It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Radiometric dating and long ages

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   


You still haven't answered on why it is "unscientific" to validate radiometric dating with other dating systems.
What is your answer to that?


First off, quote me on the "unscientific"

Second, just stay on topic and you wont feel left out. When I want to talk about other methods, I will let you know.


Nygdan,
Im going to have to look at this for a bit.
Prolly get back to you Tuesday if not sooner.
It seems to be agreeing about the input data...but because the answers come out in a predictable range... its likely that the original assumption is correct.

That is what I think Im seeing (in simplified form of course) and what I will be researching

Thanks




posted on May, 1 2005 @ 10:10 PM
link   
JAKE!

Here it goes dude! Other guys, quit posting links, he's obviously not reading them.

How much evidence do we have to post, really?

Do you think that lead 206 just appears out of nowhere.

Uranium-238 decays by alpha emission into thorium-234, which itself decays by beta emission to protactinium-234, which decays by beta emission to uranium-234, and so on. The various decay products, (sometimes referred to as "progeny" or "daughters") form a series starting at uranium-238. After several more alpha and beta decays, the series ends with the stable isotope lead-206.

You entire theory of proving us wrong is based on the assumption that somewhere in that process, another uranium rock comes into contact and now they are the same rock. So now you have different ratios than you had before. but it still doesnt matter because no matter if 90% of the rock is still nondecayed compared to only 30% for the previous rock, you still have decayed atoms and you still know exactly how long each takes to decay and you can back calculate the percentages and come up with the length of time.

Also, lets take 30,000 tons, arbitrary # could be larger or smaller, of uranium filled rocks. The amount of decayed atoms in this sample is essentially the same as smaller and smaller amounts of rocks.

This is my final question to you jake, lets assume for sake of argument that we have no way in hell to figure out the parent atoms. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that there are still decayed atoms within the sample and if we know for a fact, how long it takes these atoms to decay, who cares as to the amount of parent atoms, you still have decayed atoms and you still have decay rates. All this alpha decay takes time, and since there are decayed atoms, wouldnt you have to accept he fact that they took billions of years to decay.?!!?!?!

Who cares about the amount of parent atoms. If there are decayed atoms, there is a decay rate, if we know the decay rate, we know how long it takes one atom to decay into another. If we know what atoms decay to what atoms, we have a map. If we add up the decayed atoms in order, no matter how many there are, and we add up the ages, we have an age of the total decayed element. This can be done with 1 single atom.

One more time for you. Since these isotopes cannot exist naturally without first having been decayed, you now have only one option. Single line decay for one parent atom. Add up the stages and their respective decay times, and walla, you now no at least how old the decayed isotope is. So you have at least an atom that is several billion years old.

Train



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Now BigTrain

Do you think Im going to waste my time reading your long sarcastic post when Im already way ahead of where you are dragging at with Nygdan

He was the only one to meet my unknown. He didnt dodge the question or scream like someone was pissing in his cornflakes. Since you refuse to learn from me because Im a christian, perhaps you should take lessons from him.




posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Jake, it's obvious you havent been reading the links, as the evidence brought up by Nygdan has been talked about in links already posted.

How convenient of you to pick and choose what you want to hear. It's always a good tactic to ignore the ones who prove you wrong.

Please don't pretend that you are actually going to research, your mind is already made up.

And honestly I could care less about your religion, what I don't like is you trying to replace science with religion.

Besides I think we all know what your going to say:

How do we KNOW that the meteors weren't created with already decayed isotopes?

[edit on 2-5-2005 by LeftBehind]



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Ya jake, your wayyyyy ahead of all of us. riiiiiiiiight.

Face it man, even if god walked up to you and slapped you in the face and said the scientists are right, you would still not believe it.

As far as my post being sarcastic, whatever.

You speak of denying ignorance, why dont you try and deny the crap youve been brought up to believe in like billions of other saps around the world. Thats a start.

Im still completely blown away, BLOWN AWAY, at how religious people can so easily discard science, and so easily accept religion even though religion has absolutely no proof of anything. And again, the excuses about god are sooooo rediculous, the answer for his creation, he always was, he is forever, what the heck is that?!!!??!?! You still have no answer for how he/she/it was created and then you go on complainging to science that something cannot come from nothing. You guys are wacked out! And still no reason for how god created matter, didnt that come outta nothing?

So stupid for religion to argue that god could come from nothing, but matter cannot.

AND for the record....I DONT KNOW HOW WE GOT HERE.

Science cant answer that and neither can religion, so drop it.

Train



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 07:52 AM
link   


AND for the record....I DONT KNOW HOW WE GOT HERE.

Science cant answer that and neither can religion, so drop it.



Now thats a turn of events...

YOU are now way ahead of the thread.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Jake: So just to clarify you are basically saying that you don't believe the earth is billions of years old? From the look of it that is what you are saying.

One early emminent geologist named James Hutton made a statement "the present is the key to the past". The basic essence of this is that he realised that looking at current proceses and their rates, that it was impossible for these to occur in under 6000 years, and therefore the earth had to be a great deal older then had been proposed.

I think you should leave the science to people who have actually been trained and do this stuff everyday.

[edit on 2-5-2005 by Rock Hunter]



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rock Hunter
Jake: So just to clarify you are basically saying that you don't believe the earth is billions of years old? From the look of it that is what you are saying.

Sort of. I will not say that it 'is not' as if it were fact. I will say that I believe it is young, because of my faith.

But what I am doing here is questioning the method used to determine age


One early emminent geologist named James Hutton made a statement "the present is the key to the past". The basic essence of this is that he realised that looking at current proceses and their rates, that it was impossible for these to occur in under 6000 years, and therefore the earth had to be a great deal older then had been proposed.
This is the basis for uniformitarianism. It has been proven incapable. Every time something needs to be explained, catasrophism is employed. What happened to dino? Asteroid.
See what I mean?
Nygdan has taken a thoughtful and scientific approach so I will keep this with him for now.
In your post, you offered the following:l



I think you should leave the science to people who have actually been trained and do this stuff everyday.


No.
Question everything!
That is how you deny ignorance



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
It has been proven incapable

When? Uniformitarianism has proven extremely useful and capable, far more so that actual 'catastrophism'

What happened to dino? Asteroid

Catastrophism was a way of thinking that require big catastrophic events to explain everything. As in, you find that in a valley all the rocks have scratches in one direction, leading from one end to the other. You ask, what explains this weirdness? The Catastophist insists that it was a gigantic and sudden monstrous flood that carved out the whole valley and left these scratches. The Uniformitarianist looks at the evidence and discovers that glaciers, acting slowly and with great time, have carved out features of the land and are a better explanation for the scratches on the rocks. The present is the key to the past, and small pressures, given great time, can work great things. What killed the dinosaurs? Well, they appear to have been dying out long before the asteroid impact, but apparently that was the final blow. Why is that a refutation of uniformitarianism? Is a local landslide a catastrophe? Or a volcanic eruption or an earthquake? In the past, geologists used to reference sudden, gigantic, worldwide catastrophes to explain the major features of the geologic record, cataclysms that destroyed the old order and brought up new ones. Practically every geologist now recognizes that you don't need to reference these kinds of things, that most stuff is infact explainable by uniform processes that have just had a lot of time to act. True, "catastrophes' occur, but they aren't needed to explain all the major features.

Also, lets face it, geologists and associated scientists don't have any interest in proping up some falshood that the world is very old. No one particularly cares, and if there was evidence out there that could, say, demonstrate that the world is in fact 6,000 years old, or anything radical like that, there'd be a rush to publish it, not a cover up. That sort of thing would instantly make someone's career.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Nyden thread above me says everything I would have said in return, and I agree with everything he said. Modern Geology is a mix of both Huttons Ideas and that of rapid events.



Sort of. I will not say that it 'is not' as if it were fact. I will say that I believe it is young, because of my faith.


During my time as an undergrad their were several people in my classes who believed this as well. However they believed that the young age depicted by relgion was a metaphorical age, and not an absolute. This way at least they could still believe the science that they were using everyday.




No.
Question everything!
That is how you deny ignorance



I do, I'm doing a Phd in Geology, and therefore virtually everything I do goes against your thinking. Dating methods in geology have stood up to great scrutiny by the geological community. Although I know it insults you faith, but from working in this field everyday and studying the processes involved in shaping the surface of the planet I really cannot believe that it came about after 6000 years. I could take you on many fieldtrips and show you many examples that I think you would find very hard to explain being formed under 6000 years, from the size of crystals in granite batholiths, too other examples such as the formation of 1.5km thick salt deposits. Imagine how much time and water you need to evaporate to get that much salt, bearing in mind that sea water only contains about 3-4% of dissolved salts per unit mass.

[edit on 2-5-2005 by Rock Hunter]

[edit on 2-5-2005 by Rock Hunter]

[edit on 2-5-2005 by Rock Hunter]



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Nygdan, Rock Hunter

I dont want to put you off, but I need you to hold that thought.

Nygdan, I didnt know they abandoned the asteroid idea. I disagree that uniformitarianism is the cure all. I want to go down that road, but not until we tie up the last loose end on the rock dates. I will post on that tonight or tomorrow.
When we do go down the geology road.. I would like to take us to the grand canyon, and I would like to do it in another thread to keep this one about the radiometric dating - (and carbon dating if needed)



Also, lets face it, geologists and associated scientists don't have any interest in proping up some falshood that the world is very old. No one particularly cares, and if there was evidence out there that could, say, demonstrate that the world is in fact 6,000 years old, or anything radical like that, there'd be a rush to publish it, not a cover up. That sort of thing would instantly make someone's career.

About this
Back when NBC ran a show that presented a different view then the darwinian doctrine, there was a backlash that even surprised me. People who disagreed with what was presented were outraged that someone would dare put forward a different view. I can do dig it up...its several years old...but you prolly know what Im talking about.

Test this on your own

Rock Hunter, pretend for a week to be a believer at school. Insist that the tests are flawed and that the geological evidence is from the flood.
Make sure that everyone knows your view. Keep a straight face.
Watch the way people treat your work after that.

[edit on 2-5-2005 by jake1997]



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Jake

Theres something very difficult in what you are asking. I am a grad student in structural engineering and what you are saying would be equivalent to me walking into my advanced steel class and telling everyone in there that strain hardening doesnt exist because we cannot see the grains ripping apart with our bare eyes. But after ive seen and tested dozens of samples of I-beams and know through intense mathematical models that it indeed it does strain harden and that is what provides steel with such overstrength, there would be no point in bringing it up, cuz people would be like, "your an idiot" The classes ive taken in materials engineering and cross sectional analysis tells the whole story and there is no agenda involved.

If I neglected the effects of strain hardening, or if rock hunter neglected the models of geologic time and the like, then our work would be flawed. My designs would all assume brittle collapse and all his designs and experiments would yeild false results.

Your point of denying ignorance doesnt really have any say here because I cannot seem to discover any alternative to the dating techniques. Youve got to realize that millions of engineers and scientists have reviewd this thoery and as far as radiometric dating is concerned, it passes perfectly.

Yes, its true, many disagree about the exact 4.55 billion yr mark, but they dont disagree by much, only a few million yrs. Again, look at it like this, the evolutionists have provided billions of pages of data over the last few centuries, what data has creationists provided other than faith based jarbel.

You know, im also denying ignorance, thats why I stay away from a factless bible.

I am still waiting for you to provide some sort of evidence or story or anything to prove to us that the world is only 6000 yrs old. Please, anything, what can you provide that tells us everything happened at such a fast rate and now, everything moves at such an enormously slow geologic rate.

Train



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Im going over it time and again and this section keeps hanging with me.

If I understand this correctly

The data results always fit into the graph, along a straight line. This means that the input data is most likely correct because if it was random, then there would be no line.

The line proves the correctness of the data?



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   



Rock Hunter, pretend for a week to be a believer at school. Insist that the tests are flawed and that the geological evidence is from the flood.
Make sure that everyone knows your view. Keep a straight face.
Watch the way people treat your work after that.

[edit on 2-5-2005 by jake1997]


Do you mean that your at school and this is what happened to you??

As Firstly I'm not at School, I'm doing my doctorate!!

You havn't read anything I have put on the previous post, the earth cannot be 6000 years old!! Read the last post!!

You



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by lucas_900
One scientist saying "yar, umm the earth is billions of years old. I know this because i tested some rocks
" isn't going to convince the rest. Plenty of independent studies would have been carried out to help provide evidence for the theory, each with different groups of scientists. Science isnt like a rumor - you cant just start it and let it grow and people will believe it, the "rumor" will be check, tested and then check and tested again by someone else and so on.


This is exactly what happens, if a radical technique comes out in the earth sciences, which radiometric dating and other dating techniques were, the first thing that usually happens is that the method is attacked by scientists, rather then being accepted.

The theory of plate tectonics, sea floor spreading and continental drift is a prime example. Initially when fred vine and harry hess proposed it back in the sixtys, they were attacked viciously by the geological community, now after years of researched by other scientists they are revered!.

The point is the scientists don't believe what they read, they read it and then in most cases try and prove it wrong, and then, only then, if they can't they may begin to believe it.

[edit on 3-5-2005 by Rock Hunter]



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rock Hunter





Rock Hunter, pretend for a week to be a believer at school. Insist that the tests are flawed and that the geological evidence is from the flood.
Make sure that everyone knows your view. Keep a straight face.
Watch the way people treat your work after that.

[edit on 2-5-2005 by jake1997]


Do you mean that your at school and this is what happened to you??

As Firstly I'm not at School, I'm doing my doctorate!!

You havn't read anything I have put on the previous post, the earth cannot be 6000 years old!! Read the last post!!

You


Hey... yo....rock.....
Put your panties back on!!!




During my time as an undergrad.........


It was a misunderstanding based on that.




You havn't read anything I have put on the previous post, the earth cannot be 6000 years old!! Read the last post!!


Lets take a look at your last post ok. Lets see how much incentive you give to read your post compared to Nygdan who posted information with explanation.



do, I'm doing a Phd in Geology, and therefore virtually everything I do goes against your thinking. Dating methods in geology have stood up to great scrutiny by the geological community

I have a PhD so you are wrong about everything
Dating methods have stood up to hard testing by the people who need long dates.

Rock, your not going to get very far talking like that.




Although I know it insults you faith, but from working in this field everyday and studying the processes involved in shaping the surface of the planet I really cannot believe that it came about after 6000 years.


You dont know me at all. My faith is unscathed. It insults my intelligence.
In the grand canyon thread we will talk about the forces that shaped the earth.

Your wanting to talk about rock formations and such but I dont want to do that here because this thread will be long enough.
Look at the grand canyon thread. We will use that for rocks too. We couldnt talk about the grand canyon WITHOUT mentioning the geologic formations.

The whole point is... if you want to be respected, and have a fruitful conversation, then walk the walk.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   
How many times do we have to go over this. As geologists we do not set out to "make long dates" as you summise. If evidence came to the contary that the earth was 6000 years old, then I would publish it straight away. This would make my career!!!

In the entire scheme of things, you have to talk about geological formation and geological processes. As this is the first principle of what dating principles were based upon, before any analytical dating had been devloped. So don't try and avoid the issue as you know its a big sticking point with your arguement

If you want me to go over all the geochronoly methods used then I will do so. You do not have enough knowledge, as many other people have already pointed out to argue your point succesfully.I do not like putting my foot down but this has all gone far enough.

Lets go back to your original post



When the ratio of metals in rocks is taken, scientists assume that the start of the rock...its "creation" had zero daughter element. They take the current ratio, and the current rate of decay, and announce that the rock is X amount of years old.
This is not scientific at all. This is 7th grade lab work.


Firstly this is a simplification of the methods of geochronolgy. Yes it is correct that an assumption is made about the intitial amount of daughter element, but this is based on known chemical properties of the minerals used. One of the early type of dating that was used was K-Ar dating. This method is used on minerals such as feldspar, mucovite and biotite were minerals contain K.
The starting daughter amount of Ar is assumed to be 0. This is perfectly acceptable as from lab tests were minerals have been grown it has been found that Ar does not usually incoporate itself into minerals. Hence therefore the presence of Ar in minerals millions of years old must be from the result of Decay of K, and not from some presence of Ar. As we know the decay constant of K, we can work out the age.

This is scientific

This early method is not widely used nowadays as the problem is that the minerals inolved tend to loose Ar as time progresses, giving younger ages. But it is a good example of the process A more common method used is Rubidium-Strontium dating. As the loss of Sr is a lot less.






[edit on 4-5-2005 by Rock Hunter]

[edit on 4-5-2005 by Rock Hunter]



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   


How many times do we have to go over this. As geologists we do not set out to "make long dates" as you summise. If evidence came to the contary that the earth was 6000 years old, then I would publish it straight away. This would make my career!!!


The only way you will convince me of this is

Double blind test.
The same standard as the medical community. Put the dating methods up against a double blind test and then Im with you 1000 %.

BUT

Not in some closed lab attended only by evolutionists. Video tape the whole procedure or even have 60 minutes there.

Its not much to ask.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997

Double blind test.
The same standard as the medical community. Put the dating methods up against a double blind test and then Im with you 1000 %.



What are you talking about??? I have no idea whatsoever about what you are going on about , why don't you just realise that on this particular matter that you are wrong.

This is like banging my head against a brick wall.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
First off, this is not "First Grade" math. It involves natural logs and differential equations, quantum mechanic principals, physics, etc.

From "Introduction to Geophysics" Garland, 1979. "The fact that a number of naturally occurring elements in the earth are radioactive has important consequences in geophysics, in at least three ways. First, the heat produced by radioactive disintegrations probably represents the most important factor in the establishment of thermal conditions within the earth. Secondly, the rate of radioactive decay of certain elements provides the only physical means of establishing a time scale for events in the past history of the earth. Finally, the varying distribution of the products of radioactive disintegration provides a means of tracing the history of minerals."

The basics: "an element X has chemical properties determined by the number Z of its electrons, which is equal to the number of protons in the nucleus, and is known as the atomic number of the element. The nuclei of all elements heavier than hydrogen also contain neutrons, and we denote the total number of protons and neutrons by A, the mass number of the element. Most elements can exist with different values of A, and the corresponding atoms are known as 'isotopes' of the substance.

Radioactivity is the spontaneous emission of particles or electromagnetic radiation by the atoms of certain elements. All of the isotopes of elements with Z > 83 are radioactive, as are some isotopes of lighter elements. The largest particle emitted by the nuclei of radioactive elements is one of mass number 4 and positive charge 2; it is in fact a helium nucleus, but is designated an alpha particle. The release of an alpha particle from a nucleus leaves the original atom with Z decreased by 2 and A by 4. A new chemical element therefore results, and its nucleus may initially be in an excited state. The emission of electromagnetic radiation, that is, gamma rays, brings it to the ground state. The alpha particle which is emitted, although it carries appreciable kinectic energy, is large in comparison with other particles, and is normally brought to rest within less than a millimeter of rock. When it captures two electrons it becomes a neutral atom of helium.

The nuclei of other radioactive elements emit electrons, known as beta particles. These can be shown to be formed immediately before they are emitted - since the nucleus cannot contain free electrons - and their emission results in the conversion of one neutron to a proton. The atomic number of the resulting atom is therefore greater by one than that of the parent, while the mass number remains the same. Beta emission is accompanied by the emission of a neutrino, a particle with vanishingly small rest mass and no charge. Neutrinos carry angular momentum and energy; they have the distinctive property of passing through a mass of terrestrial dimensions without yielding this energy to the surrounding matter. The beta particle travels farther through matter than an alpha particle, but is normally brought to rest within a few millimeters of rock.

Some nuclei have the ability to capture one of their own electrons from the innermost or k shell. This phenomenon, which is somewhat the reverse of beta particle emission, results in a new element with Z decreased by one and the mass number A unchanged. The process is usually accompanied by the emission of a photon or X-radiation (X-rays).

According to the principals of quantum mechanics, both alpha particle and beta particle emissions are determined by a probability which is characteristic of a given radioactive nucleus. The probability is unaffected by physical conditions, and it is independent of the time since the nucleus was created. For an assemblage of atoms of some radioactive substance, the probability that a disintegration will take place in a certain time interval is therefore proportional to the number of atoms present.

If we let n be this number at time t, we have

dn/dt = - theta * n (I can't put greek letters here)

of which the solution is

n = "no" times "e" to the power of -theta times t

where no = the number present at t = 0.

The constant theta, which is characteristic of a given decay scheme, is known as the decay constant, and, for long-lived atoms, is usually quoted in years to the power of -1. Another quantity, less convenient for calculations but often quoted, is the half-life, or the time required for one-half of the initial number of atoms to disintegrate. The half-life T is given by

no/2 = no times e to the power of - theta times T or

T = the natural log of 2 divided by theta

for a simple decay scheme, in which the end or daughter product is stable, the number of atoms of the daughter product formed in time t is equal to the number of parent atoms that have disintegrated, that is, (no - n). If theta is known, measurement of the abundance of a parent and daughter permits the determination of t. This is the basis for determinations of the ages of mineral samples."

There is no parent daughter ratio when a chemical element forms, it is 100% parent material when it forms. The daughter is only created as the parent decays.



new topics




 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join