What is absolute dating and how does it work
Dating > What is absolute dating and how does it work
Click here: ※ What is absolute dating and how does it work ※ ♥ What is absolute dating and how does it work
Archived from on 31 March 2009. Relative dating is a scientific process of evaluation used to determine the relative order of past events, but does not determine the absolute age of an object. The u compares the abundance of a naturally occurring within the material to the abundance of its products, which form at a known constant rate of decay. A few are even from the Moon and Mars. These are chemical elements, like carbon or uranium, that are identical except for one key solo -- the number of neutrons in their nucleus. This in turn corresponds to a difference in age of closure in the early solar system. Because of their unique decay rates, different elements are used for dating different age ranges. First, each age is based on numerous measurements; social errors, had there been any, would be readily apparent. Luminescence dating methods Main article: Luminescence dating methods are not radiometric dating methods in that they do not rely on abundances of isotopes to calculate age. Seismology and the direction of the Search Road study was shaped in with the el of the Seismological You of Down under the direction of the Commercial produce John Milne. This scheme has application over a wide range of geologic dates. The older method required two samples for dating and could produce imprecise dates if the argon was not fully extracted.
How dating methods work by Images from stock. My picture showed a water tap dripping into the cylinder. It was clearly marked so my audience could see that it held exactly 300 ml of water. The diagram also showed that the water was dripping at a rate of 50 ml per hour. How did you work that out? Every dating method that scientists use works exactly the same way. It involves measuring something that is changing with time. Can you tell me what happened? But can you see what you are doing? You assumed the rate had always been 50 ml per hour and that the cylinder was empty when it started. Based on those assumptions you calculated the time of 6 hours. Not one of you challenged it. Scientific dating is not a way of measuring but a way of thinking. You quickly changed your assumptions about the past in order to agree with the age I told you. If the result seems okay then he will happily accept it. But if it does not agree with other information then he will change his assumptions so that his answer does agree. It does not matter if the calculated age is too old or too young. There are always many assumptions a scientist can make to get a consistent answer. Suddenly the lights went on. My audience saw, in a nutshell, the way dating methods work. Scientific dating is not a way of measuring but a way of thinking. Replica of skull KNM-ER 1470 A layer of volcanic ash in East Africa, called the KBS tuff, became famous through the human fossils found nearby. Their result of 212—230 million years did not agree with the age of the fossils elephant, pig, ape and tools so they rejected the date. They said the sample was contaminated with excess argon. Later, this date was confirmed by two other dating methods paleomagnetism and fission tracks , and was widely accepted. Then Richard Leakey found a skull called KNM-ER 1470 below the KBS tuff, a skull that looked far too modern to be 3 million years old. So Curtis and others redated the KBS tuff using selected pumice and feldspar samples, and obtained an age of 1. This new date agreed with the appearance of the new skull. So by 1980 there was a new, remarkably concordant date for the KBS tuff, and this became the one that was widely accepted. Which illustrates that, contrary to popular belief, the dating methods are not the primary way that ages are decided. The dating methods do not lead but follow. Could you please provide details of a more accurate scientific method of dating which can tell us the age of the earth more accurately than current scientific methods. For example, if you do not accept dendrochronology as an accurate method or radio carbon dating which method do you accept and and on what grounds. Also, can you identify a non Christian scientist who has provided scientific evidence for a young earth. Dear Bob, The only reliable way of knowing the age of anything is by the historical method, by eyewitnesses. By the historical method we know that the Treaty of Waitangi was first signed on 6 February 1840. There is no 'scientific' method that could give us that knowledge. By the same method we know the age of the earth from the histroy provided in the Bible, which is accurate and reliable. What a person thinks about the age of the earth depends on their worldview. So, for you to ask to identify a non-Christian scientist who has provided evidence for a young earth is a contradiction in terms. It's like asking to identify an atheist who argues for the existence of God. That said, there is much evicence that non-Christian scientists report that contradict the idea of long ages, althought they would not see it that way. And while we call the assumptions behind the long-age evolutionary creation myth into question, we also provide an alternative. We point to biblical history as reliable and accurate, and we do our science within that framework. Of course this involves assumptions, but at least the assumptions are out in the open and we can have a productive discussion on the real issues involved—our presuppositions. Of course, the further you go back in history the greater your statistical errors will be... You'd know it wasn't 15 mill. Hi David, It seems that you have missed the point. All dating methods are based on assumptions about age, not measurements of age. And you can make the result come out to anything you like depending on the assumptions that you make. Further, comparing results based on one set of assumptions with results based on another set of assumptions does not make the results objective. It just says that the assumptions are using the same beliefs. And in your little 'analysis' you seem to have missed the first 'dates' that came in at 212—230 million years. That changes your story about order of magnitude being trustworthy. I agree - this is a very good way to teach students how radiometric dating works. However, there is a caveat that should be mentioned: each of the assumptions scientists use to determine the rate can be tested. We can determine whether the rate was faster in the past, based on other elements that are present near the sample to be dated. In science, it extremely important to challenge assumptions; it is also important to be willing to change those assumptions when challenging data suggests we do so. In this way science is self correcting. Also notice that none of the dates support the idea that it all happened 4,500 or so years ago. What method would you use? If you were to then submit your methods of analysis to peer review, don't you think the reviewers would want to know why your method differs so much with what is now widely accepted and why your method is better than the one in current use? Hello Joshua, Actually, those assumptions about the past cannot be tested because the past is not available for scientific observation. Scientists can find other evidence in the present that supports or contradicts the assumptions, but such evidence can always be 'harmonised' by developing new hypotheses. The dates do not support a date of 4,500 years because those doing the tests were not looking to support that date. The date of 4,500 years has been obtained by the only method that can yield reliable, precise dates—the historical method. That is how we know the date for the Battle of Trafalgar and the Battle of Hastings, for example. That is how you know your age.
Last updated
