Radiometric Dating age of the earth

[Thedarkknightburrito]

@gregrutz chill out. it's not like the scientists have a time machine they can use to go back in time and find out every little thing. guesswork is needed, although there are theories that are very well backed with facts to prove the guesswork.

[Jazzel93]

RMD is a fail. If a tree gets hit by lighting, it can happen that it (or a part) turns to stone within a split second. If they date this tree after the lighting stroke, it seems to be millions of years old.

[gregrutz]

@Jazzel93 ''it seems to be millions of years old.'' Carbon 14 only works on things less than 60,000 years old. LOL

[Jazzel93]

@gregrutz Yes, but because of the quick fossilisation of the tree because of the lightning, the tree contains way more Carbon 14 than a normal tree. And by that it seems that the tree is older than 60,000 years.

[gregrutz]

@Jazzel93 They don't date fossils [or trees fossilsized by lightning] with C14 Dating. You don't know how fossils are formed or how they date them. They can count tree rings and go back 10,300 years and find no evidence of a flood. They can date ash layers very accurately. Ash layers also prove all sedimentry layers are not from water.

And I have seen tree struck by lighting, it blows off the bark but does not make rock.

[Jazzel93]

@gregrutz They don't? HAHAHA they DO. Count tree rings and go back 10,300 years? Wtf? No tree has that many rings. And almost all religions and old tribes acros the entire globe speak about a flood in the past.

[gregrutz]

@Jazzel93 I am sorry, you are too stupid to talk to. You think:

Trees turn to rock by lightning.

Carbon 14 used to date fossils

Can't figure out how to overlap tree rings

Flood stories are proof water can appear and disappear.

Get an education.

[warriorprince1010]

The daughter isotope is ALWAYS present in rocks when they form, I repeat ALWAYS. Radiometric dating is not part of any science we are aware of.

[gregrutz]

@warriorprince1010 NO,  lead will not fit in the crystals they date. No daughter isotopes are in the sample when it forms. Keep trying.

Geologists knew the earth was millions of years old before radiometric dating was invented, trool.

[warriorprince1010]

@gregrutz "Geologists knew the earth was millions of years old before radiometric dating was invented, trool."...Not sure what this has got to do with anything. ALL samples have daughter isotopes in, even form rocks formed 50 eyars ago. Science has no room for radiometric dating, it is not used by evolutionists either, they simply make up the dates.

[gregrutz]

@warriorprince1010 Yup that is what they do, they make up any date they want.

ID-iot.

[barrach7]

@photolitherland

photo. Might I suggst that you look through the thread...what I've written and what you have. Then I hope for your sake that you realise what a fool you've made of yourself, in the hope that you'll stop digging yourself an even deeper hole, in your fetid, angry, illogical little world. Good luck and God Bless!

[barrach7]

@photolitherland

Sonny - can't you even see what a fool you're evidencing yourself to be and that you're digging deeper...and deeper...and deeper...! Perhaps you'll soon end up in hell!lol

No - I don't...yet you immediately assumed that I did. Once again, you've evidenced yourself to be an ill-informed, ill-educated, angry, socially retarded excuse for a human being. Keep going...I'm getting to like playing with you!

[barrach7]

@photolitherland

Once again, you've evidenced that your presumptions are simply that. You're simply and evidently no challenge whatsoever on an intellectual, spiritual or scientific basis. Just an angry, illogical pseudo-intellectual with some twisted chips on its' shouldee. Nothing more.But you're worthy of pity. At least that's something. You're GENUINELY pitied. Good luck!

[barrach7]

@photolitherland

Photo. It appears that you're already making retarded, infantile assumptions about what I 'believe', without actually knowing a thing about me. As a scientist and Christian, I know that not knowing ones' base data's hardly scientific' - and is solely evidence of a rather angry, cerebrally challenged little mind. I don't know where your grudges/prejudices/biggotted comments come from. Possible neither do you. All I can say is 'Good Luck' - and that you GENUINELY have my pity

[barrach7]

@photolitherland

'Thanks' for the message there sonny. It seems that you'rr retarded in every possible way. Good luck there...you'll need it!

[mystic81006]

Im trying to wake people up to the lies is all, radioactive isotopes do not trully exsit,there is not one picture,but we do have pitures of atoms. See,No one belives in god becouse you do not see him,But,no one has ever seen any radioactive isotopes either,So are we just to belive in something we can not see?

[mystic81006]

radioactive isotopes are not real, they do not really exsit,you cant see them,there are no pitures of them,just animation or just drawings.lead is not a way to find out anything in any thing.A program is writen to justify any claim,So thease so called readers that make noice are just programs writen to beep with magnets,the stronger the pull the louder and faster the beep.Let me write the program of the readers then we will see if it works to my wanting.let me look at the code of the program.

[crxpunkb16]

who here hates me?

[Karoke77]

God is a fairy tale.

[azcolvin429]

STFU you fucking creationists. Just shut the fuck up. lol

[MrFooblet]

How is he touching that?

[barrach7]

True Science and True Spiritual Thought Compliment Each Other Beautifully. Discuss....

[barrach7]

Who exactly are "we"? I've studied scientific principles fr 7 years in two universities and work in a 'science' based field. So what? Who's talking about clergymen(?). You seem obsessed with a hatred of religious systems. On that subject and "clergyman" (or 'scientist') worth his/her salt will appreciate that they cannot offer a 'solution' I'd suggest that it would be more enlightening to you enough one day to accept that terminology and observation are not solutions, nor explanations. Good luck

[homousios]

Then bible is the bible and Science is Science never the twain shall meet.

[warriorprince1010]

There is lead in newly formed rocks, thus radiometric dating cannot possibly work.

[types10001]

why?

[D0g63rt]

There are lies in the bible, thus it cannot possibly be true.

[barrach7]

@D0g63rt

Unlike all scientific theory...oh..PLEASE!lololololo­lolol

[D0g63rt]

So gravity is god's "intelligent falling"?

[barrach7]

@D0g63rt

Where did you get that from...? And tell me...what exactly IS gravity then? I mean...explain what it actually IS..? Can't? That's because we actually know very little. Any 'true' scientist' will know that. Sadly, most have ego's...

[D0g63rt]

Gravity is larger mass pulling smaller mass into itself. The mechanism that causes it is not fully understood, but how it acts is pedantically calculable. Unless you want to believe that god simply whispers into everything's ear so that it falls a certain way. That's your prerogative.

[barrach7]

@D0g63rt

'Mass', 'gravity'...! You've not explained anything...only used terminology. Perhaps best to think first....! And anything is only "caluculable" because it was given a name and value....! Thus - you'e said nothing! Predictably you've gone disparaging anyone who believes in a greater spiritual power, without knowing me. Boring cop-out. All you've done in your 'retort' is to prove you know knowing. At least I know that I know nothing....! Say after me, if you dare: "I DON'T KNOW...!"

[D0g63rt]

Except even if we don't "know" as you say, we can still produce results with our gross lack of knowledge. And that is far more important. I would sooner ask a scientist to help me find a solution than a clergyman. And sitting in your dark corner screaming at everyone that they don't know anything may be fine and well for you, but the rest of humanity would like to move on and progress.

[wafu2dati2eh]

So you dont believe in your Bible isn't it? Then what are you doing for in your every day life and during your worship time if you dont believe in your Bible? I guess you are more stupid than me. C'mon, tear your Bible into pieces and worship your science by faith. Think for it .

[intermediatespecies]

wafu,

Stop with the biblical nonsense. Nowhere in science, is tha age of the earth debated. We have many rocks dating back to nearly 4 billion years, some of which contain evidence of life from that period. There is no serious debate on this topic.

Wafu there is no serious evidence that would suggest any of the men you mention were historical figures.

[wafu2dati2eh]

4.5 Billion years? Unconvincing sir!. If we base on the 1st man on the earth (Adam) when God created the heaven & earth, we can simply calculate that age of the earth is not even reaching 1Million. I mean let say from Adam to Abraham, the years gap is not more than 10 thousand years i'm sure. Then Abraham to Moses will not have distance years of again 10 thousand years for sure?., then Moses till upto the last sent by God (Jesus for the lost sheep of the house of Israel), would it be -

[xxxFaustusxxx]

Are you really this stupid?

You can't debate science with bible passages.

[rollerswartz]

Dumbass!!!!

[wafu2dati2eh]

Would it be reached to 100 million years if we summarize the age gap between all of them till today 2009 after the last disappearance of Jesus Christ on the earth? I guess it would not reache into billion years. And i guess this 4.5 billion years is a wrong calculation.

[basilosaurus1]

This is not a serious discussion for there is not a shred of evidence out there that would suggest radiometric dating is not accurate and reliable.

[93alvbjo]

what are you talking about? by measuring radium decay you can get precise in about 100 million years, and that's enough. are mad over how they are changing it's facts and that's why it's inaccurate? i'll reply if it's the later question...

[intermediatespecies]

Supply your evidence that would suggest radiometric dating is not accurate. Scientific, peer reviewed and published evidence. I wouldnt waste your breath.

[93alvbjo]

could you be a bit more specific. im still only hearing your words.

[ProffesorLunatic]

Now:

the current estimated age is = 4,500,000,000

This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite

material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

This does not Jive with me.. Any insight?

[ProffesorLunatic]

100 tons of space dust falls on the earth every day. 36000 "ESTIMATED" tons per year

Earths "ESTIMATED CURRENT" mass in tons = 5,973,700,000,000,000,000,000

Divided by "tons per year" = 165,936,111,111,111,111

Excluding Impacts as "mass inclusion" approximates.

And relative size due to gravitation increasing in graduations. (NEED HELP ON THIS ONE)

[crnormandy]

Watch this video, "Why radiometric dating doesn't work" It shows why this technique is unreliable to say the least. Scientists have dated volcanic rock known to be only 200 years old using this method and it says it is millions of years old.

[HalfDeath13]

Radiometric dating does work. Potassium-argon dating has been used to correctly date the lava flows that covered the ancient Roman village of Pompeii. Uranium-lead dating gives us two clocks to go by: one based on Ur-235's decay into lead-207 with a half-life of 700 million years, and one based on Ur-238's decay into lead-206 with half-life of 4.5 billion years. Both clocks point to the same order of magnitude. The dating you are referring to was probably the result of excess argon.

[warriorprince1010]

Radiometric dating has been refuted by all serious scientists. It is only sued by atheists.

[spamsickle]

Lying about the beliefs of "serious scientists" is a tactic that's mostly used by theists like you. Radiometric has not been refuted, and all serious scientists accept the 4.5 billion year age of the earth. Only blindered creationists who don't understand the science (or choose to deliberately lie about it) disagree.

[93alvbjo]

what serious scientists are you talking about then? no quote mining please.

[iluvlulu1221]

im learning this in earth science... thanks for the vid! pretty useful...

[machomaas]

Royce,

Please research "isochron dating". Desertphile also has a pretty good youtube video on this. You will find that the radioactive decay law is not used in quite the way you think and that no assumption is necessary about the initial amounts of parent and daughter isotopes.

[RoyceGracieRocks04]

Just an FYI I am not a young earth person, but I do find the way the scientific community goes about their business using pre-conceived, untested, and unscientific assumptions. Radiometric dating is just one of the more blaring examples.

[RoyceGracieRocks04]

The problem with the math being used is that you must assume how much of the isotope was there originally. This is the reason why for many periods just a few thousand years ago carbon dating only works if you already have a good idea of what time period the objects come from. Give me a math equation where there are not two variables missing and I'll give you my attention, anyone with a high school education should be able to tell you that equations with two variables missing requires guess work.

[cryolophosaur]

You are right this would be true if we were working with 1 equation, however we are not. We are working with many equations and they all check up on each other without contradictions. Each field in science is working with different equations; Geophysics, Paleomagnetism, Paleontology, Sedimentology, Paleomorphology, geochemistry, etc... They all check in with one another and each separate equation complements the others and there are no contradictions.

[stupidtreehugger]

Ok. I'm changing my name to livingcell, and I'm posting a first experimental vid on fundamental issues of radiometrics. Clearly science does need naturalistic leeway to make cogent observations, but it cannot be suffered to take the cosmological highground from centre-back philosophers such as my self. That old fuck Napoleon would never forgive us.

[RoyceGracieRocks04]

They only all agree because they make the same assumptions. Other than that, I'm sorry you are wrong we are talking about ONE equation, there is only one in radiometric dating. You did nothing to address the fact that we are missing a variable in the equation rendering the equation unable to be solved.

[larrycastle]

Why did the rocks yield dates in the two billions originally but now in the 4 billions? I assume the technology has advanced?

[cryolophosaur]

Actually it is because rocks that are in fact over 4 billion years old are very very rare. Most of the 4 billion year old rocks are all gone because of plate tectonics.

[stupidtreehugger]

For every 'subduction' there's an 'uplift'. Also, the model is molten crust slowly cooling from the surface down, so the oldest igneous rocks would generally be on top newer ones.

Radiometric dating is an essential dark empire lie: 1. There is C14 in ALL fossils and ALL rocks even 'igneous', there should be NONE left. 2. There is FAR too much helium left in all sampled rocks from Uranium decay. And MANY more points like this. see eg video.google Bruce Malone, Thomas Kindell, Frank Sherwin etc.

[cryolophosaur]

"Older igneous rocks are on top of the newer once" Are you out of your mind? What island in hawaii do u think is the oldest? U have no grasp on the basic principles of super positioning or radiometric dating.

Also...

Bruce Malone, Thomas Kindell, Frank Sherwin (They hold no Graduate degrees in ANY geo sciences, 2 of them are theologists)

Why are U getting your "GEOLOGY" information from 2 theologist and a zoologist? thats like going to a painter for heart surgery.

[stupidtreehugger]

So, no evidence to the contrary then, just insults. Poor typical evo sheep worshipping man's authority. Should I believe it? Let me see: does it have lots of letters after its name? Is it in the majority? Oh, well it must be right then. Sad excuse for a human being. And, not that its relevant, but they do have science qualifications, why don't YOU check things before making assertions.

[stupidtreehugger]

And no,it isn't relevant: CREATIONISTS USE THE SAME EVIDENCE EVOLUTIONISTS DO: NATURAL EVOLUTION THEORY AND CREATIONISM ARE HYPOTHESES AND CONCLUSIONS NOT EVIDENCE, how fucking stupid do you have to be not to understand that? Your comments are those of an egotistical truth-hider, not a truthseeker or observational scientist.

[cryolophosaur]

You mind telling me what background in "GEOLOGY" these 3 so called experts you are raving about have? Please I would really love to know.

[cryolophosaur]

Also C14 dating is not found in ALL fossils and is certainly not found in ANY igneous rocks. You clamming otherwise is laughable.

Helium is a product of Uranium decay but Helium occurs naturally as well and it is a very abundant stable element. The key in radiometric dating is the parent and the daughter elements and in this case is not Uranium and Helium, it is Uranium and Lead and the constant geometric rate of decay of the radioactive parent element.

[cryolophosaur]

There is well over 200 radioactive isotopes with a constant rate of decay from parent to daughter element. We use more then just one radiometric element to date rocks, some rocks contain a number of different decaying elements that can be measured. All of the elements with their different half life point to the same age when tested on rocks found in the same outcrop layers.

[machomaas]

"There is FAR too much helium left in all sampled rocks from Uranium decay."

No... there is too much Helium left in rocks sampled from ONE location by Humphreys et al. But search for Henke and Helium diffusion for a full critique of Humphreys' work as well as a response by Humphreys. Besides many technical flaws there is even data that changed from one paper to the next with NO explanation given! It appears that Humphreys increased some data by a factor of 10 because... well, just because!