Methods Of Dating Rock & Fossils

[hisgrace26]

Decay is a continuous process. If you have a large enough quantity of parent material (a gram or two is usually enough) and you observe it over a length of time, you can determine the decay rate.

I don't think they actually sit and observe the decaying process over the million and billion of years do they? Are there any mathematical equation involve? I would like to know.

 

[Elendur]

I don't think they actually sit and observe the decaying process over the million and billion of years do they? Are there any mathematical equation involve? I would like to know.

Exponential decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: Point 3, applications and examples will tell you more

 

[RickG]

I don't think they actually sit and observe the decaying process over the million and billion of years do they? Are there any mathematical equation involve? I would like to know.

Yes, decay rates are continuously observed and there are mathematical equations for calculating decay rates of radionuclides which agree with observed measurements. Furthermore, decay rates of radionuclides in supernovae millions of light years away have been measured and found to be the same as those measured today.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I don't think they actually sit and observe the decaying process over the million and billion of years do they? Are there any mathematical equation involve? I would like to know.

Yes, the decay equation (see Elendur's link). I thought that was pretty clear, but maybe I should have used "calculate" instead of "determine".

Think of it like measuring your heartbeat: You don't sit there for a minute and count all the beats, you count the number of beats in 6 seconds and multiply by 10. It's slightly different from the decay calculation because that's an exponential process, but the principle is the same.

Edit: since the Wiki article is a tad confusing, the important equation is this -

N(t)=Ne^(lambda*t)

Where N(t) is the amount of parent material at time t, N is the initial amount of parent material, lambda is the decay constant, and t is the time.

So if you have a known quantity of parent material, then measure that again after a period of time you'll have N, N(t), and t and can solve for lambda.

 

[AV1611VET]

Think of it like measuring your heartbeat: You don't sit there for a minute and count all the beats, you count the number of beats in 6 seconds and multiply by 10.

Good analogy --

But it has a serious flaw: it operates on uniformitarianism.

In those 54 remaining seconds, an arrhythmia could occur.

The Bible reports major arrhythmias in the earth's past.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Good analogy --

But it has a serious flaw: it operates on uniformitarianism.

In those 54 remaining seconds, an arrhythmia could occur.

The Bible reports major arrhythmias in the earth's past.

*Sigh*

We've been over this before. You can't prove that things changed, and I can't prove that they didn't. However, all of the evidence suggests that no changes have occurred, so that's what I'm going with.

 

[hisgrace26]

Thanks guys. I will have to dig this deeper and it probably will take me a few days to get it sink in my head. Is there any videos where I can watch and learn. I'm a visual person and I learn faster if I'm able to see how it's done. Again thanks for your time.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can't prove that things changed,

The Bible says things didn't remain the same.

Is that good enough?

 

[Elendur]

The Bible says things didn't remain the same.

Is that good enough?

The bible isn't proof, it's evidence and should we weighed as such.

 

[AV1611VET]

The bible isn't proof, it's evidence and should we weighed as such.

Depends on who's doing the weighing.

Daniel 5:27b Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

The Bible says things didn't remain the same.

Is that good enough?

If taken with a pound of salt, and maybe not even then.

 

[RickG]

The Bible says things didn't remain the same.

Is that good enough?

No, where does it say that?

 

[thaumaturgy]

The Bible says things didn't remain the same.

Is that good enough?

People tried doing geology by the Bible. That pretty much ended in the late 1700's when they realized it didn't work.

Now, are you saying that there have been "catastrophes" in earth's history? Well if one needs the Bible to understand that, then maybe they'd be better off actually paying attention to what's going on around them once in a while.

 

[Jazer]

People tried doing geology by the Bible. That pretty much ended in the late 1700's when they realized it didn't work.

Are your trying to equate the Bible with YEC theory? I do not know what your doing but there is no conflict between science and the Bible. In fact Science helps us to better understand the Bible. As our knowledge of geology increases so our knowledge of the Bible increases.

So whatever kind of a statement your trying to make, you are very, very wrong. Lyell, a devout Christian popularised James Hutton's concepts of uniformitarianism – the idea that the earth was shaped by slow-moving forces still in operation today. Lyell was a close and influential friend of Charles Darwin. (Wiki) In light of this it is clear that your statement could not be further from the truth. You sound like another atheist trying to manipulate and twist science to accomplish their purpose. No doubt you will be just as quick to abandon science when it no longer serves your objective.

 

[AV1611VET]

That pretty much ended in the late 1700's when they realized it didn't work.

Was it supposed to?

I tried setting my watch, using Chilton's auto manual, and guess what?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Are your trying to equate the Bible with YEC theory? I do not know what your doing but there is no conflict between science and the Bible. In fact Science helps us to better understand the Bible. As our knowledge of geology increases so our knowledge of the Bible increases.

I was just helping AV out with some history. As you know, originally geology was done with a biblical literal bent to it but since that didn't explain anything in any rational way, the tenants of an older earth and uniformitarianism took root.

I don't see a problem with the bible or science either, so long as one doesn't use the bible to do science.

A lot of geologist are people of faith. No problem.

So whatever kind of a statement your trying to make, you are very, very wrong.

That's an interesting point. You don't know if you understand my point, but you wish to tell me I'm very, very wrong about it?

Lyell, a devout Christian popularised James Hutton's concepts of uniformitarianism – the idea that the earth was shaped by slow-moving forces still in operation today.

As I said the bible seldom actually interferes with geology.

But you must admit that the early history of geology was one of the "Catastrophists" vs "Uniformitarianists". The deluge-based geology (Noachian Flood) held sway for a while.

This is not to say that anyone had much reason to think differently. Obviously when Hutton put 2 and 2 together.

This has little to do with religion qua religion. It only reads against a hyper literalist view.

Lyell was a close and influential friend of Charles Darwin. (Wiki) In light of this it is clear that your statement could not be further from the truth.

Huh?

You sound like another atheist trying to manipulate and twist science to accomplish their purpose. No doubt you will be just as quick to abandon science when it no longer serves your objective.

Oh jeezly pete! You are clearly not at all familiar with my postings. As I've stated numerous times there are many, many people of faith in the sciences.

The problem is when faith tries to do science based not on science but literal bible readings that the problem arises.

I am quite doubtful I would have much debate with you (unless you are a YEC and from what I've read of yours I didn't get that impression at all).

 

[Michael]

They are oscillations, not an actual change in decay rate. They are also very small and are not of any of the radionuclides used in radiometric dating.

Points noted.

 

[dad]

I don't think they actually sit and observe the decaying process over the million and billion of years do they? Are there any mathematical equation involve? I would like to know.

No. They have only been able to see it for a fairly short time.

 

[dad]

Yes, decay rates are continuously observed and there are mathematical equations for calculating decay rates of radionuclides which agree with observed measurements. Furthermore, decay rates of radionuclides in supernovae millions of light years away have been measured and found to be the same as those measured today.

Name on SN measurement that is so...? 1987a?

 

[dad]

Thanks guys. I will have to dig this deeper and it probably will take me a few days to get it sink in my head. Is there any videos where I can watch and learn. I'm a visual person and I learn faster if I'm able to see how it's done. Again thanks for your time.

It is ungodly speculation. Falsely called science really want to dine on that?