Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Evidence for an earth much older than 6,000 years
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Wiccan_Child" data-source="post: 60677517" data-attributes="member: 104966"><p>Yes, we do. Besides knowing what such contamination looks like (cracking or weathering of the rock, etc), we take multiple samples and use multiple, independant dating techniques, giving us very good certainty indeed that any given rock hasn't (or has) been contaminated. Contamination would affect the samples asymmetrically, and contaminated samples show different errors for different individual samples and techniques - which actually yields important information about how contamination occurs.</p><p></p><p>If it hasn't been contaminated, the various dating techniques across all the various samples will all match up. Since this is what we observe, this provides very good evidence that the age is accurate.</p><p></p><p>In essence, the techniques we use to date things have a built-in 'check', and the possibility of contamination, and the subsequent <em>absence</em> of its tell-tale signs, <em>bolsters</em> radiometric dating.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, we can. Besides knowing how the rock formed, uranium-lead dating works because there are <em>two</em> chains - Uranium-238 to Lead-206, and Uranium-235 to Lead-207 - which can be used to independently date the same samples. We don't need to know how much lead was initially in the sample, only the <em>ratio</em> of the two isotopes of lead.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, they are. Samarium 146 is synthetic, in that no naturally occurring deposits exist on Earth today - it's all decayed into Neodymium 142. Initial estimates on its half-life allowed us to estimate the age of certain rocks. Later, when we synthesised Samarium 146, we got a better idea of its half-life, thereby getting a better idea of the age of these rocks - and that age has gone from 4.4000 billion to 4.3993 billion. Hardly an Earth-shattering change.</p><p></p><p>The half-life of [sup]146[/sup]Sm hasn't changed.</p><p></p><p></p><p>No, we don't. Initial estimates were 137.88, and new estimates are 137.81. This is not a remarkable difference.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, we can. Stability has precise meanings in science, none of which you're using right. Isotopes are 'stable' if they don't decay, and 'unstable' if they do. All decay rates are constant. You've cited no evidence that decay rates change.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Wiccan_Child, post: 60677517, member: 104966"] Yes, we do. Besides knowing what such contamination looks like (cracking or weathering of the rock, etc), we take multiple samples and use multiple, independant dating techniques, giving us very good certainty indeed that any given rock hasn't (or has) been contaminated. Contamination would affect the samples asymmetrically, and contaminated samples show different errors for different individual samples and techniques - which actually yields important information about how contamination occurs. If it hasn't been contaminated, the various dating techniques across all the various samples will all match up. Since this is what we observe, this provides very good evidence that the age is accurate. In essence, the techniques we use to date things have a built-in 'check', and the possibility of contamination, and the subsequent [I]absence[/I] of its tell-tale signs, [I]bolsters[/I] radiometric dating. Yes, we can. Besides knowing how the rock formed, uranium-lead dating works because there are [I]two[/I] chains - Uranium-238 to Lead-206, and Uranium-235 to Lead-207 - which can be used to independently date the same samples. We don't need to know how much lead was initially in the sample, only the [I]ratio[/I] of the two isotopes of lead. Yes, they are. Samarium 146 is synthetic, in that no naturally occurring deposits exist on Earth today - it's all decayed into Neodymium 142. Initial estimates on its half-life allowed us to estimate the age of certain rocks. Later, when we synthesised Samarium 146, we got a better idea of its half-life, thereby getting a better idea of the age of these rocks - and that age has gone from 4.4000 billion to 4.3993 billion. Hardly an Earth-shattering change. The half-life of [sup]146[/sup]Sm hasn't changed. No, we don't. Initial estimates were 137.88, and new estimates are 137.81. This is not a remarkable difference. Yes, we can. Stability has precise meanings in science, none of which you're using right. Isotopes are 'stable' if they don't decay, and 'unstable' if they do. All decay rates are constant. You've cited no evidence that decay rates change. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Evidence for an earth much older than 6,000 years
Top
Bottom