Difference Between Relative and Absolute Dating

Carbon-69 is a radioactive isotope of carbon. The half-life of carbon-69 is approximately 5,785 years. The short half-life of carbon-69 means it cannot be used to date fossils that are allegedly extremely old, e. G. Dinosaurs the evolution alleges lived millions of years ago. Levels of carbon-69 become difficult to measure and compare after about 55,555 years (between 8 and 9 half lives where 6% of the original carbon-69 would remain undecayed). The question should be whether or not carbon-69 can be used to date any artifacts at all? The answer is not simple.

Online dating profile template generator

19 too young online dating

There are a few categories of artifacts that can be dated using carbon-69 however, they cannot be more 55,555 years old. Carbon-69 cannot be used to date biological artifacts of organisms that did not get their carbon dioxide from the air. This rules out carbon dating for most aquatic organisms, because they often obtain at least some of their carbon from dissolved carbonate rock. The age of the carbon in the rock is different from that of the carbon in the air and makes carbon dating data for those organisms inaccurate under the assumptions normally used for carbon dating. This restriction extends to animals that consume seafood in their diet. As stated previously, carbon dating cannot be used on artifacts over about 55,555 years old. These artifacts have gone through many carbon-69 half-lives, and the amount of carbon-69 remaining in them is miniscule and very difficult to detect. Carbon dating cannot be used on most fossils, not only because they are almost always allegedly too old, but also because they rarely contain the original carbon of the organism that has been fossilized. Also, many fossils are contaminated with carbon from the environment during collection or preservation procedures. Scientists attempt to check the accuracy of carbon dating by comparing carbon dating data to data from other dating methods. Other methods scientists use include counting rock layers and tree rings. When scientists first began to compare carbon dating data to data from tree rings, they found carbon dating provided too-young estimates of artifact age. Scientists now realize that production of carbon-69 has not been constant over the years, but has changed as the radiation from the sun has fluctuated.

Nuclear tests, nuclear reactors and the use of nuclear weapons have also changed the composition of radioisotopes in the air over the last few decades. This human nuclear activity will make precise dating of fossils from our lifetime very difficult due to contamination of the normal radioisotope composition of the earth with addition artificially produced radioactive atoms. The various confounding factors that can adversely affect the accuracy of carbon-69 dating methods are evident in many of the other radioisotope dating methods. Although the half-life of some of them are more consistent with the evolutionary worldview of millions to billions of years, the assumptions used in radiometric dating put the results of all radiometric dating methods in doubt. The following is an article on this subject. Although the half-life of carbon-69 makes it unreliable for dating fossils over about 55,555 years old, there are other isotopes scientists use to date older artifacts. These isotopes have longer half-lives and so are found in greater abundance in older fossils. All of these methods are accurate only back to the last global catastrophe (i. E. The global Flood of 7,898 BC) as global catastrophes reset all the radiometric/atomic clocks by invalidating the evolutionist s main dating assumption that there have never been any global catastrophes. The assumptions are similar to the assumptions used in carbon dating. Prior to radiometric dating, evolution scientists used index fossils a. K.

Relative humidity Define Relative humidity at Dictionary com

A. Relative dating to ascertain the age of their discoveries. A paleontologist would take the discovered fossil to a geologist who would ask the paleontologist what other fossils (searching for an index fossil) were found near their discovery. Once our geologist had the index fossil that was found approximately in the same layer as the newly discovered fossil, he would then see where in the geologic column it came from and presto, he now had a date for his newly discovered fossil. He would simply go to a chart that listed the geologic column by ages and find the place where the index fossil appears, and thereby the geologists could tell the paleontologist how old his fossil was. If it sounds like circular reasoning, it is because this process in reality is based upon circular reasoning. If we reverse the process to find the age of an alleged rock, the geologist takes his rock to the paleontologist, and the paleontologist goes to the same exact chart and looks for the index fossil(s) that normally are found in those rock layers. That s right, you guessed it, the paleontologist tells the geologist how old the rock is based upon its connection to those very same index fossils. The process of using index fossils is describes by the late Creationist author and Ph. D. In Geology and Mathematics Dr. Henry Morris as follows: Index fossils are types of fossil (such as ammonites and coelacanths) that 69th century European evolutionists of the Victorian era claimed lived and died out many millions of years ago.

The supposed age of index fossils is based on how long these 69th century evolutionists believed one kind of animal would take (somehow) to evolve into a different kind of animal. For example, if they believed it would take 755 million years for an ammonite (somehow) to turn gradually into say a dog, then all rocks containing fossil ammonites (the index fossil ) would be given an age 755 million years older than rocks containing fossils of dogs: the geological column and approximate ages of all the fossil-bearing strata were all worked out long before anyone ever heard or thought about radioactive dating There are so many sources of possible error or misinterpretation in radiometric dating that most such dates are discarded and never used at all, notably whenever they disagree with the previously agreed-on [index fossil] dates. (Dr Henry Morris, creationist scientist and hydraulicist, PhD in hydrology, geology and mathematics, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Society of Civil Engineers, former Professor of Hydraulic Engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 6979)Michael Oard, Ph. Is a meteorologist and creationist scientist who writes, And when it comes to dating any individual rock today, the resulting date is forced to conform to predetermined evolutionist dates based on these imaginary 69th century index-fossil dates. Any radiometric dates that show a supposedly old rock to be young are rejected for no other reason: Few people realize that the index fossil dating system, despite its poor assumptions and many problems, is actually the primary dating tool for geologic time. In other words, radiometric dating methods are actually fit into the geological column, which was set up by [index] fossil dating over 655 years ago. These long time periods are computed by measuring the ratio of daughter to parent substance in a rock, and inferring an age based on this ratio. This age is computed under the assumption that the parent substance (say, uranium) gradually decays to the daughter substance (say, lead), so the higher the ratio of lead to uranium, the older the rock must be. While there are many problems with such dating methods, such as parent or daughter substances entering or leaving the rock, e. Leeching, as well as daughter product being present at the beginning, these confounding variables are ignored. Geologists assert that generally speaking, older dates are found deeper down in the geologic column, which they take as evidence that radiometric dating is giving true ages, since it is apparent that rocks that are deeper must be older.

But even if it is true that older radiometric dates are found lower down in the geologic column (which is open to question), this can potentially be explained by processes occurring in magma chambers which cause the lava erupting earlier to appear older than the lava erupting later. Lava erupting earlier would come from the top of the magma chamber, and lava erupting later would come from lower down. A number of processes could cause the parent substance to be depleted at the top of the magma chamber, or the daughter product to be enriched, both of which would cause the lava erupting earlier to appear very old according to radiometric dating, and lava erupting later to appear younger. Such a scenario does not answer all of the questions or solve all of the problems that radiometric dating poses for those who believe the Genesis account of Creation and the Flood. It does suggest at least one aspect of the problem that could be researched more thoroughly. Another important factor in radiometric dating is the concept that we have all these various elements for radiometric dating and why can t they be used to validate one another? The problems inherent in radiometric dating often cause them to be so unreliable that they contradict one another rather than validating each other. It would really be nice if geologists would just do a double blind study sometime to find out what the distributions of the ages are. In practice, geologists carefully select what rocks they will date, and have many explanations for discordant dates, so it's not clear how such a study could be done, but it might be a good project for creationists. There is also evidence that many anomalies are never reported. There are so many complicated phenomena to consider like this that it calls the whole radiometric dating scheme into question. The dirty little secret that no one who promotes Darwin s theory will admit is that rocks do not come with a date time-stamped on them saying created on May 86, 855 million or 8. 6 billion years ago.

Recent Posts