Assumptions used in radiometric dating dating in hong kong

Rated 4.36/5 based on 818 customer reviews

For this purpose, isochron dating was developed, a process "that solves both of these problems (accurate date, assumptions) at once" (Stasson 1992). 2) The process must occur at a relatively uniform rate.

It has been established through extensive experimentation that radioactive decay occurs at a constant rate. In this case, the initial condition is the amount of daughter isotope in the rock when it was formed.

Let us critically examine each of these claims and see if they hold up against the science.

While doing so, we will have to learn about how radiometric dating works. There exists different versions, or isotopes of many elements.

Most young earth creationists reject all of these points.

As a scientific skeptics, we ask ourselves: is this really the case?

Radioactive decay has become one of the most useful methods for determining the age of formation of rocks.

However, in the very principal of radiometric dating there are several vital assumptions that have to be made in order for the age to be considered valid.

This is also actually kind of trivial and easily determined in the lab. Let’s see what the Missing Universe Museum thinks are the assumptions of radioactive dating methods. I guess we have to start at the top and work our way down… During an organisms life, it takes in CO have the common 6 protons and 6 neutrons. However, due to some interesting nuclear chemistry (which I’ll go into if requested), there’s another version of carbon (called an isotope) that has 6 protons and 8 neutrons. Note that if the number of protons change, then the atom is no longer carbon. Amazingly (and unlike what is claimed by the creationists), scientists have known about a variety of methods that create carbon-14 and how those methods have varied over time. Well, we take a carbon sample from a material of a known age and date that. Basically, the calibration curves are off by no more than 16 years over the historical range (6,000 years or so) and no more than 163 years over the last 20,000 years.

Carbon-14 cannot be used to date biological artifacts of organisms that did not get their carbon dioxide from the air.

This rules out carbon dating for most aquatic organisms, because they often obtain at least some of their carbon from dissolved carbonate rock.

Indeed, by doing almost 20 seconds of research on google (type in “variations in C14”, click on Google Scholar) the second link is this article from 1954: Carbon 13 in plants and the relationships between carbon 13 and carbon 14 variations in nature So, this issue has been known about for a long time. Then we compare the two and adjust the radiocarbon date to the known date. That’s less than 1% if you’re interested in that sort of thing. But this is already almost a thousand words and I’ve only done ONE! Long story short, scientists have always known that variations in C-14 concentration happen.

Do you honestly think that no one has done anything about it? By making thousands (if not millions) of these adjustments we get a very good idea of how old a piece of unknown material can be. The 2009 calibration set extends the ‘well calibrated range’ to 50,000 years using the varves in a Japanese lake. This is unlike the creationists which think it happened, but can’t be bothered to check.

Leave a Reply