Radiometric Dating age of the earth

http://www.myspace.com/acorvettes
In the early decades of the twentieth century, scientists first developed an understanding that certain elements are radioactive and that these unstable isotopes decayed -- or lost particles from their nuclei, thus becoming different elements -- at a constant rate over time. Knowing a radioactive isotope's decay rate, a scientist can say that after a given amount of time, half of the atoms in a radioactive "parent" sample will be transformed into its stable "daughter" product. After another equal amount of time, half of the remaining radioactive atoms will decay. And so on. This is what is meant by "half-life." The half-life of uranium-238, the most abundant isotope of a radioactive element commonly found in the earth's crust, is 4.5 billion years.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Radiometric
• Dating
• AIG
• age
• of
• the
• earth
• kent
• hovind
• hamm

[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.

[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.

[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.

[gregrutz]

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

ID-iot.

[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]

@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.

[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 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 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]

@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.

[gregrutz]

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