Sorry, uranium dating age of earth remarkable, very amusing
Posted in Dating
When you use radiometric dating, you have to take a sample say a rock which consists partly of still-radioactive material, and partly of the decay products say, U mixed with its final product Pb This lets you know how long the radioactive material has been decaying. For example, if the sample is half uranium and half lead, the sample has been decaying for one half-life about 4. That's the key point here. In the scenario you propose young earth , a bunch of uranium would have been created in the supernova explosion, and then it would have spent lots of time as free uranium atoms in space, during which much of it would have decayed. And only compartively recently you say would accretion of the uranium into rock samples have taken place.
But if it actually took billions of years, then the helium would have escaped the rocks. The only reasonable explanation that fits all the data is that the half-life of uranium was much smaller in the past.
That is, in the past, uranium transformed into lead much faster than it does today. The RATE team found similar evidence for other forms of radioactive decay. Apparently, during the creation week and possibly during the year of the global flood, radioactive decay rates were much faster than they are today.
The RATE team also found that the acceleration of radioactive decay was greater for elements with longer half-lives, and less for elements with shorter half-lives. All radiometric dating methods used on rocks assume that the half-life of the decay has always been what it is today.
But we now have compelling evidence that this assumption is false. And since the decay rate was much faster in the past, those who do not compensate for this will end up with age-estimates that are vastly inflated from the true age of the rock. This of course is exactly what we observe. We already knew that radiometric dating tends to give ages that are much older than the true age. Now we know why. For whatever reason, many people have the false impression that carbon dating is what secular scientists use to estimate the age of earth rocks at billions of years.
Carbon dating is not used on rocks, because rocks do not have much carbon in them. And with a half-life of only years, carbon does not last long enough to give an age estimate if something were truly millions of years old.
All the carbon would be gone after one million years. To estimate the ages of rocks, secular scientists use elements with much longer half-lives, such as uranium, potassium, and rubidium Animals and plants contain abundant carbon.
Carbon dating is therefore used most frequently on animal or plant remains. The method gives an estimation of how long ago the organism died.
Most carbon is c; the nucleus contains six protons and six neutrons. Carbon is stable.
A small fraction of carbon is c, which contains eight neutrons rather than six. Carbon is produced in the upper atmosphere when cosmic rays produce neutrons that interact with nitrogen atoms, converting them to c The c naturally decays back into nitrogen with a half-life of years.
Animals then eat the plants, by which c is integrated into their body. So all plants, animals, and people have a small, but measurable quantity of c in their body. That c is slowly but continually decaying into nitrogen. But, while alive, plants and animals replenish the c by taking in additional carbon from their environment.
Therefore, the ratio of c to c in a living animal or plant is roughly the same as it is in the atmosphere. But when an organism dies, it ceases to replenish its supply of c The c simply decays, and therefore the c to c ratio in a dead organism will be somewhat less than that of the atmosphere. The older the organism, the lower the ratio.
So, the ratio of c to c in animal or plant remains serves as a proxy for age, and can be used to estimate how long ago the organism died. Unlike rock-dating methods, carbon-dating tends to give the correct answer when tested on material whose age is known.
We therefore have more confidence in carbon-dating methods than we do in these other methods, though none are perfect of course. Interestingly, many fossils of plants and animals often contain some of the original material of the organism - including carbon. When this occurs, we can measure the ratio of c to c in these remains, and estimate the age. And what do we find? Very consistently, carbon-dating gives ages that confirm the biblical timescale of thousands of years. Even when we test specimens that evolutionists believe to be millions of years old, such as coal beds, carbon-dating consistently reveals age estimates of a few thousand years.
Yes, there are measurable levels of c in coal, which would be utterly impossible if coal were millions of years old. We have even carbon dated dinosaur fossils, and the age estimates always are in the range of thousands of years - never millions. The RATE team even found c in diamonds that secularists believe to be billions of years old. But after 1 million years, no c would remain. Therefore, diamonds are only thousands of years old at most.
And there would be no c left in such a specimen.
But there always is. Without fail, carbon-dating confirms the biblical timescale. Even carbon dating has its assumptions of course.
Radiometric dating and the age of the Earth. by Ralph W. Matthews, Ph.D. [Click here for a summary of this article.]. Before , ages for the Earth based on uranium/thorium/lead ratios were generally about a billion years younger than the currently popular billion years. Uranium-uranium dating, method of age determination that makes use of the radioactive decay of uranium to uranium; the method can be used for dating of sediments from either a marine or a playa lake countryconnectionsqatar.come this method is useful for the period of time from about , years to 1, years before the present, it helps in bridging the gap . Of all the isotopic dating methods in use today, the uranium-lead method is the oldest and, when done carefully, the most reliable. Unlike any other method, uranium-lead has a natural cross-check built into it that shows when nature has tampered with the countryconnectionsqatar.com: Andrew Alden.
One of those is the assumption that the c to c ratio in the atmosphere has always been constant. But we would not expect that to be the case. The earth may have had very little c in its atmosphere when God first created it. It takes time for c to build-up.
Moreover, the earth had a stronger magnetic field in the past which deflects cosmic rays and would tend to reduce c production. At the time of the worldwide flood, creation scientists believe that the atmosphere had only a small fraction of its current level of c If we neglect this then our age-estimates will be inflated by a factor of ten or so.
This is exactly what we find. However, if these remains were millions of years old, there should be no c left in them, which is not what we find.
Radiometric dating has been demonstrated to give wrong age estimates on rocks whose age is known. Yet, secularists continue to assume that it gives correct age estimates on rocks of unknown age.
This is the only reasonable way to make sense of the abundance of helium found trapped in various rocks. The abundance of helium indicates that much radioactive decay has happened.
Uranium dating age of earth
But if it had happened slowly over billions of years, then the helium would have diffused out of the rocks long ago. One of the few radiometric dating methods that gives consistently reliable results when tested on objects of known age is carbon dating.
But carbon dating confirms the biblical timescale of thousands of years. It never gives age estimates of billions or even millions of years - even on things evolutionists believe to be very old like coal and diamonds. Carbon dating of dinosaur remains confirms their biblical age of thousands of years. When we understand the science, we find that radiometric dating actually confirms the biblical account of history.
Creation Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth
One neutron converts into a proton, ejecting an electron in the process. Therefore, sedimentary and metamorphic rocks cannot be radiometrically dated because they were not liquid at the time of their formation. Can Science Measure Age?
Estimating Age Since age cannot be measured, how is it estimated? Radiometric Dating In radiometric dating, the measured ratio of certain radioactive elements is used as a proxy for age. The Assumptions of Radiometric Dating In the previous hypothetical example, one assumption is that all the argon was produced from the radioactive decay of potassium RATE Years ago, a group of creation scientists set out to explore the question of why radiometric dating methods give inflated age estimates.
Accelerated Radioactive Decay The RATE research initiative found compelling evidence that other radioactive elements also had much shorter half-lives in the past.
Oct 27, "Science has proved that the earth is billion years old." We have all heard this claim. We are told that scientists use a technique called radiometric dating to measure the age of rocks. We are also told that this method very reliably and consistently yields ages of millions to billions of years, thereby establishing beyond question that the earth is immensely old - a . Mar 23, Uranium dating is inaccurate and does not prove the age of the earth? well, according to NASA heavy elements like uranium were created when a star goes supernovae, according to scientist the sun is a second or third generation star. if uranium dating is correct than billion years ago the star before us went supernovae, meaning the earth would have to . Oct 01, To make matters even worse for the claimed reliability of these radiometric dating methods, these same basalts that flowed from the top of the Canyon yield a samarium-neodymium age of about million years,5 and a uranium-lead age of about billion years!6. Assumption 2: No Contamination.
Carbon Dating For whatever reason, many people have the false impression that carbon dating is what secular scientists use to estimate the age of earth rocks at billions of years. Conclusions Radiometric dating has been demonstrated to give wrong age estimates on rocks whose age is known.
Search for:. It spontaneously decays into lighter elements eventually becoming lead. The amount of lead and uranium in a rock sample is examined. The amount of lead compared to the amount of uranium in the rock tells how old the rock is. The age of a rock is how long it has been been since the rock formed cooled from molten material. The Earth was hot enough to be nothing but molten material early on in its history.
So all the rocks on Earth, other than meteorites that survived landing, are younger than the Earth. B it appears to be expanding which means it must have been smaller in the past. C the only way the energy of the sun can be generated for a long but finite time is by Nuclear fission, which is fairly well understood.
Atomic bombs really do explode, I have witnessed some. In the projected conditions just after the "Big -Bang" it was too hot energetic for any atom to form but when it expanded and cooled Hydrogen and Helium were the only atoms that had any statistical chance of forming. D all the matter in the universe is later generation of stars that were formed, created heavier elements in their cores, went nova, and the scattered heavy atoms were reformed into later generation stars.
You are misled by thinking there should be no U left. The U, the Carbon, Oxygen and all the stable and unstable elements in our system were "cooked" in early generation stars, scattered, "recooked" re-scattered and available to our solar system.
I suspect it is radioactivity deep in earth core that has kept us from cooling completely like the moon. Our lack of knowledge is not surprising, Scientific thought only started in mi modern Science only since and serious space science since the s.
In your other cross-post of this question I addressed in some detail the main mistake you are making with your logic thinking that uranium dating measures the age of the uranium atoms themselves. I see that a few other people have made that exact same point on this page So here I'll just point out that your question shows a fundamental lack of understanding how science works. It is fundamentally unscientific to say "A does not prove X.
It is what leads to the "just a theory" trap that so many Creationists fall into, that only reveals that they think that 'theory' means "in doubt. No scientist claims that "uranium dating 'proves' the age of the earth.
It is not about a single piece of evidence "proving" a particular theory. It is about the accumulation of evidence upon evidence, reviewed by thousands of scientists, generation upon generation. This is not just about evolution, or about the age of the earth.
It is causing you to use words like "prove" or "theory" in ways that completely undermine real understanding. That doesn't mean that in 4,5 billion years there will be no uranium, it means there will be as the word half-life might suggest only half as much. Which means, even if the star which "produced" our uranium went supernova 10 billion years ago, there would be uranium left now. And there will be uranium left in the next 4,5 billion years.
Who said that the uranium we have came from our star, there's load of space material from elsewhere that the Earth passes through and collects on a daily basis. Before so-called radiometric dating, Earth's age was anybody's guess.
Our planet was pegged at a youthful few thousand years old by Bible readers by counting all the "begats" since Adam as late as the end of the 19th century, with physicist Lord Kelvin providing another nascent estimate of million years.
Kelvin defended this calculation throughout his life, even disputing Darwin's explanations of evolution as impossible in that time period. InMarie Curie discovered the phenomenon of radioactivity, in which unstable atoms lose energy, or decay, by emitting radiation in the form of particles or electromagnetic waves.
By physicist Ernest Rutherford showed how this decay process could act as a clock for dating old rocks.
It does not approach me. There are other variants?12.04.2020|Reply
I know, how it is necessary to act...17.04.2020|Reply