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
Wheaton Christian College teaches evolution
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="npetreley" data-source="post: 212513" data-attributes="member: 2651"><p>I believe it is possible that radioactive decay rates have changed, but I've yet to see any conclusive evidence regarding this, so I'll assume it hasn't changed. </p><p></p><p>Regardless, your understanding of radiometric dating is incomplete if you think that's the only assumption. </p><p></p><p>One does not measure the decay in order to date the material under test. One measures the current amount of isotopes in the material under test and then calculates a date based on <span style="color: blue">the assumption that the material had a known amount of parent and daughter isotopes when the material was formed, cooled, buried, etc.</span> Only then can you compare the current amounts with the assumed amounts and arrive at a suggested age. </p><p></p><p>Isochron dating improves the methodology but it doesn't get around all assumptions about the initial blend of parent-daughter-isotopes and minerals, etc. Plus, isochron advocates brush off the possibility that what you're testing is not a closed system -- only to resurrect the idea of open systems when they have to explain why you can find C14 in materials that are supposedly millions of years old.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="npetreley, post: 212513, member: 2651"] I believe it is possible that radioactive decay rates have changed, but I've yet to see any conclusive evidence regarding this, so I'll assume it hasn't changed. Regardless, your understanding of radiometric dating is incomplete if you think that's the only assumption. One does not measure the decay in order to date the material under test. One measures the current amount of isotopes in the material under test and then calculates a date based on [color=blue]the assumption that the material had a known amount of parent and daughter isotopes when the material was formed, cooled, buried, etc.[/color] Only then can you compare the current amounts with the assumed amounts and arrive at a suggested age. Isochron dating improves the methodology but it doesn't get around all assumptions about the initial blend of parent-daughter-isotopes and minerals, etc. Plus, isochron advocates brush off the possibility that what you're testing is not a closed system -- only to resurrect the idea of open systems when they have to explain why you can find C14 in materials that are supposedly millions of years old. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Wheaton Christian College teaches evolution
Top
Bottom