An Essay on Radiometric Dating. By Jonathon Woolf http: Radiometric dating methods are the strongest direct evidence that geologists have for the age of the Earth. All these methods point to Earth being very, very old -- several billions of years old. Young-Earth creationists -- that is, creationists who believe that Earth is no more than 10, years old -- are fond of attacking radiometric dating methods as being full of inaccuracies and riddled with sources of error. When I first became interested in the creation-evolution debate, in late , I looked around for sources that clearly and simply explained what radiometric dating is and why young-Earth creationists are driven to discredit it.
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.
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, , November 18th, , 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.
What creationists also overlook is that a single dating method is rarely used today.Part I - What Is Radioactive Dating & Its Assumptions?
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.
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.
Radioactive dating assumptions
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, , Burning of large quantities of fossil fuels like coal, referred as the Suess effect, had significantly lowered the radiocarbon concentration of the atmospheric carbon reservoir.
In contrast, nuclear weapons testing in the s and s dramatically increased the level of carbon 14 in the atmosphere. The phenomenon is often referred to as the bomb effect. Nuclear weapons testing brought about a reaction that simulated atmospheric production of carbon 14 in unnatural quantities.
The huge thermal neutron flux produced by nuclear bombs reacted with nitrogen atoms present in the atmosphere to form carbon The carbon 14 produced is what is known as bomb carbon or artificial radiocarbon.
According to literature, nuclear weapons testing in the s and s have nearly doubled the atmospheric carbon 14 content as measured in around The level of bomb carbon in the northern hemisphere reached a peak in , and in the southern hemisphere around The change in global radiocarbon levels brought about by human activities necessitated the use of a reference standard for carbon 14 dating.
Radiocarbon dating needed an organic material that was not contaminated with carbon 14 from fossil fuel burning or nuclear weapons testing.
Radiocarbon Dating and Bomb Carbon
Oxalic acid stocked by the U. National Bureau of Standards had been adopted as standard for radiocarbon dating. Its radiocarbon content was theoretically the same as a wood sample grown in AD , the zero point of the radiocarbon timescale used in quoting carbon dating results.
Even after nuclear weapon testing was banned, the bomb effect still remains. According to literature, the excess carbon 14 produced during nuclear weapons testing has already decreased due in part to the global carbon exchange cycle. Bomb carbon is essentially an artificial injection of carbon Radiocarbon scientists used this knowledge to test their theories regarding the mixing rates of carbon 14 through various carbon reservoirs. They found out that tree rings do not exchange radiocarbon with other tree rings.
This fact has supported the use of dendrochronology in radiocarbon dating, particularly in constructing radiocarbon calibration curves. There are also other studies that monitored the presence of bomb carbon or radiocarbon in general.
Results of the study have enabled modelers to analyze the pathway of radiocarbon and its exchange and residence times.