- Dec 20, 2003
- 13,614
- 2,671
- Country
- Germany
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Well, what should be noted, is that we have a good number of radioactive dating methods. Many radioactive decay processes occur within Minerals. It is the minerals that have crystalline structures that are altered by the decay of their constituants.
Radioactivity in Minerals
PSRD: Aluminum-26 Clock
Margarite - Wikipedia
Feldspar - Wikipedia
For example, Aluminum 26 to magnesium 26. Some minerals contain solid elements in their crystal lattices, which are constructed with an order that suits the parent material, kind of like building blocks that stack on one another, or kinects. Then after decay, you are left with abnormal, or alien like inclusions of elements that do not match or fit in the material surrounding them. Imagine having a stack of blocks made of parent material, and inside the lattice of blocks there is a random ball of daughter material that doesnt properly stack or fit anymore because it has decayed and altered its shape.
You might ask, well what does this have to do with carbon dating?
Well a few things.
First off, we're able to establish areas and volumes which have decayed. And we are able to confirm the historic presence of parent isotopes. Which provide minimum ages of objects.
Second, we are able to establish that the daughter isotope is not a product of cross contamination, as it is concealed within the lattice of its parent element.
Third, radioactive dating methods, are typically used in conjunction with one another, to correlate and confirm eachothers finds. Theyre part of a universal science. So discussing other methods of decay is of interest. You cant knock one down without knocking them all down, so when you draw into question radioactive decay as a whole, you ought to approach these methods as a collection.
By establishing one method, we are giving credence to others, in theory.
All of this assumes a constant rate of decay for each type of test. Also these would not apply in the case of trees as in the OP in which Carbon 14 dating would be the only test available unless trees are suddenly made of aluminium or uranium. In these cases where no cross checking is available it remains a valid criticism to suggest that no one knows what the balance between parent and daughter isotopes was in the original sample. Also where multiple tests are available it could simply mean that each test is broadly in synch with an event that prematurely aged the rocks or whatever is being surveyed, that each element being tested were similarly impacted by that event. That they were all impacted a similar amount by whatever cosmic or supernatural event that was would make sense from a creationist point of view. Since we have no way of knowing if decay rates are constant in all conditions or if no supernatural or cosmic event that would have prematurely aged the rocks occurred this still does not provide any certainty about actual ages.
Also even if multiple tests cohere how do you know what the balance was between parent and daughter elements in each of the test applied at the point of origin. If you do not know this balance then integrity between the different results does not make a massive difference in practice. You still would not know if it gave you anything like a helpful age.
Upvote
0