Radioactive isotope dating techniques

If anything, scientists are more susceptible to this than the average public.

There's a bit of a crackpot lurking in every good scientist.

radioactive isotope dating techniques-49radioactive isotope dating techniques-9radioactive isotope dating techniques-90

Our understanding of the shape and pattern of the history of life depends on the accuracy of fossils and dating methods.

Some critics, particularly religious fundamentalists, argue that neither fossils nor dating can be trusted, and that their interpretations are better.

Unlike people, you can’t really guess the age of a rock from looking at it.

Yet, you’ve heard the news: Earth is 4.6 billion years old. That corn cob found in an ancient Native American fire pit is 1,000 years old. Geologic age dating—assigning an age to materials—is an entire discipline of its own.

Early geologists, in the 1700s and 1800s, noticed how fossils seemed to occur in sequences: certain assemblages of fossils were always found below other assemblages. Since 1859, paleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils.

In the past 150 years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected.

In 2010, Purdue University published a research paper[1] stating that their researchers had detected slight fluctuations in radioactive isotope decay rates "in synch with the rotation of the sun's core." The article also stated: Has there been any further research on this, and has it been found to affect carbon dating techniques or other archeological dating methods? Graven, "Impact of fossil fuel emissions on atmospheric radiocarbon and various applications of radiocarbon over this century," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112.31 (2015): 9542-9545.

Are the fluctuations large enough to call into question currently accepted geological dates? From this article, "By 2050, fresh organic material could have the same $^$C/C ratio as samples from 1050, and thus be indistinguishable by radiocarbon dating.

First, it provides no evidence whatsoever to support their claim that the earth is very young.

If the earth were only 6000–10 000 years old, then surely there should be some scientific evidence to confirm that hypothesis; yet the creationists have produced not a shred of it so far.

Here is an easy-to understand analogy for your students: relative age dating is like saying that your grandfather is older than you.

Tags: , ,