How is radiometric dating done Live chat hard sexy girl onlie
When an unstable Uranium (U) isotope decays, it turns into an isotope of the element Lead (Pb).We call the original, unstable isotope (Uranium) the "parent", and the product of decay (Lead) the "daughter". Now, Today we know that the rate of decay can be affected by the sun (neutrinos and UV light), Weather (summer vs winter). But can I sincerely answer that my mom never lies to anybody that ask me if my mom has ever lied? Same goes to Decay rates, My point is not that is a big or small change on the rate, My point is (and is clearly stated on the paper written by professionals in the field) that they were surprised, Because they though the rate of decay was constant, But now, They discovered that something that should not be affecting the decay, Is affecting it. So, The first assumption about radiometric decay is wrong. You can do your own research about my first point or I can add links so you can read more studies. That was the first assumption based on Uniformitariarism.The problem is that nobody that you would trust is doing those type of research since they don't believe the was a global flood (They do believe that the earth was inundated for a long time in the past, But not the flood of the Bible) so I will have to quote researches done by Creationists, Example: the RATE project.I would recommend for you to read it, I have not finish reading the whole thing but I'm working on it. This is a very simplified answer, There is much more evidence in support of this date, If you want more i will be happy to provide.Read the debate I'm having here about Radiometric Decay.You might understand my point of view How the flood would affect the rate of decay?
For an example of how geologists use radiometric dating, read on: A geologist can pick up a rock from a mountainside somewhere, and bring it back to the lab, and separate out the individual minerals that compose the rock.They can then look at a single mineral, and using an instrument called a mass spectrometer, they can measure the amount of parent and the amount of daughter in that mineral.The ratio of the parent to daughter then can be used to back-calculate the age of that rock. The reason we know that radiometric dating works so well is because we can use several different isotope systems (for example, Uranium-Lead, Lutetium-Halfnium, Potassium-Argon) on the same rock, and they all come up with the same age. It was widely accepted because scientists thought the rate of decay was constant and the decay of elements was not affect by any condition known by the scientist community.To make my argument even more clear, Scientists were sure that the rate was unaffected by anything known. So, First assumption about radiometric dating was wrong. Html WRONG, Uranium Decay Equation Each individual atom has a chance of decaying by this process. For this debate to be fruitful we need to accept when the other person is right!
As for dating the age of the earth, We can show through many dating methods of certain elements stable enough to last sufficiently long such as uranium which can be found in zircon crystals, This is important because zircon requires a sufficiently active planetary body in order to form, We have also dated uranium and other such stable elements from meteorites and other objects like the Moon during Apollo, This is also important because there stellar objects have pretty much remained unchanged since the beginning of the solar system, And they all tend to converge on the same date, This means we can compare the dates of the oldest objects in the solar system "which would have been there even before the planets formed" to the zircon crystal uranium dates which require this planet to exist for itself to exist, While this does not give us a perfect 100% pinpoint answer on the age of the earth it narrows down the error margin to just to between 4. As for that dinosaur blood, Your completely ignoring her research by using this as a argument, Mary Schweitzer did not discover sufficient sized living tissue, What she did find was dead "but somewhat intact" cell cluster size pieces of what was once living tissue, This is possible because the sample was both protected and contaminated with large amounts of iron which slowed down the decay process, The idea that these were large pieces of living tissue with perfectly intact DNA is absurd, And to add further insult to injury Mary Schweitzer herself has come forth many times regarding how she is sick of young earth creationists "like yourself" misinterpreting her work and discrediting it.