It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I am saying 6000 years - Adjusted to 2.1 billion human years, is not in any way a false representation of when things on this earth started happening, especially if the two are simply estimates, due to the unreliable nature of The Bible and it's thousands of translations, changes, etc.. and can be assumed to have a margin of error. Anyways, food for thought! Thanks for reading!
Uranium-lead dating method
The uranium-lead radiometric dating scheme has been refined to the point that the error margin in dates of rocks can be as low as less than two million years in two-and-a-half billion years. An error margin of 2–5% has been achieved on younger Mesozoic rocks.
Uranium-lead dating is often performed on the mineral zircon (ZrSiO4), though it can be used on other materials, such as baddeleyite. Zircon and baddeleyite incorporate uranium atoms into their crystalline structure as substitutes for zirconium, but strongly reject lead. Zircon has a very high closure temperature, is resistant to mechanical weathering and is very chemically inert. Zircon also forms multiple crystal layers during metamorphic events, which each may record an isotopic age of the event. In situ micro-beam analysis can be achieved via laser ICP-MS or SIMS techniques.
One of its great advantages is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235's decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238's decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in crosscheck that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost. This can be seen in the concordia diagram, where the samples plot along an errorchron (straight line) which intersects the concordia curve at the age of the sample.
Rubidium-strontium dating method
Main article: Rubidium-strontium dating
This is based on the beta decay of rubidium-87 to strontium-87, with a half-life of 50 billion years. This scheme is used to date old igneous and metamorphic rocks, and has also been used to date lunar samples. Closure temperatures are so high that they are not a concern. Rubidium-strontium dating is not as precise as the uranium-lead method, with errors of 30 to 50 million years for a 3-billion-year-old sample.
Are you being purposely obtuse here or just asking silly questions to troll me?
If radioactivity determines the age of rocks, how does it only go into the past?
More importantly, do rocks that aren't radioactive at all, and pure lead come from infinity in the past?
Because it doesn't sound too convincing.
Unless one only sees two options when there are others:
And don't take it personally either: my question was not addressed to you at all.
a reply to: deadlyhope I guess the Bible is consistent in its inconsistencies. So your book says rocks are billions of years old? Neat Care to share how that makes more sense?
originally posted by: wisvol
This said, datation methods based on radioactivity which only work on certain radioactive rocks and not others, and not at all on non radioactive rocks, aren't something I would put much credence in, personally.
originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Krazysh0t
The fact that this method negates data from the majority of isotopic material, coupled with the fact that isotopes are constantly produced within observable time frames, makes this method less than scientific.