amount of time to achieve the best results.
- Restoring the Authority of the Bible, Starting with the very first Book
- Navigation menu
So you can never have perfect running conditions and certain parameters will change over time, this is just the nature of high-tech machinery. A small shift in a parameter can affect your final outcome. So some analytical limitations can be the beam intensity, counting statistics, dead-time and so on. These are parameters you can control and will affect how accurate and precise your age-dating is.
Don't worry what those parameters mean, just understand they are machine-based. Natural limitations encompass those as a result of nature.
What are the assumptions used with radiometric dating? - Returning to Genesis
For example, you may want to date the same zircon crystals using the U-Pb method. In order to do this, you need to measure various isotopes of uranium U and lead Pb. The stopwatch can only count long enough to accurately measure runners that run the track faster than 12mph. I tell you that my 92 year old Grandma would like to have her lap timed, she used to be a great runner when she was young, and would love to see how fast she it now. I ask you to do it anyway just to humour her. You cannot now claim that the stopwatch was the wrong way to measure her.
The radioactive isotopes created in supernova explosions produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates. Therefore, there is has been no measurable change in decay rates overyears and no factors that could affect decay rates have changed in over 1.
Your paper by Overman is pretty funny. Nine references, one of which is a business statistics book and two of which are creationists.
But I enjoy watching your confirmation bias. And there is no way to measure the one way speed of light. Try again, loser, with another creationist. How about Kurt Wise? Or maybe Hugh Ross? Come on, Creepto, get cracking! See how I did that? I suppose the problem comes down to the origin of the granite samples and whether or not they are primordial granite or not. Tell you what though … the diamond Po halos stuff by Snelling is more compelling, as the location of the diamond is not important.
I gave the AiG link to Kevin too … I know you love those guys https: Do you only like to argue when your mates are with you?
What are the assumptions used with radiometric dating?
Again, boo fucking hoo. Right, all of chemistry is based on assumptions pulled out of the air because that explains why chemistry works so well. Oh, and nuclear chemistry is a total mystery; nobody knows why decay happens and analytical chemistry is just lucky I guess. Tell you what, Creepto, you go ahead and believe that. Sucks to be you, Creepto. So unless you can manage to pull an interesting fact for grown-up debate out of your arse you should probably avoid the device with letters on it in front of you that has enabled your communicative diarrhoea.
I have not failed anything. I have been approached several times by the department to go back and finish what I started, as I had discovered some new useful things in the field that they would like to get published.
That is all completely beside the point … and a cunning diversion from your inability to answer any actual scientific questions. Or does it happen all the time irrespective of how badly your side of the argument is going? Arrogance is in the eye of the beholder.
And the need to explain everything from first principles every post, because the basic arguments get distorted and misrepresented at every turn. Doc Bill You are too funny, Creepto! No one misrepresented your arguments, and do point out who did that, rather they pointed out your arguments were crapola. The process of nuclear decay is settled science, not a mystery, you buffoon. Geeze, louise, you are one thick brick. You are so pathetic.
Bully for him, actually. But after a group of creationists had a shit fit about it, he said, well, it might work and they went off happy. Still, sucks to be you. Again, Creepto, sucks to be you! You certainly have the grammar of a 1st grader.
There is no help for someone as misguided and uneducated in the real scientific method as you. Through your grammatical tirade you show how little you really understand about the limits of science, assumptions, evidence, and the real scientific method.
Sarfati, AiG and Radio Isotope Dating
I highly doubt it. Some have tried to LIE and say he only sampled a few small areas, but he actually obtains granite samples from all over the world to test. His work shows the earth was NOT a boiling hot ball of lava as Evolution likes to claim.
Granite was cooled and formed in Microseconds leaving Halos behind in the stone. LOL joey hello crypto are you online seems like you are a good mathematician. James HEy guys um, ijust have one question for you guys, do you believe in a young Earth or an old Earth. SmilodonsRetreat Who are you asking? Well all the evidence that exists says that Earth is about 4.
That includes radiometric dating of meteors, moon rock, and Earth samples, lunar retreat, impact craters, continental drift, lack of DNA in fossils, geomagnetic reversals, varves, the Oklo natural nuclear reactor, etc. All of these, from multiple independent fields, indicate that Earth is much older than a Young Earth Creationist model.
In fact, just considering that model, we can ice layers, coral growth, tree rings, stratigraphy, and several other methods… all of which show Earth must be older than the 10, years of the YEC model.
The framework generated by application of the scientific method does not rely on, nor rest on, a single line but, rather, the convergence of many lines of study. Thus, the expansion of the Atlantic Ocean by plate tectonics is supported by the matching geology of eastern South America and western Africa, matching fossil evidence from both places, agreement with the current rate of plate movement and most beautifully of all symmetrical core samples on either side of the mid-Atlantic ridge of paleomagnetic reversals.
The current age of the universe, the understanding of the underlying physics requires many years of study in graduate school, is currently known to be Note the precision of that number!
Notbut zero point seven nine eight plus or minus point oh three seven. The age of the earth is known to be 4. By uniformitarianism I assume you mean that the properties of physics 4 billion years ago are the same as they are today. That is not only a good assumption but there are underlying principles of physics that demonstrate that to be true. Real catastrophes did happen, the formation of the moon being one, which melted the Earth. Your complete dogma about the age of things is very sad.
We are living in an atheistic and racist world. SmilodonsRetreat Of course, if you lie to the lab about the rock like the creationists didthen they will actually have false assumptions about said rock. Which leads to bad results. Instead if you actually understand how to acquire and prepare the source rocks, then you will get a continuous system of ages using multiple, totally independent types of radioactive processes. I do love how you through in that dig about atheism somehow being related to racism.
Never show it to your colleagues or share it with your students. You could be made fun of, or worse, you could lose your job. All anomalous data can be explained away.