Since its interaction with normal matter is incredibly weak, it can very easily pass through the earth. Not to mention that different models of dark matter would lead to different interactions. Are we able to calculate the mass of the earth from our knowledge of its contents, and not just the gravitational force we detect?
More Bad News for Radiometric Dating
I think if there were much dark matter in the earth, it would be noticeable. We also know the overall composition of the crust and mantle from samples. Thus, the only real unknown is the composition of the core. Using the mass and all those other measurements, we deduce that the core is mostly iron with some nickel. I fear it is more a matter of philosophy rather than hard science: The problem with that, is that, in the first case, there appear to be no transitional fossils when there should be millions , and to make the assumption previously herein stated, evolutionary conclusions are more akin to a combination of wishful thinking combined with a sympathetic magic mindset, than to observable examples.
Evolution is taught as established fact, and scientific enquiry is severely trammelled by those who prefer a status quo. Every fossil between organisms alive now and abiogenesis is a transitional fossil, Tony. There are also transitional fossils and organisms in the misguided definition of the word you are using. I admire your faith, Cromwell. Yet you state it as fact. Then, you claim that all fossils are a transition between that unrealistic event and the life we see now. Thanks for writing an informative article. Error bars have their place, but you are correct in pointing out that they are often misunderstood not only by the general public, but by scientists who are not savvy in radiometric dating.
- dating mac mini.
- lady lake dating.
- Paper Spotlights Key Flaw in Widely Used Radioisotope Dating Technique | News | NC State University.
- Radiocarbon Dating: A Closer Look At Its Main Flaws.
- high school christian dating.
- radiocarbon dating tephra layers in britain and iceland!
I would have worded this sentence differently: I am not convinced that differential diffusion of isotopes will be all that significant. After all, fractionation of light elements, such as oxygen, provides us with all sorts of insights into geologic processes because the mass difference between O and O is rather significant, whereas the mass difference between Sr and Sr is not all that great, in terms of ratios. The differences are even less significant for more massive isotopes such as in samarium-neodymium dating Nd and Nd If fractionation does turn out to be important for isochrons, one would expect that there would be a trend, with lighter nuclides e.
Rb-Sr being more affected than heavier nuclides e. I am also wondering if Dr. Hays addressed how isotope fractionation would affect U-series concordia diagrams. As it is, there is a general correlation of dates obtained by radiometric dating from the top to the bottom of the geologic column. Strongly discordant dates happen and young-Earth creationists focus on these , but roughly concordant dates are common; otherwise geologists would not trust the methods. It seems strange, if diffusion is a problem, that nuclides with very different masses are effected in the same way.
Perhaps Earth is only 3. This would require similar diffusion rates in cold meteorites as in warm crustal zircons. This would be very interesting, and would cause geologists to have to re-write many books, but the general story of geology would stand. This is because geologists do not believe Earth is billions of years old because of radiometric dating.
Radiometric tools merely give us firm pegs to hang our signs on for the various eras, periods, and epochs of Earth history. Thanks for your comment, Kevin. I would have to disagree with your suggested change in wording, however. While most definitely not all geochronologists do understand that there are false isochrons, that is never the way it is presented to students or the general public. This is unfortunate, of course, but it seems to be the norm when propaganda replaces science.
Radiometric dating
I think what you are missing is the chemistry involved. When we are dealing with trace elements not substances that are part of the crystal lattice , differential diffusion can have a significant effect. It is also not clear that there would be a general trend like you suggest.
Diffusion also depends on chemical issues. When you are dealing with different elements, you are dealing with completely different diffusion scenarios.
Subscribe to News
Hayes discussing uranium-series dating. Since concordia diagrams also involve isotope ratios, however, I suspect that this problem exists there as well. In fact, they might even be the majority. I have no doubt that those who want to believe in an old earth will be able figure out a way to keep the overall story of geology the same, regardless of how important this effect turns out to be, if that can even be determined to any reasonable precision.
Yes, there are other issues at play as is the case with any over-arching scientific idea , but to her, radiometric dating is the most important reason she believes in an old earth. I have no idea whether she is the norm or the exception, but she does exist. I was wondering how diffusion made any sense…. When I started my journey from old earth-evolutionism, it was much easier to see the flaws in evolutionary theory than those in the old age model.
Thanks for your personal story, SJ. I guess that makes at least two geologists for whom radioactive dating was a big factor in their belief in an old earth. I am glad that you eventually saw the problems associated with that. Rubidium readily substitutes for potassium in the crystal lattice of minerals, and strontium readily substitutes for calcium. Rb and Sr are still considered to be trace elements, even when incorporated into the lattice. The first step in overcoming indoctrination is recognizing that you have been indoctrinated. I think we can all agree that the best way to expose them is to just let them talk.
Think about the future. This is the way that it will happen. Concerning the telescope and distant galaxies, there are scientific models that explain what is observed from a biblical perspective. Yes, the Bible does report amazing events but it reports them accurately. What happened was just as amazing to the people who saw it. These things are true.
The fact is that God is real and he is at work in our world. Radiometric dating has a huge margin of error. So much so that when scientists want to measure the age of a sample they simply research what the presumed date of the sample is and set out to prove it. But creationists saying that the bible is the most reliable source in getting information about our past is just as incorrect.
After all The bible claims things that are impossible according to physics. Even though modern physics and logic suggest things that happened in the bible are impossible, I happen to believe that they did indeed happen the way bible said they did. But I do agree with the creationists in this case because radiometric dating is seemingly unreliable.
- funny dating blogs uk.
- More From NC State News.
- ANP264 | Spring 2013.
When discussing what happened in the past everyone presents their personal beliefs. That is all anyone has because we cannot make observations in the past. Biblical history is relevant to these conversations and it is vital to be brought to the table because it is what really happened. I think on some level each of us can only bring our personal beliefs to the table when it comes to discussions related to the origins of the earth and the purpose of life.
Whether you choose to believe in the latest estimates of science or in the story recorded in the bible you are accepting some things on faith. There could be some vital bit of yet undiscovered information that changes everything, requiring theories to be revised or replaced. Even things we think we understand could, in reality, turn out to be completely different if we really knew everything. But we do not know everything, and so we rely on whatever evidence we can gather to decide what to believe.
Scientific evidence is important to be sure.
So much of modern life has been made possible through science, of which we are all beneficiaries. However, there are other kinds of evidence for truth. The Bible has been argued in this thread to be a valuable source of historical evidence and eyewitness accounts.