How do you determine the age of a rock?
How is the age of a rock determined? Look into it.
I read an anecdote once about a university professor explaining radioactive dating methods in detail. He said something like "It's a good thing there are no creationists around [to witness the inherent flaws in the methods]". The fact is that the determined age is largely dependant on the supposed age.
I recommend the book "The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods" by by John Woodmorappe.
Another book that I recommend, which is not related to geology, but biology is "Darwin's Black Box" by Dr. Michael J. Behe.
I read an anecdote once about a university professor explaining radioactive dating methods in detail. He said something like "It's a good thing there are no creationists around [to witness the inherent flaws in the methods]". The fact is that the determined age is largely dependant on the supposed age.
I recommend the book "The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods" by by John Woodmorappe.
Another book that I recommend, which is not related to geology, but biology is "Darwin's Black Box" by Dr. Michael J. Behe.
posted by phil at 9:57 PM
3 Comments:
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html
http://biomed.brown.edu/Faculty/M/Miller/Behe.html
simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/.../Catalano/box/behe.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_Black_Box
www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_atkins/behe.html
www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html
a few reviews of Behe's book.
Remember, just because someone wrote a book, even a briefly popular one, that person is not necessarily right.
also, before you go trashing radioactive dating methods (or anything else) you should research more sources than one anecdote. Anecdotal evidence is never considered accurate.
That said, I'm not going to reply to posts like this anymore. I'm not trying to convince you.
Sorry, I lied. I have to say one more thing. Or, rather, I know that you are busy, so I will help with some research.
"Claim CF210:
Radiometric dating assumes that radioisotope decay rates are constant, but this assumption is not supported. All processes in nature vary according to different factors, and we should not expect radioactivity to be different.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 139.
Response:
1. The constancy of radioactive decay is not an assumption, but is supported by evidence:
* The radioactive decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measurable, at least within limits of accuracy. This is despite experiments that attempt to change decay rates (Emery 1972). Extreme pressure can cause electron-capture decay rates to increase slightly (less than 0.2 percent), but the change is small enough that it has no detectable effect on dates.
* Supernovae are known to produce a large quantity of radioactive isotopes (Nomoto et al. 1997a, 1997b; Thielemann et al. 1998). These isotopes produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates. These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light-years away (Knödlseder 2000). Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago. Present decay rates are likewise consistent with observations of the gamma rays and fading rates of supernova SN1991T, which is sixty million light-years away (Prantzos 1999), and with fading rate observations of supernovae billions of light-years away (Perlmutter et al. 1998).
* The Oklo reactor was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1,800 million years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost two billion years (Fujii et al. 2000; Shlyakhter 1976).
2. Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young earth would have produced enough heat to melt the earth (Meert 2002).
3. Different radioisotopes decay in different ways. It is unlikely that a variable rate would affect all the different mechanisms in the same way and to the same extent. Yet different radiometric dating techniques give consistent dates. Furthermore, radiometric dating techniques are consistent with other dating techniques, such as dendrochronology, ice core dating, and historical records (e.g., Renne et al. 1997).
4. The half-lives of radioisotopes can be predicted from first principles through quantum mechanics. Any variation would have to come from changes to fundamental constants. According to the calculations that accurately predict half-lives, any change in fundamental constants would affect decay rates of different elements disproportionally, even when the elements decay by the same mechanism (Greenlees 2000; Krane 1987).
Links:
Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? link
References:
1. Emery, G. T., 1972. Perturbation of nuclear decay rates. Annual Review Nuclear Science 22: 165-202.
2. Fujii, Yasunori et al., 2000. The nuclear interaction at Oklo 2 billion years ago. Nuclear Physics B 573: 377-401.
3. Greenlees, Paul, 2000. Theory of alpha decay. link
4. Knödlseder, J., 2000. Constraints on stellar yields and Sne from gamma-ray line observations. New Astronony Reviews 44: 315-320. link
5. Krane, Kenneth S., 1987. Introductory Nuclear Physics. New York: Wiley.
6. Meert, Joe, 2002. Were Adam and Eve toast? link
7. Nomoto, K. et al., 1997a. Nucleosynthesis in type 1A supernovae. link
8. Nomoto, K. et al., 1997b. Nucleosynthesis in type II supernovae. link
9. Perlmutter, S. et al., 1998. Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the universe and its cosmological implications. Nature 391: 51-54. link
10. Prantzos, N., 1999. Gamma-ray line astrophysics and stellar nucleosynthesis: perspectives for INTEGRAL. link
11. Renne, P. R., W. D. Sharp, A. L. Deino, G. Orsi and L. Civetta, 1997. 40Ar/39Ar dating into the historical realm: Calibration against Pliny the Younger. Science 277: 1279-1280.
12. Shlyakhter, A. I., 1976. Direct test of the constancy of fundamental nuclear constants. Nature 264: 340. link
13. Thielemann, F.-K. et al., 1998. Nucleosynthesis basics and applications to supernovae. In: Nuclear and Particle Astrophysics, J. Hirsch and D. Page, eds., Cambridge University Press, p. 27. link
Further Reading:
Johnson, Bill, 1993. How to change nuclear decay rates. link
Post a Comment
<< Home