References Generic Radiometric Dating The simplest form of isotopic age computation involves substituting three measurements into an equation of four variables, and solving for the fourth. The equation is the one which describes radioactive decay: The variables in the equation are: Pnow – The quantity of the parent isotope that remains now. This is measured directly. Porig – The quantity of the parent isotope that was originally present. This is computed from the current quantity of parent isotope plus the accumulated quantity of daughter isotope. Standard values are used, based on direct measurements. Solving the equation for “age,” and incorporating the computation of the original quantity of parent isotope, we get: Potential problems for generic dating Some assumptions have been made in the discussion of generic dating, for the sake of keeping the computation simple.
Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale
Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. Some scientists are recognizing that these have some serious problems, and have decided to saddle up a different horse. They are proposing a new model called isochron dating.
GEOL Historical Geology. Spring Semester Index Fossils, Correlation & Radiometric Dating Isochron Dating techniques: a way to get around the problems of standard radiometric dating. This straight line is the isochron, and its slope is a function of the number of half-lives that have passed. The steeper the slope, the older the.
This article was originally posted by Dr. Henke to the talk. I have placed it on the web with his permission. But I have not altered content in any substantial degree, and the text has been approved by Dr. Henke prior to being made public. Henke is currently a post doctoral fellow in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Kentucky. David Plaisted has written a “critique” of radiometric dating , which appears on the The True.
He claims on p. He further claims that the issues in his report have not been adequately discussed in other creationist documents. A review of his report, however, shows that little, if any, of his material is original. He has simply recycled erroneous claims from Slusher and other creationist sources. In some cases, statements from Dr. Plaisted and his sources are word for word identical to statements in Slusher , but Slusher is not properly quoted or referenced.
Age of the earth
Can science prove the age of the earth? No scientific method can prove the age of the earth and the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here. Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed. There is no independent natural clock against which those assumptions can be tested. For example, the amount of cratering on the moon, based on currently observed cratering rates, would suggest that the moon is quite old. However, to draw this conclusion we have to assume that the rate of cratering has been the same in the past as it is now.
— A skeleton named Little Foot is among the oldest hominid skeletons ever dated at million years old, according to an advanced dating method. Little Foot is a rare, nearly complete skeleton of Australopithecus first discovered 21 years ago in a cave at Sterkfontein, in central South Africa.
Geologic Column ,” we covered how the geologic column is made up from pure imagination, so what did the quote just tell us? They throw out an age they get if it doesn’t line up with their geologic column, or more simply put, they throw out a date they get if it doesn’t line up with how old they already think it is! Let’s say an evolutionist gets radiometric dates of an object, and the lab will pull back all sorts of wild numbers, lets say ranging from.
This is exactly how it’s done, and all of it comes down to the circular reasoning dating methods used for fossils dating rocks and rocks dating fossils. In , Nature April 18th, p. It had been dated many times with K-Ar, and almost every evolutionary scientist in the world agreed that the KBS tuff was million years old. This was an important publication because this dated volcanic rock was going to be used as an ‘event horizon’, which means all other dates for all other findings in this area would then be cross-referenced to the KBS tuff.
Remember earlier how I pointed out that they don’t really date things by radiometric dating, and how they actually use the geologic column? Humans were not supposed to be in existance until 3 million years ago, according to the geologic column, and this human skull created a major conflict. We average laymans would expect scientists since they claim to be truly unbiased to reconsider how long mankind has been on the earth, and to question if their geologic column needs to be adjusted based on the evidence, but that is not what they did.
Before continuing to talk about what they did, we know two things for certain: Many evolutionary scientists know radiometric dating does not work properly. Evolutionists are dating objects based on the imaginary geologic column, not by any scientific method. After finding this skull that upset their geologic column, the evolutionists took ten more samples, despite the fact that it was already dated MANY times.
The Age of the Earth
The isochron method Many radioactive dating methods are based on minute additions of daughter products to a rock or mineral in which a considerable amount of daughter-type isotopes already exists. These isotopes did not come from radioactive decay in the system but rather formed during the original creation of the elements. In this case, it is a big advantage to present the data in a form in which the abundance of both the parent and daughter isotopes are given with respect to the abundance of the initial background daughter.
Thanks mainly to the fact that they appear to be so constant, the decay rates of radioactive materials have become the primary mechanism for attempting to discover the age of rocks. A number of methods have been tried to calibrate the “radiometric clock”. But they have all required unprovable and apparently unwarranted assumptions. Faure, in his textbook  refers to all of them as “assumed values” except for those obtained by the “isochron”, or similar linear method. The linear methods are several, and have in common the reduction of the data to a set which can yield a straight-line plot.
Many exceedingly detailed descriptions of these methods are available. Arndts and Overn alerted the creationist community to the fact that in spite of the mathematical rigor of the isochron, it also has unwarranted assumptions, and the data carefully gathered and processed to indicate immense ages can more appropriately be dismissed as indicating the recent mixing of two or more magmas.
There is sound logic supporting the mineral isochron, but another fatal flaw.
Evidence for Evolution and an Old Earth Evidence for Evolution and an Old Earth, a Catholic Perspective “According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets.
In our own solar system and on earth formed about 4. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.
Also, since the isochron IRSL method is reliant on only the internal dose rate, it overcomes problems related to (1) changes in past dose rate due to postdepositional migration of radionuclides, (2) changes in water content as water-lain sediments dry out, (3) spatial heterogeneity in the gamma dose rate, and (4) uncertainties in the cosmic ray.
Rocks and fossils do not come with dates on them. In fact, the very concept of strata representing long ages does not come from the rock strata themselves. That concept began with eighteenth-century French naturalist Georges Cuvier, picked up steam with Charles Lyell, and it has been in vogue ever since. This is despite the fact that it causes more problems for interpreting rock strata than it solves.
And today we know through lab experiments and natural disasters such as the eruption of Mt. Helens that major layering of rock strata can happen catastrophically in a short period of time. The resulting rock strata may harbor fossils from a particular habitat area or ecosystem, but do not represent a particular age or era. Why else do we find marine fossils on the tops of all the major mountain ranges?
An examination of sedimentary rocks worldwide shows a striking consistency with the unimaginably massive Flood that wiped out whole environments. It caused massive sedimentary layering and sorting and fossilizing of the creatures buried therein. Also remember that modern disasters on a smaller scale like Mount St.
Age of the Earth
What about isochron discordance? Based on the consistency of the discordance from this specimen a flood gabbro and others, infer the processes which led to the distribution of isotopes” taken from ICR , see link above ” I want to call your attention to several issues regarding their proposal. The first is that the RATE Group has pre-determined that the sample will be discordant or, in this case will not produce an isochron.
Why even do the experiment?
The Pb-Pb isochron method has been used very widely for dating igneous and metamorphic rocks, especially those of Precambrian age, as well as meteorites. The method is claimed to yield the time elapsed since the isotopic homogenization of Pb and subsequent closure of rocks to U and its intermediate daughters.
At the time that Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was published, the earth was “scientifically” determined to be million years old. By , it was found to be 1. In , science firmly established that the earth was 3. Finally in , it was discovered that the earth is “really” 4. In these early studies the order of sedimentary rocks and structures were used to date geologic time periods and events in a relative way.
At first, the use of “key” diagnostic fossils was used to compare different areas of the geologic column. Although there were attempts to make relative age estimates, no direct dating method was available until the twentieth century.