RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#141  Postby klazmon » Dec 28, 2012 8:26 am

Atheistoclast wrote:[ you aren't measuring the age of a planet, but the age of an atom.


Total nonsense.
User avatar
klazmon
 
Posts: 2030
Age: 111
Male

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#142  Postby Rumraket » Dec 28, 2012 9:00 am

You can't even measure the age of "an atom". In order to get any sort of age, you need a ratio of at least two isotopes in a decay chain.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#143  Postby Atheistoclast » Dec 28, 2012 8:30 pm

Rumraket wrote:You can't even measure the age of "an atom". In order to get any sort of age, you need a ratio of at least two isotopes in a decay chain.


OK..so one atom by way of another. Still atoms, not planets. Did it every occur to you that radioactive decay may have occurred in the immediate aftermath of the creation of these atoms in the furnaces of stars? :plot:
Nothing in biology makes sense when you include evolution.
User avatar
Atheistoclast
Banned User
 
Name: Joe
Posts: 1709

Country: UK
Iran (ir)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#144  Postby Weaver » Dec 28, 2012 8:51 pm

Of course it did. This is why large sample sizes are needed - because the actions of any single atom cannot be predicted with tight time limits, but the average actions of a large body of atoms can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy.

Do you really think this is some sort of "gotcha" that real scientists don't understand?
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 52
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#145  Postby klazmon » Dec 28, 2012 11:35 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:
Rumraket wrote:You can't even measure the age of "an atom". In order to get any sort of age, you need a ratio of at least two isotopes in a decay chain.


OK..so one atom by way of another. Still atoms, not planets. Did it every occur to you that radioactive decay may have occurred in the immediate aftermath of the creation of these atoms in the furnaces of stars? :plot:


Still completely clueless.
User avatar
klazmon
 
Posts: 2030
Age: 111
Male

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#146  Postby Rumraket » Dec 29, 2012 12:28 am

Atheistoclast wrote:
Rumraket wrote:You can't even measure the age of "an atom". In order to get any sort of age, you need a ratio of at least two isotopes in a decay chain.


OK..so one atom by way of another. Still atoms, not planets. Did it every occur to you that radioactive decay may have occurred in the immediate aftermath of the creation of these atoms in the furnaces of stars?

Actually, we know it did, and decay chains have been going ever since. This isn't news to anyone but you.

Did you just discover stellar nucleosynthesis yesterday or what? How many weeks of endlessly igorant wibble are you going to erect on stellar and planetary physics and astronomy now?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#147  Postby Pulsar » Dec 29, 2012 12:32 am

Atheistoclast wrote:Did it every occur to you that radioactive decay may have occurred in the immediate aftermath of the creation of these atoms in the furnaces of stars? :plot:

Apparently it never occurred to you to properly read Cali's OP. So, let's do this again, shall we?

The ages of meteorites can be determined from the decay of Rubidium (87Rb) into Strontium (87Sr), which has a half-life of about 49 billion years. So, some of the 87Sr in a meteorite sample is the result of decayed 87Rb. However, the sample will also contain some 87Sr that was already present when the meteorite formed. In other words, the amount of 87Sr is

87Srnow = (87Rboriginal - 87Rbnow) + 87Sroriginal

using the exponential decay law,

87Rboriginal = 87Rbnow*(elt),

with l the decay rate (which can be derived from the half-life) and t the elapsed time, the equation can be written as

87Srnow = 87Rbnow*(elt-1) + 87Sroriginal

It is more convenient to measure isotope ratios, in particular the ratio with the stable isotope 86Srnow (which is not a decay product, so its amount stays constant over time). Thus,

87Srnow/86Srnow = 87Rbnow/86Srnow*(elt-1) + 87Sroriginal/86Srnow

This is the equation of a straight line:

y = mx + b

with

x = 87Rbnow/86Srnow
y = 87Srnow/86Srnow
m = elt-1
b = 87Sroriginal/86Srnow

x and y can be measured with a mass spectrometer. But now comes the important bit: different parts of the same meterorite will yield different values of x and y. However, these values will all lie on the same straight line with slope m and intercept b. By taking several samples of a meteorite, one can therefore determine m, and thus the age t.

Image

source: http://www.meteoritestudies.com/protected_dating.htm
"The longer I live the more I see that I am never wrong about anything, and that all the pains that I have so humbly taken to verify my notions have only wasted my time." - George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Pulsar
 
Posts: 4618
Age: 43
Male

Country: Belgium
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#148  Postby Onyx8 » Dec 29, 2012 1:39 am

I've got a really old atom and a much younger one for comparison Atheistoclast, would you like to purchase them? I will send them by mail once I receive your money.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 64
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#149  Postby Atheistoclast » Dec 29, 2012 9:32 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Atheistoclast wrote:
Rumraket wrote:You can't even measure the age of "an atom". In order to get any sort of age, you need a ratio of at least two isotopes in a decay chain.


OK..so one atom by way of another. Still atoms, not planets. Did it every occur to you that radioactive decay may have occurred in the immediate aftermath of the creation of these atoms in the furnaces of stars?

Actually, we know it did, and decay chains have been going ever since. This isn't news to anyone but you.

Did you just discover stellar nucleosynthesis yesterday or what? How many weeks of endlessly igorant wibble are you going to erect on stellar and planetary physics and astronomy now?


So this dating method is really effective only as a general guide (assuming a constant decay rate) to the age of the Universe, including meteors, rather than the Earth. Give me something which accurately determine the age of this planet.
Nothing in biology makes sense when you include evolution.
User avatar
Atheistoclast
Banned User
 
Name: Joe
Posts: 1709

Country: UK
Iran (ir)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#150  Postby Weaver » Dec 29, 2012 10:36 pm

What makes you think it's not effective the age of the planet?

Other than the Babble, that is.
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 52
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#151  Postby Atheistoclast » Dec 30, 2012 12:04 am

Weaver wrote:What makes you think it's not effective the age of the planet?

Other than the Babble, that is.


Because, at best, we know how long has elapsed since the creation of the isotopes in their initial condition. But the atoms were not created on Earth but in the stars.
Nothing in biology makes sense when you include evolution.
User avatar
Atheistoclast
Banned User
 
Name: Joe
Posts: 1709

Country: UK
Iran (ir)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#152  Postby Weaver » Dec 30, 2012 12:11 am

And?
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 52
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#153  Postby Kazaman » Dec 30, 2012 12:13 am

How people ever get the confidence to talk shit about fields they haven't studied is beyond me.
User avatar
Kazaman
 
Name: Stephen
Posts: 2724
Age: 26
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#154  Postby Atheistoclast » Dec 30, 2012 1:11 am

Weaver wrote:And?


It seems pretty central to the entie argument. How much time has elapsed between the creation of the unstable atom, in the aftermath of a star going supernova, and its becoming part of the dust cloud out of which the Earth emerged? Also, it would be nice to know if the initial decay rate of the heavy isotopes is different from that observed on Earth.
Nothing in biology makes sense when you include evolution.
User avatar
Atheistoclast
Banned User
 
Name: Joe
Posts: 1709

Country: UK
Iran (ir)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#155  Postby Weaver » Dec 30, 2012 7:03 am

Atheistoclast wrote:
Weaver wrote:And?


It seems pretty central to the entie argument. How much time has elapsed between the creation of the unstable atom, in the aftermath of a star going supernova, and its becoming part of the dust cloud out of which the Earth emerged? Also, it would be nice to know if the initial decay rate of the heavy isotopes is different from that observed on Earth.

Have you ever looked at a chart of the nuclides? Have you ever considered the half-life of some of the really long-lived radioactive atoms?

If you had, you'd know just how foolish your questions sound to people who have.
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 52
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#156  Postby willhud9 » Dec 30, 2012 7:40 am

Weaver wrote:
Atheistoclast wrote:
Weaver wrote:And?


It seems pretty central to the entie argument. How much time has elapsed between the creation of the unstable atom, in the aftermath of a star going supernova, and its becoming part of the dust cloud out of which the Earth emerged? Also, it would be nice to know if the initial decay rate of the heavy isotopes is different from that observed on Earth.

Have you ever looked at a chart of the nuclides? Have you ever considered the half-life of some of the really long-lived radioactive atoms?

If you had, you'd know just how foolish your questions sound to people who have.


No, not foolish. Just ignorant. Asking questions and looking for evidence is not foolish. But that ignorance turns into foolishness when presented with the evidence they choose to ignore the evidence.

As much as I hate to just leave with a wiki page, I must since I am tired and it is 2:30 am here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay#Mathematics_of_radioactive_decay

The mathematics has probably been shown on this thread a million times. But there it is again. This math is consistent whether the atom be short or long lived. However, it does require the ability to read and comprehend differentials, so if you cannot Joe, I am sure a mathematician on this thread can gladly help you understand (since explaining mathematics is not even close to being my expertise).
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 19347
Age: 29
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#157  Postby Atheistoclast » Dec 30, 2012 9:00 pm

Weaver wrote:
Atheistoclast wrote:
Weaver wrote:And?


It seems pretty central to the entie argument. How much time has elapsed between the creation of the unstable atom, in the aftermath of a star going supernova, and its becoming part of the dust cloud out of which the Earth emerged? Also, it would be nice to know if the initial decay rate of the heavy isotopes is different from that observed on Earth.

Have you ever looked at a chart of the nuclides? Have you ever considered the half-life of some of the really long-lived radioactive atoms?

If you had, you'd know just how foolish your questions sound to people who have.


Take me through the steps from the creation of a potassium atom in a stellar furnace through to its radioactive state on Earth. Just guide me through the stages of its evolution to the time when it has now decayed into an isotope of argon.
Nothing in biology makes sense when you include evolution.
User avatar
Atheistoclast
Banned User
 
Name: Joe
Posts: 1709

Country: UK
Iran (ir)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#158  Postby BlackBart » Dec 30, 2012 9:08 pm

Kazaman wrote:How people ever get the confidence to talk shit about fields they haven't studied is beyond me.


Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the words 'Dunning' and 'Kruger'. :coffee:
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12234
Age: 58
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#159  Postby Weaver » Dec 30, 2012 9:42 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:
Weaver wrote:
Atheistoclast wrote:
Weaver wrote:And?


It seems pretty central to the entie argument. How much time has elapsed between the creation of the unstable atom, in the aftermath of a star going supernova, and its becoming part of the dust cloud out of which the Earth emerged? Also, it would be nice to know if the initial decay rate of the heavy isotopes is different from that observed on Earth.

Have you ever looked at a chart of the nuclides? Have you ever considered the half-life of some of the really long-lived radioactive atoms?

If you had, you'd know just how foolish your questions sound to people who have.


Take me through the steps from the creation of a potassium atom in a stellar furnace through to its radioactive state on Earth. Just guide me through the stages of its evolution to the time when it has now decayed into an isotope of argon.


Why? So you can cherry-pick the response to make it seem like you are right and science is wrong?

Why K-Ar dating? Why not use something with a half-life longer than the life of the planet (and the Universe), like perhaps Rb-Sr dating?

If you are truly interested in learning this material, I have a good source for you.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page 10
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 52
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS

#160  Postby Atheistoclast » Dec 30, 2012 9:49 pm

Weaver wrote:

Why? So you can cherry-pick the response to make it seem like you are right and science is wrong?

Why K-Ar dating? Why not use something with a half-life longer than the life of the planet (and the Universe), like perhaps Rb-Sr dating?

If you are truly interested in learning this material, I have a good source for you.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page 10


Doesn't have to be potassium. We could do rubidium. But let's go through the stages (and location) from the creation of the atom through to its decay into another element. Then, and only then, can we look at what the dating method involves.
Nothing in biology makes sense when you include evolution.
User avatar
Atheistoclast
Banned User
 
Name: Joe
Posts: 1709

Country: UK
Iran (ir)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest