Radiometric Dating

[jesussave1979]

too deteram the rocks age is by the fossils in the rocks thats curricle reasoning aint it evolutions lies its not a fact folks.stop telling people lies

[jesussave1979]

the earth is just about 6 or 7 thousand years old

[jlc012]

Why don't believers that claim that they have a regular contact with god ever get any significant information, a little help with cancer, dark matter, origin of dna, etc. Saving parking spaces, removing stains and getting job promotions is getting a little old as proof of their divine relationship. You would think this is common sense right?

[gregrutz]

He did not tell us why they date Zercon, because lead does not fit in the matrix so they know the daughter product started at zero.

[thepickletrain]

how far back can this form of dating reliably date to?

[MW2Addiction]

@thepickletrain Billions of years

[kipling1957]

In radiometric dating, how do we know what the isotope was (the initial state) when the rock was formed, in order to zero our clock?

[CRJarvis]

Radioactive decay is a constant now but was it always at a constant?

do we even have a way to check to see if there is a fluxuation in Radioactive decay?

[deathtopenguin5]

@CRJarvis The answer is yes. The simplest way is that scientists make pure samples of many different radioactive isotopes, and then check that over time the decay rate remains constant. This decay rate is unaffected by any normal outside influences such as heat or pressure, since it is a fundamental attribute of the nucleus of the atom. Also if radioactive decay rates changed that would violate energy conservation and all of quantum mechanics, which have been tested to unbelievable precision

[coolvideo28]

evolution dating is a scam its all based on the geologic column that doesnt even exist anywere on earth. You want the truth read the Bible

[SHIBBYiPANDA]

@coolvideo28 where'd u get the information that the geologic column doesn't exist anywhere on earth?

[roxannemifsud]

@coolvideo28 Of course! The Earth was created in six days? Isn't that right? hahaha

[coolvideo28]

@roxannemifsud Yes it is. If you actualy read what Your Creator has to say about his Creation you would know that instead you bought the brainwasahing the school system gave you sooo sad. I offer you the truth on my channel if your interested go check it out.

[roxannemifsud]

@coolvideo28 Wow you call me brainwashed!

[taoid69]

Dating a greywacke doesnt tell you the age of the rock only the age of the original rock that the zircon came from.

[DutchNordic]

@taoid69 yeah, from what i understood they need to date igneous rocks from layers below and above the fossil.

[LambadLambadLambda]

If different uranium samples are different ages, how is new uranium created in the first place?

[DutchNordic]

@LambadLambadLambda The uranium was already present when the earth formed, but the zirkon minerals only formed when the rock last time solidified. At that time the uranium-lead "clock " started ticking. Thats because the minerals always start out with no lead in them.

[RaynorX]

"The easiest way to date rocks...is to bring them flowers."

Sorry, I couldn't help myself

[mauricioneira]

How much uranium we had at the beginning of the sample, do we know? No! How much led was present in the sample at the beginning? can we know? no! we just have a constant decay speed, that is all, in you do not know the exact amount of elements at the starting point this speed is useless, it is like knowing the speed of an aircraft do determine the distance it has covered, you need another variable to determine it, it has to be time.

[twizelby]

he should snort that shit. Thats good science!

[PeterTc]

he explains well how he seperates uranium and other minerals, but tells us very little how the age of the rock is established.

in order to age the rock knowing only the ratio of radiactive decay is not enough as you need to know what proportion of each element was in the rock in the first place. This video tells us NOTHING about it..

[egamble22]

You missed an important point he made. The decay rate is known. So, knowing the decay rate & the amount of uranium present, they can compute the age of the sample.

[PeterTc]

@egamble22

i am sorry but i have not missed anything. you are the one who did not pay any attention to my previous comment. please see below :

"...in order to age the rock knowing only the ratio of radiactive decay is not enough as you need to know what proportion of each element was in the rock in the first place.... "

rate of decay is not in question here....

good luck

[Aaron518]

@PeterTc

He's using Zircons to date the Rock,not the entire rock. The chemistry of Zircon formation totally excludes Lead from the crystal,but Uranium is happily taken up in Zircon formation. So,that means that a newly formed Zircon crystal has 0 Lead and any lead there after is a result of Uranium decay.

[PeterTc]

@Aaron518

exactly. it applies only to newly formed crystals but what is the point of trying to date something which has just been formed....

Zircon does not contain Lead. So when you try seperating and counting Uranium and Lead in crystal of Zircon you will always get ZERO of Pb.... how can this information have any use for radiometric dating ?

[Aaron518]

@PeterTc

Because the Pb count WON'T be zero because the U in the Zircon after formation decays into it Pb over time. A brand new Zircon will have zero Pb,while an old zircon will have Pb,and the more Pb/U the older the Zircon.

[PeterTc]

@egamble22

i am sorry but i have not missed anything. you are the one who did not pay any attention to my previous comment. please see below :

"...in order to age the rock knowing only the ratio of radioactive decay is not enough as you need to know what proportion of each element was in the rock in the first place.... "

rate of decay is not in question here....

good luck

[PeterTc]

@egamble22

i am sorry but i have not missed anything. you are the one who did not pay any attention to my previous comment. please see below :

"...in order to age the rock knowing only the ratio of radioactive decay is not enough as you need to know what proportion of each element was in the rock in the first place.... "

rate of decay is not in question here....

good luck

[lizbet279]

Maybe you could become literate and learn to spell and maybe even read an academic journal. You're "lieing."

[skitzoLSD]

lol you are funny you are going around any video you can find and just posting that it is false when meanwhile you have shown in messages with me that you have no understanding of what you dont accept. its funny how people like you only think scientists are lying when it conflicts your superstition. but you dont mind using a computer and medicine. you know the methods of dating are used to find oil in the ground. you are a complete void of any intellect. stop acting as if you are intelligent.

[coolvideo28]

ohhh you should be a comedian.

1 you make up lies about me sad very sad.

2. then you use the staple computers and medicine came from evolution Scientists Nope they havent done anything exept make science go backwards for along time.

shhhh but most famous scientists you know the ones that realy did somthing in Science were Creationists shhh keep that quite.

[roxannemifsud]

@coolvideo28 Oh no I'm so going to hell for not believing the Bible word by word!! ;) Lighten up! You should be finding out for yourself instead of feeding on what the church tells you to believe! Does the sun revolve around the Earth? ;)

[coolvideo28]

@roxannemifsud You dont take what your God your Creator says lightly. I dont believe what any church or any man says I believe what God says. Gods word is perfect.

[roxannemifsud]

@coolvideo28 Well I'm sorry to break it down for you but the Bible was written by ordinary men and not by God

[coolvideo28]

@roxannemifsud The Bible was writen by men inspired by God. Gods living word they just wrote it. If you told your secretary to type a book that you were speaking to her would you say those were her words or yours?

[roxannemifsud]

@coolvideo28 We'll just have to agree to disagree

[coolvideo28]

@roxannemifsud have a great day. If you ever wonder or have any questions please feel free to message me and ask.

[pistolpete667]

@coolvideo28 yes theyre lying but the bible doesnt lie or contradict or predict anything wrong does it? earth is 6010 years old, duh!

[DickGhostmoon]

5:57 - 6:03 They make an assumption about the rate of decay. They assume the atmosphere has been constant for millions of years, and this cannot possibly be true because a T-REX can only exist in higher oxygen levels. The whole dating process is completely useless.

[majorvoltage]

Pray tell, what does the atmosphere and its oxygen content have to do with the uranium decay chain??

While oxygen levels at the end of the cretaceous were about 25% higher than today, let's not forget that they were significantly lower during the triassic when dinosaurs first evolved. Their success was likely due in part to their avian-like respiratory system being more efficient than competing amniote groups (including the synapsids, the ancestors of modern mammals).

[majorvoltage]

I highly doubt T. rex would have had much difficulty dealing with low oxygen levels having inherited the same respiratory system that led to the early dinosaurs' rise to dominion.

In addition to your claim that oxygen level should somehow effect uranium's nuclear decay rate, I'd like to know what your sources are for your statement that T. rex could only live in "higher oxygen levels".

[DickGhostmoon]

5:57 - 6:03 I will give you sources if you tell me how they know the rate of decay.

[majorvoltage]

Radioactive decay follows an exponential function that naturally falls out of the fact that each atom has a certain probability of decaying within a certain time frame. Knowing this, it's simply a matter of measuring the amount that has decayed over a short period of time and solving for the half-life.

[majorvoltage]

This is done using the following equation:

t(1/2) = t / log2 ( No / Nt )

Where t(1/2) is the half life, t is the time elapsed between measurements, No is the original amount of the radioactive substance and Nt is the amount remaining after the elapsed time.

As you can see, one does not have to wait anywhere near a full half-life in order to measure it.

Now please provide your references for oxygen effecting uranium's nuclear decay and for T. rex requiring high oxygen levels.

[RafaChannel3001]

@majorvoltage

tell that to a creationist....

[majorvoltage]

And this time, please do not avoid my questions by asking another one or everyone will think that you just pulled those "facts" out of your ass and now you're stalling because you know you can't support them and will look silly if you admit that.

Surely you don't want everyone to think that, do you?

[majorvoltage]

Well??

I held up my end and explained how they know the rate of decay. Where's those sources you promised me? You've logged on several times and posted comments on other videos since my responses.

Surely I didn't just catch an ignorant creationist breaking the 9th commandment to argue against fields of science he knows nothing about in order to rationalize his bullshit myths did I?

Gee, that NEVER happens! *sarcasm*

[DickGhostmoon]

Go away, I never said I was ceationist or evolutionist, im a realist. We know the calculations, and they are based on an assumption. Its pointless debating people who don't know what they are talking about.

[majorvoltage]

"Its pointless debating people who don't know what they are talking about. "

Good to hear you admit that.

Now can we get you to admit that you completely made up what you said about oxygen effecting Uranium's nuclear decay and T. rex requiring high oxygen levels?

[majorvoltage]

"Go away"

No. You said you would give me sources. Either post them or admit you lied.

[majorvoltage]

"im a realist"

Yeah, about as real as your sources.

[gorilla199uncensored]

Ah they use a scale.

[balloonsrise]

I like to dress up like elvis and date martians.

[kyebean]

LOL, well that's quite normal compared to being a creationist.

[calvinhobbesliker]

i think scientists synthesize the elements they want to date. also, when dating something, they date it with many independent dating methods to confirm the accuracy of the date

[f1207]

Obviously I am no expert on this subject, but I have one question about this process. If you are dating the material off of how much of the material has decayed would you not need to know how much was there to begin with? Does anyone know more about this to clear up this question?

[ripticdu]

This is a very good question. How do the know the uranium to lead ratio of the rocks original form?

[BurningLotuz]

Lead was once Uranium so therefore there was once no lead. Though that is not always true as when the rock formed there might have been some lead alongside the uranium, but effectively this method gives an idea as to the age via what we assume what once was to the now of what is/remains.

[warriorprince1010]

Lead is found in rocks all the time. Most of the rocks dated that were formed in the last 50 years have dated over 200 million years. Clearly we have no idea how old any rock is.

[jonhickman123]

'what we assume'? arent you trying to find out the age based on what you assume then?

[chipmaker2]

continued fromlast post; The other radioactive isotopes 204 and 205pb make up the rest of known deposits. What the point? The lead was already there when this all began.

Thanks for taking the time to show us your process and nice equipment.

Best Regards

[chipmaker2]

Nice Video.

How much lead was already in the rock? With out that data we can't know your margin of error. Lead 204 pb has a half life of 1.4 x 10 to the 17th. 140 million billion years. That's American billions which is smaller than British billions I dare say. There hasn't been enough time since the begining of the universe to make stable lead 206, 207, and 208pb which makes up 98.6% of known deposits.

[wefinishthis]

From the video re: Fossil dating - "we know the sequence of life through geological time"

So how do we know this sequence of life through geological time? Isn't that through dating? But isn't dating based on knowing the sequence of life?

Great vid, but I'm confused here.

[retepvosnul]

A bit late for a comment, sorry, but here goes. The sequence of life can physically be seen. It is called the stratigraphic principle which simple states that layers on top are younger then the layers beneath that. Ergo fossils of plants and animals in those layers are in sequence, the oldest on the bottom and the youngest higher up.

[SkepticalZombie]

Good one - i can't tell you how many times creationists try to dispute radiometric dating.

[BrachioInGen]

not just creationists... but they're the most vocal. Great video

[warriorprince1010]

Radiometric dating has been refuted. It is simply another of the many frauds of atheism.

[AnonymousCthulhu]

Radiometric dating uses basic math and logic. Are you going to argue that math, too, is a fraud produced by atheists?

[warriorprince1010]

Radiometric uses wishful thinking and pseudo science.

[AnonymousCthulhu]

The idea of God is wishful thinking. Do you not entertain your own ideas with the bullshit that you spew?

[proatheism]

"Radiometric uses wishful thinking and pseudo science. "

Please explain why you think this.

[egyptianlily]

you say this but have no other proof to back it up. Radiometric dating uses the decay of elements, which go through radioactive decay. Last time i checked it has been used for decades and has proved successful in dating various items, including our planet.

[warriorprince1010]

Radiometric dating is not used, and when it is it gives different readings for each rock.

[jonhickman123]

watch?v=_ICcfbqUFZo

[fetrug]

-"Radiometric dating has been refuted. It is simply another of the many frauds of atheism."-

Idiotic, radiometric dating isn't anymore "atheistic" than gravity is. The people who claim to "refute" it are the imbecille creatio-cunts.

[warriorprince1010]

Radiometric dating has been shown to be wrong and not based on any science we are aware of.

[fetrug]

-"Radiometric dating has been shown to be wrong and not based on any science we are aware of."-

Idiotic, again, radiometric dating is based on that concept known as, -"radioactive decay."- Radioactive decay is a well-observed phenomenon, ever heard of Radon? It's the second most common cause of lung cancer, or did scientists just make it up?

[warriorprince1010]

@fetrug As we have said Radiometric dating is not accepted scientifically. It is another knowing fraud by evolutionists. There is ALWAYS the daughter isotope in a rock when it is formed, always.

[RafaChannel3001]

@fetrug

A creationist parrot, just repeating scientific nonsense heard from his pastor or seen in a bogus creationist video...

[warriorprince1010]

@fetrug Radiometric dating has been shown to be wrong and not based on any science we are aware of The daughter isotopes are ALWAYS present when a rock is formed, ALWAYS. We have no dating methods for rocks or fossils, these evolutionists need to quit making things up to try to promote and non scientific ideology.

[warriorprince1010]

@fetrug Radioactive dating ha sindeed been refuted. It is supported based on ideology by atheists, not by science.

[Aanthanur]

@warriorprince1010 no, that's a blatant lie of lunatic fundis.

[warriorprince1010]

@Aanthanur Sadfy for you it is true. Radiometric dating has indeed been refuted by all science.

[Aanthanur]

@warriorprince1010 no it was not refuted by any science, it is used in many many fields of science on a daily basis.

[warriorprince1010]

@Aanthanur Radiometric dating has neve rbeen sued it has been claimed to have been sued by evolutionists. Science has shown it does not work and cannot be accepted.

[Aanthanur]

@warriorprince1010 that is a blatant lie, radiometric dating is used in many fields of scinece. what the heck are you talking about?

[Aanthanur]

@warriorprince1010 when you google radiometric dating in google shoolar you will find dozens of recent peer review publications that actually show that radiometric dating is the most used dating method.

[warriorprince1010]

@Aanthanur AAS I ahve said rediometric dating doe snot work and is not accepted by science.

[Aanthanur]

@warriorprince1010 and dozens of scientific papers show, radiometric dating works and is used on a daily basis by scientists all over the world.

reality beats your beliefs.

[warriorprince1010]

@Aanthanur As of today science has refuted radiometric dating., Science refutes your ideology.

[Aanthanur]

@warriorprince1010 no, even the most recent scinetific publications use radiometric dating. i could list you dozens of papers doing so from last years, but i doubt it will change anything, you will just repeat your lie.

you are nuts.