Geometry.Net - Science: Radiometric Dating

Claim 1 - Radiometric Dating Is Inaccurate
Claim 1 radiometric dating is Inaccurate. radiometric dating is oneof the processes by which the age of the Earth has been determined.
http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~cmf/evolution/claim1.html

Extractions: Radiometric dating is one of the processes by which the age of the Earth has been determined. One example of which you might have heard is Carbon-14 dating, which is used for dating of biological samples such as bones. The principle for this technique is rather simple. Carbon-14 is produced at a reasonably constant rate in the upper atmosphere. Living animals have a known level of Carbon-14 in their bodies as they breathe it in all the time from the air. They also have other, stable varieties ("isotopes") of carbon, such as Carbon-12, which is far more common. In a living creature, the ratio of abundance of these two substances simply reflects that in the atmosphere, and is therefore well-known. If this animal then dies and therefore is not able to gather more Carbon-14 then the ratio of the two elements will start to change as the Carbon-14 decays into a more stable form, such as Carbon-12 or Carbon-13. This is known to happen with a half-life of about 5,700 years, which means that after 5,700 years, the amount of Carbon-14 in a sample should have decayed by a factor of 2. If we know the original proportions of Carbon-14 and Carbon-12, and we can measure their ratio at a later date then we can work out how much of the Carbon-14 has decayed, and hence we can guess the age of the sample. Carbon-14 dating is typically used to date archaeological remains, especially from iron- and bronze-age sites of a few thousand years in age. Results are generally quoted to within 5 or 10 percent, and the ages thus obtained are usually in good agreement with the expected ages of the samples. Carbon-14 dating cannot be used to date remains older than about 50,000 to 60,000 years because the level of Carbon-14 in the sample will then be far too low for an accurate determination.
Young-Earth Creationism
The average YEC thinks that radiometric dating is the only form of dating which supportsan ancient Earth (thus revealing ignorance of both science and history
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/YoungEarth/Hartman-2.shtml

Extractions: Introduction Conspiracy of Silence Radiometric Dating Unsolved Mysteries ... Conclusion The average YEC thinks that radiometric dating is the only form of dating which supports an ancient Earth (thus revealing ignorance of both science and history, since old Earth theories can be traced back more than two thousand years , and age estimates had already hit tens of millions of years in the late 18th century, many decades before Darwin published "The Origin of Species"). But since they labour under this scientifically and historically ignorant assumption, they think they can topple the entire weight of old Earth evidence if they can punch a hole in radiometric dating. Naturally, no effort is spared in this endeavour. They "know" that potassium, Carbon-14, or whatever element they're testing decays at a certain invariable rate except they don't know that at all. Decay rates can change, and they don't know if the rate changed or not. This is one of the oldest YEC attacks on radiometric dating: he thinks radioactive "decay rates can change", and that this therefore invalidates the concept of radiometric dating.
Matson V Hovind - Radiometric Dating
privacy MATSON v HOVIND by DAVE MATSON radiometric dating. These changesare irrelevant to radiometric dating methods. (Dalrymple, 1984, p.88).
http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/2radiodat.html

Extractions: Dr. Hovind (R1): The atmospheric C-14 is presently only 1/3 of the way to an equilibrium value which will be reached in 30,000 years. This nullifies the carbon-14 method as well as demonstrating that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. R1. The above was offered as a simple fact of research. Knowing how faulty creationist "facts" can be, let's do a little research of our own. This argument was popularized by Henry Morris (1974, p.164) who drew on some calculations Melvin Cook did in 1968 to come up with the 10,000-year figure limiting the age of the earth. Another creationist, Robert L. Whitelaw, also writing in 1968, used a greater ratio of carbon-14 production to decay to conclude that only 5000 years passed since carbon-14 started forming in the atmosphere. The argument may be compared to filling a barrel which has numerous small holes in its sides. We stick the garden hose in and turn it on full blast. The water coming out of the hose is analogous to the continuous production of carbon-14 atoms in the upper atmosphere. The barrel represents the earth's atmosphere where the carbon-14 accumulates. The water leaking out the sides represents the decay of carbon-14. Now, the fuller that barrel gets the more water is going to leak out the thoroughly perforated sides, just as more carbon-14 will decay if you have more of it around. Finally, when the water reaches a certain level in the barrel, the amount of water going into the barrel is equal to the amount leaking out the perforated sides. We say that the input and output of water is in equilibrium. The water level just sits there.
Greene's Creationism Truth Filter - "Radiometric Dating (Part 1)"
Dr. Kevin R. Henke, geologist, responds to the young earth creationistmisrepresentations of David Plaisted regarding radiometric dating.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/henke/krh-radiometric1.html

Extractions: Abstract David Plaisted, a young earth creationist, has written a "critique" of radiometric dating entitled " The Radiometric Dating Game ." He claims that his report discusses a number of issues that question the validity of radiometric dating. He further claims that the issues in his report have not been adequately discussed in other creationist documents. A review of his report, however, shows that little, if any, of his material is original. He has simply recycled erroneous claims from Harold S. Slusher (1981) and other creationist sources. In some cases, statements from Plaisted and his sources are identical, word for word, to statements in Slusher (1981), but Slusher (1981) is not properly quoted or referenced. Overall, the worn-out claims in Plaisted's report were refuted long ago by Dr. G. Brent Dalrymple (1984), Dr. Stephen G. Brush (1983), Dr. Davis A. Young (1982), and others. My report briefly discusses and addresses some of the worn-out claims in Plaisted's report, but for details consult my references.
RADIOMETRIC DATING OF THREE SISTERS VOLCANIC FIELD
radiometric dating OF THREE SISTERS VOLCANIC FIELD. CALVERT, Andrewand HILDRETH, Wes, US Geol Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, MS910
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2002CD/finalprogram/abstract_33785.htm

Extractions: RADIOMETRIC DATING OF THREE SISTERS VOLCANIC FIELD CALVERT, Andrew and HILDRETH, Wes, US Geol Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, MS-910, Menlo Park, CA 94025, acalvert@usgs.gov In concert with detailed remapping at 1:24,000 of the Three Sisters and their peripheral family of lesser volcanoes, we have initiated a comprehensive effort to calibrate the eruptive history of the cluster with Ar/ Ar ages. Step heating experiments on groundmass concentrates from lavas yield high precision (all errors ±1sigma) plateau ages and a single plagioclase separate yields a reasonable, but less precise result. Our first experiments emphasize silicic lavas of Middle and South Sister and eruptive units mapped within the area of recent deformation on the west side of South Sister. In addition to the late Holocene rhyolites of Rock Mesa and the Devils Hill chain well characterized by W.E. Scott, there are at least 20 glacially modified rhyolitic and dacitic lava flows that have vented on or adjacent to the Middle and South Sister edifices, all or most of them in the late Pleistocene. Several rhyolite lavas issue from at least as high as 8600 ft on the south slope of andesite-capped 10,358-ft South Sister, from vents within 1.2 km of its crater rim. The agglutinated summit andesite (54-56% SiO , 1.0% K
Earthscope | For Educators | Radiometric Dating
EarthScope For Educators radiometric dating. radiometric dating. Objective. Buthow do scientists know these ages? The answer is radiometric dating.
http://dax.geo.arizona.edu/earthscope/radiodate.html

Extractions: EarthScope PDF Version Radiometric Dating Objective The objective is to understand the basic process of radioactive decay and how it is used for dating. Background In The Origin of Earth reading, the age of the earth is given as 4.556 billion years old and the moon as 4.51 billion years old. But how do scientists know these ages? The answer is radiometric dating. Certain elements have isotopes that radioactively decay over time. An isotope is an element that has the same number of protons and electrons but a different number of neutrons. For example, carbon has several isotopes. C, a stable non-radioactive isotope, has 6 protons, 6 electrons, and 6 neutrons. C, a radioactive isotope, has 6 protons, 6 electrons, and 8 neutrons. Elements with radioactive isotopes include uranium, potassium, argon, and carbon. These elements decay by splitting into smaller atoms and releasing energy as a result. The larger radioactive atoms are called parent isotopes and the resulting smaller atoms are called daughter isotopes. Each radioactive isotope decays at a constant rate. This rate varies depending on the isotope involved. Because these isotopes decay at a constant rate, scientists can predict how many atoms will be left after a certain time. The time it takes for half of the original parent atoms to split into the daughter products is called the half-life. For example, the half-life of
Radiometric Dating
Absolute Time. radiometric dating the source of the dates on the GeologicTime Scale. radiometric dating Actually a simple technique.
http://www.geo.wvu.edu/~kammer/g231/RadDatingNotes.htm
Radiometric Dating
http://www.humboldt.edu/~gdg1/chronpage.html
EvC Forum: Radiometric Dating
radiometric dating. Key Neutral Information, Creationist Perspective,Evolutionist Perspective. Analysis Labs. Waikato Radiocarbon Dating
http://www.evcforum.net/WebPages/RadiometricDating.html

Extractions: Site Navigation Home Reference Library Religion in the News Science in the News ... Contact Us Discussion List All Topics List All Forums Member List Register ... Lost Your Password? The Forums The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy Big Bang and Cosmology Dates and Dating Education and Creation/Evolution ... Announcements Key: Neutral Information Creationist Perspective Evolutionist Perspective Analysis Labs
Is Radiometric Dating Really That Accurate? - EvC Forum
Dates and Dating Is radiometric dating Really that Accurate? In the case of radiometricdating, the rates of radioactive decay are assumed to remain constant.
http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000008.html

Extractions: that different dating techniques give totally random dates when dating the same rock Not correct, unless the sample is contaminated. Different techniques will NOT give identical dates however. Each method has it margins of error and I have seen this useds to create the illusion that the methods don't line up. For example, I've seen it claimed that two dates are millions of years off and so the radiometric dating methods are unreliable. What isn't explained is that material being dated is 300 million years old, so a few million years is only a percent or two of the date well within the method's margin of error. Also remember that if possible many different methods are used so that some of these errors can be averaged out.
Radiometric Dating
radiometric dating a type of chronometric dating that involves methods based uponthe decay of radioactive materials; examples are radiocarbon and potassium
http://www.webref.org/anthropology/r/radiometric_dating.htm
Introduction To Radiometric Dating Techniques
Other Dating Methods. Not my area of expertise but I am extremely interestedin it. Mike Brown. Under Construction Other Dating Methods.
http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/intro-dating.htm
Radiometric Dating
Volume 3 Winter Edition 2003. radiometric dating. radiometric dating is themethod used to give an old age for the Universe and the rock layers.
http://www.creationequation.com/Archives/Radiometric_Dating.htm
Paleosols
radiometric dating, Paleosols and the Geologic Column Three strikes against YoungEarth Creationism by Joe Meert Original Verison Fall 1999, Updated Nov 20
http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/paleosol.htm
Capturing The Night: Astrophotography By Andy Weeks
PotassiumArgon radiometric dating. Other radiometric dating Techniques. There areover 40 radiometric dating in use today. Can all these techniques be wrong?
http://www.nightskypix.com/radiometric.htm

Extractions: By Andy Weeks Is life younger than 7,000 years as is the claim of Young-Earth Creationists ? Others like some Jehovahs Witnesses and Bible Students believe that the creative days of Genesis are each 7,000-years in length . Do these conclusions agree with scientific data of our modern day? We will examine the arguments for both the 24-hour creative days as well as 7,000-year creative days. When these have been understood we will cross examine them in the light of scientific evidence and see how long life on our Earth has been here. If the evidence points to less than 23,000 years as Bible Students believe, then we can conclude that the 7,000-year creative day is correct. If the evidence points to less than 7,000-years then we can conclude that the 24-hour creative day is correct and perhaps embrace creationist claims. We will seek to prove that advanced life ahs indeed been around not only for many thousands of years and point even to millions of years. One way to ascertain out how long life has been on our Earth is through radiometric dating.
Radiometric Dating Of Sedimentary Rocks
How do you radiometrically date sedimentary rocks? Except for radiocarbon,most radiometric dating methods work on igneous or metamorphic rocks.
http://seis.natsci.csulb.edu/rbehl/integration.htm

Extractions: Except for radiocarbon, most radiometric dating methods work on igneous or metamorphic rocks. To date sedimentary rocks, we need to combine the radiometric dating with the principles of superposition or cross-cutting relationships as shown above. For Method #1, we date volcanic flows that are interbedded between sedimentary layers to get the age of the rocks. For Method #2, we date a cross-cutting igneous intrusion in order to find the minimum age of the sedimentary rocks. For method #3, we date an igneous intrusion which is bracketed by sedimentary beds that per-existed the intrusion and which clearly came after it. Click your Mouse on "Back to the Beach!" below if you want to return to the California State University at Long Beach (CSULB) home page Back to the Beach! Or click here to return to the Department of Geological Sciences home page
Early Primate Evolution: Isotopes Commonly Used For Radiometric Dating
Isotopes Commonly used for radiometric dating Isotopes, Halflife (years),Effective Dating Range (years). Dating Sample, Key Fission Product.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/table_of_isotopes.htm

Extractions: (years) Dating Sample Key Fission Product Lutetium-176 Hafnium-176 37 billion early Earth Uranium-238 Lead-206 4.51 billion 10 million to origin of Earth Uranium-235 Lead-207 0.704 billion 10 million to origin of Earth Rubidium-87 Strontium-87 48.8 billion 10 million to origin of Earth Potassium-40 Argon-40 1.25 billion 100,000 to origin of Earth Carbon-14 Nitrogen-14 Return to Menu This page was last updated on Friday, August 30, 2002
Earlham College - Geology 211 - Radiometric Dating
radiometric dating Techniques. Since the middle of the twentieth century,radiometric dating techniques have helped geologists and
http://www.earlham.edu/~smithal/radiometric.htm

Extractions: Physical Geology 2002 On this Site Radiometric Dating Techniques Since the middle of the twentieth century, radiometric dating techniques have helped geologists and archaeologists give certain samples a specific and concrete age. Before this and other 'absolute' dating methods, scientists could only determine the relative or chronological ages of samples. Thanks to the consistency of natural radioactive decay, science has found a measuring tool for seemingly unmeasurable amounts of time. Author: Alex Smith
Earlham College - Geology 211 - Radiometric Dating
Physical Geology 2002, On this Site Origins of radiometric dating. Types ofradiometric dating. Problems and Criticisms. Common Types of radiometric dating.
http://www.earlham.edu/~smithal/radiometric-types.htm

Extractions: Physical Geology 2002 On this Site Common Types of Radiometric Dating Carbon 14 Dating As shown in the diagram above, the radioactive isotope carbon-14 originates in the Earth's atmosphere, is distributed among the living organisms on the surface, and ceases to replenish itself within an organism after that organism is dead. This means that lifeless organic matter is effectively a closed system, since no carbon-14 enters the organism after death, an occurrence that would affect accurate measurements. In radiometric dating, the decaying matter is called the parent isotope and the stable outcome of the decay is called the daughter product. Since the half-life of carbon-14 is 5730 years, scientists can measure the age of a sample by determining how many times its original carbon-14 amount has been cut in half since the death of the organism. For example, an object with a quarter of its original amount (2x1/2) should be roughly 11,460 years old. In all radiometric procedures there is a specific age range for when a technique can be used. If there is too much daughter product(in this case nitrogen-14), age is hard to determine since the half-life does not make up a significant percentage of the material's age. The range of practical use for carbon-14 dating is roughly a few hundred years to fifty thousand years.
POINTS OF ORIGINS: Radiometric Dating
21 June 2001 POINTS OF ORIGINS radiometric dating. by Dr. Glenn Jackson. Thecase for radiometric dating is certainly not watertight.
http://www.etcsa.org/GJackson/PtsOfOrigin20010621.html

Extractions: I read your article about "Creationists have reason to doubt 'billions of years' story" and I cheered. At school, we just finished a gen. ed. course about the natural history of the southern Appalachians. It was a great class. Of course, there was the mandatory speech about the rock formation and how long it took and what evidence there was to support that it was 56.3 billions years, or whatever they said. And, as we all know, they totally explain away any possibility of a relatively young earth. So, I was happy to read your article and hear that you are taking a stand on the truth. How can I argue against the "carbon dating" system that all my teachers believe in? I would love it if you could give me some tips on how to successfully argue the evidence against the "billions of years" story. Up til now, I knew very little about what scientific evidence there was supporting creationists. Thanks for your time and I hope you have a great summer! Corey from Sevier County

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

61-80 of 94 Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next 20