How does that help? Thus, it provides an independent analysis of the rock that does not depend on the radioactive decay that is being studied. The amount of Sr that was already in the rock when it formed, for example, should be proportional to the amount of Sr that is currently there. Since the data are divided by the amount of Sr, the initial amount of Sr is cancelled out in the analysis.
He says that there is one process that has been overlooked in all these isochron analyses: Atoms and molecules naturally move around, and they do so in such as way as to even out their concentrations. A helium balloon, for example, will deflate over time, because the helium atoms diffuse through the balloon and into the surrounding air.
Well, diffusion depends on the mass of the thing that is diffusing. Sr diffuses more quickly than Sr, and that has never been taken into account when isochrons are analyzed. Hayes has brought it up, we can take it into account, right?
Radioactive dating sample problems
If the effects of diffusion can be taken into account, it will require an elaborate model that will most certainly require elaborate assumptions. Hayes suggests a couple of other approaches that might work, but its not clear how well. So what does this mean? If you believe the earth is very old, then most likely, all of the radioactive dates based on isochrons are probably overestimates.
How bad are the overestimates? Most likely, the effect will be dependent on the age. I would think that the older the sample, the larger the overestimate. As a young-earth creationist, I look at this issue in a different way. Certainly not enough to justify the incredibly unscientific extrapolation necessary in an old-earth framework.
This newly-pointed-out flaw in the isochron method is a stark reminder of that. A good isochron was supposed to be rock-solid evidence pun intended that the radioactive date is reliable. We now know that it is not. Wile, I was waiting for you to comment on this, because I wanted to ask if you think this problem can be extrapolated to other isotopes such as lead and argon.
If so, it seems to be a pretty big deal.
As I said, carbon dating is an exception, but most other modern radiometric dates are produced using an isochron. Are the samples we see in the RATE study, for example, just anomalies, existing on the ends of the bell curve, or are these indicative of an endemic misunderstanding of the process?
Are there any theories that could account for the accelerated decay rate or how the daughters could have gotten in to the samples? Thus, any significant amount of daughter product will produce a very old date. In my view, if two different dating schemes give significantly different answers, then either one of them is wrong or both of them are wrong.
Scientists exclude what we think are anomalous data all the time. Unfortunately, that discarded data might be what gives us real insight. Young-earth creationists have a hard time explaining the general results of long-lived isotopes and their daughter products being present.
On the other side, old-earthers have a hard time explaining all the discordance. If radioactive dating is so reliable, why do different methods yield different results? Why are some of those differences really, really large? As is often the case, there are problems on both sides.
The side you end up coming down on often depends on which problems you are most comfortable trying to deal with. Physicists already theorize that dark matter would affect nuclear decay rates; what if the leftover energy went to the dark matter? The heat problem occurs everywhere there are radioactive isotopes, so throughout the crust and mantle of the earth, for example.
The dark matter would have to be there in order to take the heat. You can think of dark matter here as a lot like the luminiferous ether: Since its interaction with normal matter is incredibly weak, it can very easily pass through the earth. Not to mention that different models of dark matter would lead to different interactions. Are we able to calculate the mass of the earth from our knowledge of its contents, and not just the gravitational force we detect?
I think if there were much dark matter in the earth, it would be noticeable. We also know the overall composition of the crust and mantle from samples. Thus, the only real unknown is the composition of the core. Using the mass and all those other measurements, we deduce that the core is mostly iron with some nickel.
I fear it is more a matter of philosophy rather than hard science: The problem with that, is that, in the first case, there appear to be no transitional fossils when there should be millions , and to make the assumption previously herein stated, evolutionary conclusions are more akin to a combination of wishful thinking combined with a sympathetic magic mindset, than to observable examples.http://taylor.evolt.org/bidel-puente-genil-citas.php
Radioactive dating practice problems – A Color Story
Evolution is taught as established fact, and scientific enquiry is severely trammelled by those who prefer a status quo. Every fossil between organisms alive now and abiogenesis is a transitional fossil, Tony. There are also transitional fossils and organisms in the misguided definition of the word you are using.
I admire your faith, Cromwell. Yet you state it as fact. Then, you claim that all fossils are a transition between that unrealistic event and the life we see now. Thanks for writing an informative article. Error bars have their place, but you are correct in pointing out that they are often misunderstood not only by the general public, but by scientists who are not savvy in radiometric dating. I would have worded this sentence differently: I am not convinced that differential diffusion of isotopes will be all that significant.
After all, fractionation of light elements, such as oxygen, provides us with all sorts of insights into geologic processes because the mass difference between O and O is rather significant, whereas the mass difference between Sr and Sr is not all that great, in terms of ratios. The differences are even less significant for more massive isotopes such as in samarium-neodymium dating Nd and Nd If fractionation does turn out to be important for isochrons, one would expect that there would be a trend, with lighter nuclides e.
Rb-Sr being more affected than heavier nuclides e. I am also wondering if Dr. Hays addressed how isotope fractionation would affect U-series concordia diagrams.
- gay dating romford.
- dating susie cooper marks.
- dating of earth résumé;
- Radioactive dating practice problems with answers!
- Apologetics Press - Problems with Radiometric Dating;
As it is, there is a general correlation of dates obtained by radiometric dating from the top to the bottom of the geologic column. Strongly discordant dates happen and young-Earth creationists focus on these , but roughly concordant dates are common; otherwise geologists would not trust the methods. It seems strange, if diffusion is a problem, that nuclides with very different masses are effected in the same way. Perhaps Earth is only 3. This would require similar diffusion rates in cold meteorites as in warm crustal zircons.
This would be very interesting, and would cause geologists to have to re-write many books, but the general story of geology would stand. This is because geologists do not believe Earth is billions of years old because of radiometric dating. Radiometric tools merely give us firm pegs to hang our signs on for the various eras, periods, and epochs of Earth history. Thanks for your comment, Kevin. I would have to disagree with your suggested change in wording, however.
While most definitely not all geochronologists do understand that there are false isochrons, that is never the way it is presented to students or the general public. This is unfortunate, of course, but it seems to be the norm when propaganda replaces science. I think what you are missing is the chemistry involved. When we are dealing with trace elements not substances that are part of the crystal lattice , differential diffusion can have a significant effect.
It is also not clear that there would be a general trend like you suggest. Diffusion also depends on chemical issues. When you are dealing with different elements, you are dealing with completely different diffusion scenarios.
Radiocarbon dating can be used on samples of bone, cloth, wood and plant fibers. The half-life of a radioactive isotope describes the amount of time that it takes half of the isotope in a sample to decay. In the case of radiocarbon dating, the half-life of carbon 14 is 5, years. This half life is a relatively small number, which means that carbon 14 dating is not particularly helpful for very recent deaths and deaths more than 50, years ago.
After 5, years, the amount of carbon 14 left in the body is half of the original amount. If the amount of carbon 14 is halved every 5, years, it will not take very long to reach an amount that is too small to analyze. When finding the age of an organic organism we need to consider the half-life of carbon 14 as well as the rate of decay, which is —0. How old is the fossil?
We can use a formula for carbon 14 dating to find the answer.