Radio dating assumptions

These claims generally land in three different categories: Most young earth creationists reject all of these points. As a scientific skeptics, we ask ourselves: Let us critically examine each of these claims and see if they hold up against the science. While doing so, we will have to learn about how radiometric dating actually works. There are many different kinds of radiometric dating and not all conclusions we will reach can be extrapolated to all methods used.

Assumptions of Radioactive Dating

As I will demonstrate, coral growth rates, radioactive decay rates, etc. Rather, they are the conclusions of simple inductive logic. A more restrictive definition is that an assumption is something that was not directly observed. Indeed, this seems to be the definition that creationists use, but this definition is also fraught with problems and inconsistencies. The most fundamental problem is one which I have previously elaborated on. Namely, direct observation is actually very unreliable, and you can use simple inductive logic to reach conclusions about something without directly observing it i.

Remember that inductive logic is the type of logic that goes from a series of observations to a general conclusion. I have used the theory of gravity to illustrate this before, but it is such a good, clean example that I am going to use it again. The theory of universal gravity states that all objects with mass produce gravity and are acted on by the gravity from other bodies.

This value is exceedingly useful and lets us do something really neat. For any two bodies, if we know the mass of each object and the distance between them, then we can use G to calculate the force of gravity between those two objects. These calculations will, however, only work if G is actually constant. The question is, of course, how do we know that the gravitational constant is in fact constant?

Well, quite simply, we have tested it over and over again and it has always been correct. In other words, we accept it as true because of inductive logic i. Importantly, we can never prove that G actually is a constant, because doing that would require us to test G against every single piece of matter in the universe. This is where things get interesting and problematic for creationists. Any high school level physics course will go over calculations that use G, and it is extremely important for astrophysics.

Imagine for a moment that an astrophysicist derived an explanation for some phenomena, and the math for that explanation involved G. Therefore, via inductive logic, we must accept that it is constant until we have been shown a compelling reason to think that it is not constant. Even so, we have measured the rates of radiometric decay over and over again and they have always been constant.

Therefore, via inductive logic, we must accept that they are constant until we have been shown a compelling reason to think that they are not constant. Similarly, we have repeatedly measured coral growth rates, and we know that even their fastest growth rate is nowhere near fast enough for them to have formed in only a few thousand years. Also, note that the argument that creationists are making here is nothing more than an ad hoc fallacy. There is absolutely no reason to think that coral reefs grew faster in the past, or ice cores and varves formed multiple layers annually, or radioactive particles decayed faster, etc.

First, realize that there are many different types of radiometric dating. Each method is specific to the type of rock that it can date, and which one you use depends on what type of material you are working with on a side note, you may see creationists claim that they have dated something that we know is recent, such as a rock from Mt St.

Helen, and the radiometric dating said it was old. These reports are generally a result of creationists using the wrong method for the rock in question. To illustrate how radiometric dating works, I am going to focus on one method uranium-lead dating , but all other types of radiometric dating follow the same general steps note: Uranium-lead dating is used on a type of rock known as a zircon. Zircons are useful because when they form, the formation process incorporates uranium, but it strongly repels lead, which means that a newly formed zircon will never have any lead in it.

Uranium exists in several isotopes same element, different numbers of neutrons , and the one we are interested in is U. A half-life is the amount of time that it takes for half the atoms to decay. For U, a half-life is roughly million years. How do we know what the half-life is? After million years, it will have a 1: After another million years 1, million total , the ratio will be 1: After million more years 2, million total , the ratio will be 1: The ratios are the important things here, and they are why the amount of uranium in the original rock is irrelevant.

We can take a zircon, measure the amount of U and the amount of Pb, and the ratio of those two chemicals will tell us how old the rock is. For example, if the ratio is 1: In summary, radiometric dating is based on well tested, scientific results, not assumptions. We know that there was no lead in zircons to begin with, because zircons strongly repel lead when they are forming.

Finally, we know the rate at which uranium decays into lead because we have repeatedly measured it, and it has always been the same. Like Like. You understate the case for radiometric dating. Isochron methods, using a non-radiogenic isotopes to tell us the amount of daughter present to start with, avoids assumptions about initial amounts. And the constancy of decay rates is not merely an observation made over the past century or so but confirmed by observations on distant supernovas that we are observing them at times ling past.

Moreover, these rates are consequences of such fundamental physical laws that we know they cannot have changed. For if those laws had been different, the whole of physical science would have been different, and we would not have had rocks of recognisable chemistry being laid down in the first place. Thank you for your comment. In the future I may write a more detailed post about the physics and math behind it, but in my many discussions with creationists, I have generally found that it is best to just stick to some basic points that are easy to grasp and avoid overloading them with too many facts.

And yet I was responding the arguments that creationists actually make, and that you will find spelt out in any creationist text. It is always a difficult judgement call; to what extent should we simply ignore the details of creationist arguments, and to what extent should we explicitly rebut them. The former risks giving a free pass to fallacies, while the latter risks spreading the creationist meme. Could these rates be affected by forces such as temperature, magnetic fields, or quantum vacuum fluctuations?

There is a considerable amount of literature on the topic of external factors affecting decay rates, and occasionally someone reports an anomalous result, but the overwhelming consensus is that they are not affected by things like temperature many of the anomalies are likely the result of user error. Regarding changing radioactive decay rates; some rates do depend, in known and well understood ways, on the charge of the decaying atom, but the effects are minor except under conditions such as those inside stars.

Geology, radiology, astronomy and biology all point to pretty consistent date ranges, and none of them can support anything remotely close to a literalist interpretation of the Bible. It is very strange to encounter someone still proselytizing it. There is no sense in which you can go from a series of observations to a general law. Your example of gravity is quite revealing.

This is nonsense. G is a measured quantity. And despite the powers of induction, we now know there is no force of gravity. It is merely a form of probabilistic argument. All scientific theories and laws are arrived at by inductive logic. That is inherent in their nature. For example, cell theory states that all living things are made of cells. To actually prove that, we would need to test all living things, which is impossible, but every living thing that we have tested has been made of cells.

Therefore, we went form all of those observations to the general conclusion that all living things are made of cells. That is by definition inductive logic. Let me ask you this. If we take two objects, for which we know the masses and the distance between them, if we plug G into the equation, will it work? Everyone on the entire planet agrees that it will, but we agree because of inductive logic.

We have not measured G between those two objects, but we know that G will work because G has always worked. I assume he is referring to the Higgs-Boson particle. I was curious, what is the Higgs-Boson particle made out of? The neutrons you mention above, when referring to Uranium-lead dating — what are they made out of? Now, what are quarks made of? Quarks along with leptons are the smallest units of matter that we have confirmed to date.

Hume identified the problem of induction and various philosophers have grappled with it. Induction is not just a fallacy, it is a myth. See in particular Popper. That is not induction by any stretch of the imagination! The answer to your question about gravity is NO! A theory called General Relativity was conjectured years ago. It works for planets and GPS and in it there is no force of gravity. Regarding cell theory, I began with the theory because the theory already exists, but lets back the clock up to before cell theory was proposed.

Why did we propose it? Well, every time we had ever examined a living thing, it had been made of cells. So, we went from those observations to the general conclusion that all living things are made of cells. Similarly, every time we have examined a piece of matter, it has been made of atoms. Therefore, we proposed atomic theory which states that all matter is made of atoms. We have also gone from countless observations in the fossil record, zoology, biogeography, etc.

You should re-read your philosophy of science books. All theories are based on inductive logic. Thus, it is always possible that somewhere in the universe there is a living thing that is not made of cells, but until we find such a thing, there is no reason not to accept cell theory.

I will attempt to give you a few answers to your questions concerning radiometric dating. If you want to study what creationists say about radiometric dating in. Once you understand the basic science of radiometric dating, you can see how wrong assumptions lead to incorrect dates.

Terms of Use Agreement. What's New? Results 1 to 26 of Radiometric Dating and it's "Assumptions". November 16th, ,

I will attempt to give you a few answers to your questions concerning radiometric dating. These books contain an exhaustive study of radiometric dates that do not fit the results evolutionists expect.

With the exception of Carbon, radiometric dating is used to date either igneous or metamorphic rocks that contain radioactive elements such as uranium. Now when the uranium or thorium disintegrates, the alpha particles which are emitted are slowed down by the crystals in which the grains of the uranium- or thorium-bearing minerals are embedded. One of the most popular of these is known as radiometric dating.

Refuting “Radiometric Dating Methods Makes Untenable Assumptions!”

Beta Decay: By , it was found to be 1. In , science firmly established that the earth was 3. The study of geology grew out of field studies associated with mining and engineering during the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries. In these early studies the order of sedimentary rocks and structures were used to date geologic time periods and events in a relative way. Although there were attempts to make relative age estimates, no direct dating method was available until the twentieth century.

Radio dating assumptions

The first is that atoms have always decayed at the same rate. The other is that the decay products of various atoms are always the same. This is also actually kind of trivial and easily determined in the lab. I guess we have to start at the top and work our way down… sigh. So much for low hanging fruit. Something that this particular website has none of. Indeed, this is a classic Gish Gallop. This is obviously in reference to carbon dating of formerly living tissue.

As I will demonstrate, coral growth rates, radioactive decay rates, etc. Rather, they are the conclusions of simple inductive logic.

Lead in your family you understand the topic of radio shows in carbon 14 dates is based. History

Assumptions of Radiometric Dating

The belief that radiodating methods give absolute measurements of time is widespread as a result of scientific popularization in journals, conferences, and the media. In fact, due to the difficulties in applying the experimental method to events in the past, all chronometers based on natural or artificial nuclear disintegration need a calibration. This calibration supposes a great number of basic assumptions concerning initial conditions. The choice of these initial conditions affects the results. These assumptions are not demonstrated, only supposed to be true. The discussion of some phenomena taking place during rock crystallization reveals huge discrepancies between the model theory and the reality. This excess argon greatly alters the calculated age and puts into question the validity of the method. These investigations suppose complete coordination between different disciplines and laboratories. The experimental method can solve scientific questions and problems by using instruments, measurement procedures, and data treatment. The results, taking into account previous knowledge and discussion with other specialists, help to give an interpretation or build a theory. Experiments and measurements need to be accurate, explainable and reproducible.

Assumptions of radiometric dating

Objectives Unit Labs Quiz Home. Section 4. Read These Notes: Radiometric dating is based on several premises. Scientists are frequently involved in determining the nature of a universe that they cannot observe directly.

Если повезет, он успеет вернуться и все же съездить с Сьюзан в их любимый Стоун-Мэнор. Туда и обратно, - повторил он.  - Туда и обратно. Если бы он тогда знал… ГЛАВА 9 Техник систем безопасности Фил Чатрукьян собирался заглянуть в шифровалку на минуту-другую - только для того, чтобы взять забытые накануне бумаги. Но вышло. Пройдя помещение шифровалки и зайдя в лабораторию систем безопасности, он сразу почувствовал что-то неладное.

Компьютер, который постоянно отслеживал работу ТРАНСТЕКСТА, оказался выключен, вокруг не было ни души.

Что же предпринять. ГЛАВА 25 Городская больница закрылась для посетителей. Свет в бывшем гимнастическом зале выключили. Пьер Клушар спал глубоким сном и не видел склонившегося над ним человека. Игла похищенного у медсестры шприца блеснула в темноте и погрузилась в вену чуть выше запястья Клушара. Шприц был наполнен тридцатью кубиками моющего средства, взятого с тележки уборщицы. Сильный палец нажал на плунжер, вытолкнув синеватую жидкость в старческую вену.

- Позволь, я переберусь наверх.  - Но немец даже не шевельнулся. Росио изо всех сил уперлась руками в его массивные плечи. - Милый, я… я сейчас задохнусь! - Ей стало дурно. Все ее внутренности сдавило этой немыслимой тяжестью.  - Despiertate! - Ее пальцы инстинктивно вцепились ему в волосы.

Поднявшись по ступенькам, она обнаружила, что дверь в кабинет шефа открыта, поскольку электронный замок без электропитания бесполезен. Она вошла. - Коммандер? - позвала Сьюзан. Свет внутри исходил лишь от светящихся компьютерных мониторов Стратмора.  - Коммандер! - повторила.  - Коммандер.

CARBON DATING - Assumptions, contamination & errors
Related publications