- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by frogstompI quote:
Read this one more time and maybe you'll surprise yourself.
edit : I forgot to post the address,
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
"This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another."
Circular reasoning at it's best.
When using the base assumption that the half-life of an isotope is a few billion years old.... Duh!
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by frogstompI quote: "There is no evidence of any of the half-lives changing over time. In fact, as discussed below, they have been observed to not change at all over hundreds of thousands of years.
Read this one more time and maybe you'll surprise yourself.
edit : I forgot to post the address,
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
What????
Hundred thousand years of observation?????
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
This is great stuff FS!!!!
Do you have any more of this?
Man, what a laugh!
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou really aren't very clever are you? (Nor, in fact, did you actually bother to READ the article, or you'd have seen the bit 'can we trust the data'😉 You take something of any given age, but older is better, then you date it using several different dating techniques (there are over 40 radiodating techniques). If the decay constants change over time then you'll get a whole load of different ages - none of them which make any sense (because the decay constants will all change at different rates - unless you are now stipulating that relativity is wrong now too). If all the figures come out the same, then the predicted decay constants could not have changed, and you have a stable, valid technique. Even if it's wrong, it'll be a few percent out, not the orders of magnitude that you require for your fairy stories to be bourne out.
I quote: [b]"There is no evidence of any of the half-lives changing over time. In fact, as discussed below, they have been observed to not change at all over hundreds of thousands of years.
What????
Hundred thousand years of observation?????
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
This is great stuff FS!!!!
Do you have any more of this?
Man, what a laugh![/b]
Originally posted by dj2beckerI see we are back to your "direct observation" arguement.
I quote: [b]"There is no evidence of any of the half-lives changing over time. In fact, as discussed below, they have been observed to not change at all over hundreds of thousands of years.
What????
Hundred thousand years of observation?????
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
This is great stuff FS!!!!
Do you have any more of this?
Man, what a laugh![/b]
The only way that the halflife of radio active elements can change is if the laws of physics change over time. This however would have such far reaching implications that every scientific discipline would soon be shown to be mostly wrong. We would however expect to find at least some evidence of these differing physic laws. For example stars would look different, there would be types of rocks that we could not explain, even chemicals that could not form under current physics laws etc. We would also expect such changes to be continuous though that is an assumption. There is no evidence of changes to the laws of physics taking place today, and as mentioned above even very small changes would be noticable.
Originally posted by scottishinnzDon't confuse him with the facts.
You really aren't very clever are you? (Nor, in fact, did you actually bother to READ the article, or you'd have seen the bit 'can we trust the data'😉 You take something of any given age, but older is better, then you date it using several different dating techniques (there are over 40 radiodating techniques). If the decay constants change over time t ...[text shortened]... ut, not the orders of magnitude that you require for your fairy stories to be bourne out.
2 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerIt would only be curcular reasoning if you tried to check the dating technique against itself. Also, half lives can be determined - unless you're stipulating that the Theory of Relativity is wrong, of course.
I quote:
[b] "This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another."
Circular reasoning at it's best.
When using the base assumption that the half-life of an isotope is a few billion years old.... Duh![/b]
[edit; sorry, I forgot to add this. Idiot.]
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by scottishinnzIf you used the base assumption that the half-lives of the radioactive isotopes were only a few thousand years old, you would see the differnece when dating the fossils. If this assumption was used for all the half-lives you would have them consistently dating fossils to be a few thousand years old.
You really aren't very clever are you? (Nor, in fact, did you actually bother to READ the article, or you'd have seen the bit 'can we trust the data'😉 You take something of any given age, but older is better, then you date it using several different dating techniques (there are over 40 radiodating techniques). If the decay constants change over time t ...[text shortened]... ut, not the orders of magnitude that you require for your fairy stories to be bourne out.
Is this so difficult to understand?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by scottishinnzAlso, half lives can be determined...
It would only be curcular reasoning if you tried to check the dating technique against itself. Also, half lives can be determined - unless you're stipulating that the Theory of Relativity is wrong, of course.
[edit; sorry, I forgot to add this. Idiot.]
Yes. Using base assumptions. Change theses assumptions and you will see that the dates of the fossils will also change.
Originally posted by dj2beckerIt's not difficult to understand - it's just plain wrong. You use the term 'base assumption' - we tend not to use those in science, we tend to actually measure things - I know that's a hard concept for you to grasp. Why don't you actually READ the article?
If you used the base assumption that the half-lives of the radioactive isotopes were only a few thousand years old, you would see the differnece when dating the fossils. If this assumption was used for all the half-lives you would have them consistently dating fossils to be a few thousand years old.
Is this so difficult to understand?
Originally posted by dj2beckerApparently for you. We know the rates at which atoms of one radioactive isotope decay into another; this is observed in hundreds of labs every day. There is no "assumption" of the length of the half-lives, there is the fact of the length of the half-lives for different isotopes. Why do you bother to even pretend that you have any understanding of science when you can't grasp something that the average 8th grader gets in one Science class?
If you used the base assumption that the half-lives of the radioactive isotopes were only a few thousand years old, you would see the differnece when dating the fossils. If this assumption was used for all the half-lives you would have them consistently dating fossils to be a few thousand years old.
Is this so difficult to understand?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by scottishinnzAre you saying that the half-lives of isotpes can be exactly measured exactly without a benefit of a doubt?
It's not difficult to understand - it's just plain wrong. You use the term 'base assumption' - we tend not to use those in science, we tend to actually measure things - I know that's a hard concept for you to grasp. Why don't you actually READ the article?
Btw: I skimmed the article, and I'm still waiting for your peer-reviewed schoarly journal...
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderWe know the rates at which atoms of one radioactive isotope decay into another; this is observed in hundreds of labs every day. There is no "assumption" of the length of the half-lives, there is the fact of the length of the half-lives for different isotopes.
Apparently for you. We know the rates at which atoms of one radioactive isotope decay into another; this is observed in hundreds of labs every day. There is no "assumption" of the length of the half-lives, there is the fact of the length of the half-lives for different isotopes. Why do you bother to even pretend that you have any understanding of science when you can't grasp something that the average 8th grader gets in one Science class?
Seeing you are soooo qualified to in the scientific field, would you care to explain how the fact of the length of the half-lives is obtained?
Some are said to be billions of years, yet the history of scientific observation of radioactive isotopes is but 50 years...
The predictions are based on assumptions.
If you want to swallow everything hook, line and sinker that is apparently "Science" I will not stop you.
Originally posted by dj2beckerSO, you didn't actually bother to read the article huh?
Are you saying that the half-lives of isotpes can be exactly measured exactly without a benefit of a doubt?
Btw: I skimmed the article, and I'm still waiting for your peer-reviewed schoarly journal...
Fine.
Well here's your article.
Zhang YX, The age and accretion of the earth. 2002. Earth Science Reviews. 59 (1-4), pp. 235-263.
Reviews multiple recent studies that use different, independant methods to radiodate the formation of the earth. They agree to within 100,000 years. None too shabby.
Abstract; Culminating a long series of effort, the monumental work of Patterson [Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 10 (1956) 230] showed that the age of the earth was close to that of most meteorites at 4.55 Ga. Later refinements have consistently arrived at a younger age for the earth, shedding light on the accretion history of the earth. A review of progresses after Patterson's work is presented on ages for core formation, Xe closure, and formation of the earliest crust using U–Pb, Hf–W, I-Pu-U-Xe, Sm–Nd, and Nb–Zr systems; consistency among the systems is examined; and discrepancies are decoded. The combination of U–Pb and Hf–W systems can rule out some models of rapid earth accretion (at not, vert, similar4.55 Ga) followed by smooth and continuous core formation, but allow at least two different models. I-Pu-U-Xe systematics reveals a consistent and young age of 4.45±0.02 Ga for Xe closure. The systematics also allows an estimation of primordial 130Xe concentration in the bulk silicate earth to be Image, and I concentration to be Image. Earliest crustal formation age constrained by U–Pb ages of detrital zircon, coupled Sm–Nd system, and Nb–Zr system is about 4.45±0.05 Ga. The combination of all the isotopic constraints shows that they are consistent with either one of the following two scenarios for the accretion and differentiation of the earth:
(i) A single age of 4.45±0.02 Ga for all events in the context of instantaneous differentiation, younger than Patterson's 4.55 Ga by about 100 Myr. This age would most likely represent the time of the last giant impact by an impactor of the size of Mars or greater, from which the earth was rehomogenized and reborn. The age would probably also signify the time when the earth reached about 80–90% of its present mass. In this scenario, the history of the proto-earth before 4.45 Ga was obliterated by the giant impact at not, vert, similar4.45 Ga.
(ii) Continuous earth accretion and simultaneous core formation with a mean age of 4.53 Ga (mean accretion time of 30 Myr). The continuous accretion was infrequently disrupted by giant impacts that were not powerful enough to rehomogenize the whole earth. The last of such impacts (by a body the size of the moon or greater) occurred at about 4.45 Ga, which stripped the atmosphere from the earth and remelted the crust of the earth. In this scenario, some history of the proto-earth before 4.45 Ga is still preserved in the isotopic records.
If the measurement precision of 182W/184W ratio can be improved by a factor of 10, or if earliest crust formation age can be further constrained, it will be possible to rule out one of the scenarios and further constrain the accretion history of the earth.