HomeНаука и техникаRelated VideosMore From: stevebd1

Radiometric Dating

361 ratings | 87513 views
A video from the New Zealand E=Mc2 website regarding radiometric dating. Full article and more videos- http://www.eequalsmcsquared.auckland.ac.nz/sites/emc2/videos/cool-kiwi-science.cfm
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (268)
Josh (3 months ago)
I learned a lot about the process from this... however, there is still much that he didn't explain... like at 5:55 he says "quite simply we know the decay of uranium to lead... What is it? How do we know? .... is he assuming that when the rock formed there was no lead? He didn't say how much of each he believed there was when it formed, let alone how he knows this... Why can't I find this information anywhere on the internet? If anyone believes they have answers to any of these questions I really want to know because so far it seems to me that in order for radioactive dating to work some of these assumptions need to be correct, but I can't find anywhere online where a scientists fully explains how we know these things.
Noob Saibot (5 months ago)
Do you think it's possible to date a rock of a known age (say 20 - 80yrs old) ? Surprisiingly, the answer is no. If you're not sure, look it up. There's many scientific papers published on comparing all the various dating methods used to day. Excluding carbon dating methods, the dates vary from 2 million years to nearly 100 million years old. These are the facts. Would you believe the rock millions of years old, if you know for a fact that it came from an eruption only decades ago? Have you seen the Nodosaur discovered recently? like many other fossils, it has soft carbon tissues, yet has been dated to 110 million years old,. this is impossible due to natural decay rate of carbon. i.e. even with immaculate preservation, the carbon should've decayed completely. Therefore, the date specified is wrong and the fossil cannot be older than several thousand years. At some point people have to acknowledge actual science flying in the face their world view and what they're told.
Nathan Sullivan (6 months ago)
i crave death
Sandy Combs (6 months ago)
Wal Thornhill, and other physicists have no confidence in radiometric dating and say it is inaccurate because the decay rate of isotopes varies over time and can be completely altered when exposed to electrical discharge.
Faith Truth (7 months ago)
How can you know how much daughter element was present at the start of the process? How can you be sure the rate of decay has remained constant over millions of years? How can you know there was no decontamination over time?
Hi-tech (7 months ago)
See around time (1:24), he shows us the basic fact,- all radiometric dating methods "depend" on the starting point - which is the "age of the fossil" found in that rock. At (1:38) he says this rock is 65 million yrs. old.- How did he know that?? - That age was decided by evolution theory 100 yrs. ago.!! Then he does not tell us that, the "fossil" found, is the very "index fossil", without which, no dating is possible. & then he goes on, only to describe the machines that do the radiometric dating. He tells us nothing about the basic 3-assumptions that are also made in every radiometric dating methods, about which, no scientist know or can measure it. See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZs0UgQ3o7I & find out the many things, that he is conveniently forgetting to tell us here. He is doing his traditional job in that Govt. department. The truth is that even hard-core evolution scientists do not use, or trust the dates arrived by radiometric dating. They only talk a lot about the accuracy of radiometric dating & appear to be very scientific about using it, but in practice of actual working, they reject the radiometric dates, if it does not verify their theoretical dates, that they had arrived at, by using the theory of evolution, to determine the time period, when that species was supposed to have been found burred in that rock layer. So go back to time (1:38), where this Govt. geologist says this rock is 65 million yrs. old. He gives no reason or explanation of how that rock was 65 million years old? But it has to be 65 millions yrs. old simply because the evolutionist had decided long ago that such creatures must live that many years ago. No scientific test was done to arrive at this age of 65 million years for that rock at time (1:38). See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6oy3QVRg-E to know that radiometric dating is never used ALONE, but with "historical science" that is the "index fossil" which is the main reference to determine the age of that rock.
Nicholas Wong (8 months ago)
How do we know the initial conditions?
BezoomnyBratchny (8 months ago)
Nicholas Wong It depends on what particular dating technique is being used
Vernon Knapp (9 months ago)
I have a question about radiometric dating. Why is it that after an event horizon like Mount Saint Helens eruption in 1980; when dating that newly formed rock the results come back in a range from 350,000 years to 2.8 million years old? Mt. St. Helens: The results came back dating the rock to 350,000 years old, with certain compounds within it as old as 2.8 million years. Dr. Austin's conclusion is that radiometric dating is uselessly unreliable https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4146 http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
Cindy George (9 months ago)
I give good head. check me out
Irene Lawson (9 months ago)
who wants to date me?who wants to go on a date with me? check me out
Jay Izzett (10 months ago)
This shit is as fake as space
Faith Truth (1 year ago)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lRQiNjJoBw
Roedy Green (1 year ago)
This is the most detailed of the many carbon 14 videos. This one explains the mass spectrometer.
Jonas Reed (1 year ago)
I'm going to end the debate as to be honest no one has bothered to quantifiable research before posting here. the rate if decay for each element is different, including it's isotopes. If you have six thousand atoms of an element and you wait until it's half life you will have approximately half as many simple as that. Ignoring this fact is like saying that water (H20) is not wet. I don't care if there is a higher power or not. if there is, congrats for being the most undervalued person in existence. The universe is bigger then we ever thought, if it is about and I stress if. The religions I see around me are self centered and short sighted, you have a brain, just think for yourself instead of looking in outdated books. maybe you'll see the wonder of his techniques if you stop focusing on 6th century knowledge.
Jay Izzett (10 months ago)
No one has ever seen an atom. All theory
Mr. Smith (1 year ago)
You ended nothing...lmbo
ParkerLong11 (1 year ago)
bruh 240p
robrob (1 year ago)
120 million year old rock with fossils in it? How do they know they are correct though? They date the rock according to the fossil...according to the geologic column which they invented.. And then they check that date with the blips on the half life counter thingy? And then the blips correlate to an age on a chart? How are they sure they are even close? Time machine? Whats the process here? I cant find anyone actually showing how they are so sure. What does the manual for the dating machine say? Calibrations? What assumptions are they making firm to get these numbers? Seems like the scientist have invented a complicated machine which spits out guided numbers!
NEprimo (1 year ago)
robrob hey buddy you seem to be a smart guy, you're asking great questions, but you're asking the wrong people. I recommend heading over to a local university, head for the physical science or geology department, tell them your situation, ask your questions, and I guarantee they will explain and show you everything. I just want you to know that just because you don't understand or know something doesn't mean it's made up! Make the effort, talk to a scientist, if you live in the USA you'll find most in fact are religious and yet also believe in things like evolution or germ theory!
Angus MCELROY (1 year ago)
he looks like a toy
Omar Moodie (1 year ago)
People race sheep these days? Or is that just an analogy?
Hans Øvland Tjelle (2 years ago)
He has a wedding ring, yet he's out here dating rocks... shame on him
Hans Øvland Tjelle (1 year ago)
Well, I wasn't trying to rock your world or anything
luciano paoli (1 year ago)
was that supposed to be funny?
Dоn't miss oout оn milliоns оoоof s*xу girls nеaааr уоu => https://twitter.com/0ae604fe2259341ac/status/801992405775826944 Radiomеtriс Dаting
Your Average Illusion (2 years ago)
Question everything my friends.
Your Average Illusion (2 years ago)
+John Isaac yes
John Isaac (2 years ago)
like science
Eugene Coutee (2 years ago)
So, first of all, the scientist is assuming that no lead was present at the formation time? If that were true then there would be two other truths. One, lead was not a naturally forming element (because all lead is derived from degrading uranium), and two, that at the time of formation of the rock, the ratio of lead to uranium was fixed and unchanging. the first says that uranium will only convert into lead in any state other than a rock (solid form) I find this hard to believe given that in a solid state and buried,it could never be exposed to the photons needed to cause uranium to shed the ten protons per atom to convert from U (Uranium)to Pb (lead). The second point that given the decay rate being 4.35 billion years would give you a very large sample on order to test and measure the decay rate accurately. All of that would also assume that no lead were present at the time of the creation of the parent element Uranium. Thoughts?
BezoomnyBratchny (8 months ago)
Wow, I can't decide whether Eugene's comment is more retarded than robrob's or the other way around. Tough call.
robrob (1 year ago)
Eugene - Because the creationists see there is no way you can conclusively prove your dates without a time machine and they see you ignoring all your assumptions and checking your work against your previous assumptions. They also see you not realizing this right in front of your own learned eyes. And nobody is arguing with the math because its right there in front of us and we see your variables and assumptions in one beautiful and possibly complete formula! The formula and therefore the answer is determined by the variables...and you assume a bunch of the variables! You assume your formula is a complete way to represent reality. The half life is the only real data that is gathered in the moment...the rest is inference! As in the starting amount in the sample, the rate of decay, that nothing happened to change the conditions in that sample in the whole history of the earth from local to any scale out into the local or infinite galaxy and universe beyond. You are even assuming that the rate of influx of these isotopes have been a constant(a f**king constant!) in the whole history of existence just because we have been OBSERVING it for what..less than a 100 years? You even assume that you have been able to properly prepare the isotope for measuring. Are those the only variables or could there be more? Please explain the logic? How do you confirm anything you haven't observed physically? Where does the leap between math and reality happen in your eggy shaped heads? All the rest of the shorter period dating methods are just clues..where also many assumptions are made..In fact...the scientists go in assuming they are correct so they have an observational bias! And the geologic column? That is just complete bullshit!
YOUR G-D IS A THOUGHT (1 year ago)
you are just lazy. plz look it up, how CC Patterson and FG Houtermans determined the age of earth, dear friend.
robrob (1 year ago)
Sember12 - How are these guys so sure though? Its no use saying its complicated. Try to explain it. Help me out if I get it wrong with my attempt at a layman's explanation. ..They date the rock with the fossil. according to the geologic column(which they invented). and then to check this they have a process by which they take a fossil of a once organic object and then presumably pulverize that sample with the intention of isolating a specific radioactive isotope in that sample. The final object being to place said radioactive sample into a machine that measures the half life of that isotope. And that is the end of any physical data they gather. Then that machine presumably prints out a sheet with a number on it which they correlate on a scale or something(with the dates they wrote in) and then it gives them a date. Do they check this date on the geologic column according to the fossil? How after this process do they know they are correct and which assumptions are they making? When does the science kick in here? How would any variation in the assumed fixed variables affect the age they read off the chart at the end? These are reasonable questions!
G_Pil (2 years ago)
+Sember12 you do realize it's never as simple as they explain it in television and movies. Scientific processes are extraordinarily complicated in reality. Did you know that something as simple as cell replication involves roughly 700,000, 000,000 chemical reactions? Or that 540 quadrillion (15 zeros) chemical reactions happen in your body every second? I'm a biochemistry major so most of my knowledge relates to that area of science. But I'm sure the actual mechanics of radio metric dating are absurdly more complicated than make the make it seem on television
James Goodhew (2 years ago)
Ho does dating earth determine that nothing in the universe is over 4.5 billion years old?
DNAunion (2 years ago)
+James G We posted the same minute. Scientists have radiometrically dated not just the Earth, but Moon rocks and meteorites too. They all point to about the same age, which fits with the scenario that they all formed at roughly the same time. The solid, rocky components of our solar system are not older than about 4.53 billion years old.
James Goodhew (2 years ago)
+DNAunion Read what I said before you.
DNAunion (2 years ago)
+James G Are you talking about what he says around @6:30? If so, he doesn't say what you claim he says.
James Goodhew (2 years ago)
+DNAunion Oh, he says solar system 6:32.. but my point still stands how can he know that from dating rocks on earth nothing in our solar system is older then 4.5 billion years.
DNAunion (2 years ago)
+James G When?
waskawywabbitz (2 years ago)
Question for critical thinkers... Why is our stock degrading and in no cases have we seen beneficial mutations. Only defects and a greater propensity of them, the rise is so great that it's even noticeable within my lifetime? With my own eyes. Why is it that we all think we're so much smarter and more enlightened than our predecessors? Yet, we tout the achievements of great men. Brilliant men. Each and every example throughout history. How did your idiotic and bigoted grandparents and their parents succeed in so many places we are failing, even though we're basically the pinnacle of a conscious and free nation? (US Specifically) It's because we aren't evolving, we aren't becoming more compassionate (P.C. is censorship) or more intelligent. Everything's so offensive now that the only people with a voice prefer to take advantage of you. Without a single word uttered, massive bills containing legislation that has nothing to do with the original bill are passed with a hush hush behind our backs kind of insidiousness. Hey, congress makes the laws, they're entitled to change things and keep our country safe from the bad guys. I do believe in bad guys. But I think our country, as it is... or was, needed some totalitarianism and a few boot prints on the document purported to be the fundamental law of the land. "God" doesn't exist though... Can the authors even be considered serious? People who believe in a God are no better than mindless sheep. We know better than the Founding Fathers. We know better than any comparison you can throw at us. We are modern man. Practically gods ourselves. We can manipulate genetics... And then plant modified crops the world throughout. What happens in 200 hundred years when that modified DNA has actually saturated every part of every animal and plant on this planet? No one knows. The one's who say it's fine are going back to work for the company producing it next year. Only as "advisers" of course. We wouldn't want any conflicts of interest when I do back to chair for the FDA. Idiots. We are not evolving. We're following the popular idea of the day and everyone feels the pressure to conform. Yes, I do. At the end of the day, You're choosing your master. The authority of expert and popular opinion... Just go with the flow. You belong in this new paradigm. You're trained for it. Just like the dog you probably came from. Look at our public school system. Go talk to a young adult and as them anything remotely relevant to real life... They're retarded. They're indoctrinated into a choir, singing so beautifully, songs of freedom... From inside a cage. Not even smart enough to realize the economic caste system that won't let you become anything unless you break the mold and rise to a position where you can afford to hide your wealth from the looters. don't bank on it Here's the things you can't do.... First, work more to succeed. More overtime? Criminal tax rate. You can't work enough to beat that, they take it from your paycheck before you even get it. Second; You're an entrepreneur and you're successful. When you die, about 2/3 of your net worth ends up owed to the government as a death tax. So, you're beneficiaries get to sell your belongings and or your business. Pay the tax and divide up the remainder after they paid all the fees to the bank/realtor to get rid of it... guess what, Inheritance of the type of wealth a man who works hard and is smart can reasonably produce for his wife/kids... Well, your family doesn't need a leg up. They'll be fine splitting the 750,000 between your survivors. You know that the rest of that business, you didn't deserve. The government who made it possible for you really needs 2/3's of it "back". Everyone else is self made from the get-go. Trump started out with a very modest loan of 1,000,000.00. How many people reading this have even made a mil? Truth is, no we have not evolved in the last 100 years. That same element of malevolence is still there. It's just spent it's time convincing you that this is a new world. We're civilized. We're kind and generous. We're FREE... Do you know what the Constitution says? God gave us rights, inherent at birth. "Scientific" assumptions have proven, once and for all that God never existed. If no one gave you the gift. Would you know if it was stolen? You've been diverted from the important and fundamental heritage you've(if you're a U.S. citizen) inherited. So wise, So free! I have an idea. How about we all throw out random ideas that specifically wall you out of the possibility of and then pat each other on the back as if we're real scientists. I honestly don't see how people don't recognize the religion in this. Not only that, it's a counter religion. It targets people who believe in God and ostracizes them from the very consideration of rational thinking. After all, he has an imaginary friend. Ad Hominem is such an easy logical fallacy. It's particularly ironic that it's used so often by those professing "Logical, provable and rational thought" Doesn't anyone see that? It's the only comeback the evolutionist believer has. That and making things up to suit their argument at any given time. "I'm a scientist! I'm a scientist! I have no bias!" You can see the hatred, crudeness, and all around disgust on an "un-biased" face just like any other. You didn't recognize the error. Isn't it strange how you just don't want to be the odd man out. Well, you have the mindset of an accident. Some people take that differently. Some kids go shoot up their high school. Some drift through life in an unending melancholy. Some kill themselves. That's not an evolutionist problem alone. We no longer, as a society, reinforce the idea that your life has meaning. Because if it did, who gave it that meaning? In the words of the late Robin Williams "I do not believe in fairies". Well, you wouldn't want people to think you're an idiot, right? Ideas are implicitly dangerous. You're going to be lied to by people each and every day of your life. Complacency in your ability to be swayed left or right just because of perceived peer pressures, or professing things that are untrue, to please your teacher or get that 98 because you finally understand evolution...You just have to believe your instructor.. But now you've taught your peers that you must get it. It must be true. I just don't understand well enough and I don't want to look stupid. Well, I hope that's working out for you. I can't prove The Bible. I don't go to church. I have spent a lot of time considering the ramifications of God or no God. Faith or no Faith. I can't prove this to you any more than you can prove evolution. But the denial of the possibility is outright arrogance. You're a vapid little mite walking around this big ball of dirt with not the wit, courage or perspective to even begin to figure out the meaning of life. And claiming to know the origins, evidencing your facts with conjecture and personal insults won't make you any more right or wrong. The arrogance is appalling. It's an insult to all your ancestors, that you would rather invent a psychotic episode on a global scale than to even take into consideration other possibilities... Like maybe they all had crazy mythologies about "gods" and "fallen angels" making half breed giants. That's a global recollection. I'd believe you if you said they were all liars... Except that they were continents apart and in a time when Cultural interactions were probably quite scarce. Even separated by oceans, in the "new world" Guess what kind of myths the native americans had? The same. A culture separated from all of the explored world for an amount of time we can only guess. But I don't call that empirical science. It's just a world wide story. Believed by every one of that era. So, the whole world was retarded. But you're smart. You know "science".
yo miso (1 year ago)
you should love yourself and your family, if available, to the fullest extent. love is the answer, take care.
frankos rooni (1 year ago)
melanin and lactose tolerance were both beneficial mutations So your premise is flawed right from the start The rest of your blather deserves no reply
Vicente Unicorn (1 year ago)
+waskawywabbitz Sorry, first you have to learn what evolution is and after that you can attack it. Of course we don't just evolve into better beings. It's a long process of spontaneous isolation and adaptation.
Vicente Unicorn (2 years ago)
+waskawywabbitz A long story but unfortunately too long and too full of bs to make any point. Sneaking into these discussion to make your apologetic Jesus argument. sorry, you FAILED
Seamus Land (2 years ago)
+waskawywabbitz pretty heavy stuff. it seems to me that the world is a conversation with the world (human and extrahuman alike), and I have to believe we share in the agency of that interaction--small though it may be. hope you're well--keep working it all out... let's try to find freedom even in a past that we inherited and had no part in
GSpotter63 (2 years ago)
Here is the most often used equation for getting the age of an igneous rock from the results of an AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) data set. D = D0 + N(t) (eλt − 1) t is age of the sample, D is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the sample, D0 is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the original composition, N is number of atoms of the parent isotope in the sample at time t (the present), given by N(t) = Noe-λt, λ is the decay constant of the parent isotope, equal to the inverse of the radioactive half-life of the parent isotope times the natural logarithm of 2. Tell me how can anyone know D0 "The number of the daughter isotopes in the original composition", when the origin of the original composition supposedly took place millions or even billions of years ago before the first humanoid was even suppose to have walk the earth? Just in case you did not know..... Every newly expelled lava ever tested contained varying amounts of both parent and daughter isotopes. The preexisting daughter isotopes did not all boil out of the lava before solidification into igneous rock. When testing modern rocks. Rocks who's formation was observed. The daughter isotope percentages at formation vary wildly and are in fact never zero. If the daughter isotope levels at rock formation in modern observed samples vary then one must accept that rocks from the past acted in like manner. If the starting ratios are not known then there is no math that can find the date. The dates used and accepted by supporters of evolution are in fact nothing but guesses based off of unproven assumptions. If two trains on parallel tracks were observed traveling in the same direction. One traveling faster and is 3 miles farther down the track then the other one. One could use simple math to calculate backwards to find at what point the two trains would be next to each other, sitting side by side on the parallel tracks. You could even find how long the trip took from the point that they were next to each other to where they are observed now. But none of the math would give you the starting point of either of the two trains. Assuming that they started in the same place and at the same together cannot be confirmed. Yes one could look how far back the tracks go and calculate the maximum time they could have been traveling. But that would be the maximum possible time, not the time they actually started. In fact, in every case when the trains starting position was observed, they never started together. Such is the case for observed solidifying igneous rock. If the solidifying rocks observed today have varying starting ratios for the isotopes then one must maintain that the rocks in the past would act exactly the same. Resulting in the same problem that was encountered with the trains in the above example. Without knowing the starting ratios of the parent and daughter isotopes at solicitation the math is useless. Thereby making the dates arrived at with this math irrelevant. Isochron methods use the same data from the equation above to make their plots and as such suffer from the same dilemma... All that has been achieved by Isochron methods is a plot made of even more errors. There is no mathematical way one can determine the level of a coefficient without knowing the starting values of the variables used. The only reliable constants in the equations used is the decay rate and the rate of the passage of time. Without the starting ratios of parent and daughter isotopes math cannot determine an accurate date. You can find the oldest and youngest possible date that a sample could be by plugging in starting ratios at both of the extremes. But the dates obtained would give such a wide spread as to be useless. In fact you can obtained any date by simply plugging in whatever starting ratios will give you the date you want. Assuming that the ratios are zero for older unknown samples when every modern sample shows this to be wrong is..... self induced ignorance. The level of self dilution displayed by those promoting the accuracy of radio dating is absurd. Again the train analogy was about the time and the distance traveled. Running the trains backward at the speed observed can tell you at what point the trains would meet each other. Another words, sit side by side on the parallel tracks. But this does not tell you that this is where either of the trains started. Show me an equation that can give an accurate date from the results of an AMS without relying on the unverifiable parent and daughter isotopes at solidification . If you cannot then your belief in the dates it provides is called faith. P.S. All of evolutionary theory rests on the billions of years. If you cannot verify those billions of years then the entire construct is in fact an unproven assumption. Perhaps if you looked for your evidence in something other than the authorized scientific dogma, you might find the errors that that dogma chooses to ignore.
YOUR G-D IS A THOUGHT (2 years ago)
+GSpotter63 The starting ratio is an unknown in the first place and one RESULT from the isochron plot. Look this up for yourself.
DanielPrime94 (3 years ago)
Don't animals that live near or in the ocean tend to be alot older than they really are???? I thought dating doesn't work on aquatic life??
DNAunion (2 years ago)
+DanielPrime94 That's for radiocarbon dating, which is not the method he was describing. Radiocarbon dating was based on the assumption of the organism gaining its carbon fresh from the atmosphere (plants) or directly from eating organisms that do (herbivores) or that directly eat them (carnivores). But carbon being consumed can come from other sources. Carbon can also be locked up in certain rocks (limestone is primarily calcium carbonate) for millions of years, and then reintroduced into water when the rock is slowly dissolved by water. Carbon can also be 'locked up' in deep oceans currents for thousands of years. These old types of carbon are sometimes referred to as 'dead' carbon, and the phenomenon is sometimes referred to as the 'reservoir effect'. So organisms in water (photosynthesizing plankton in seas, snails living in streams that have come from areas where limestone was dissolved) can be getting old, C-14 depleted food. And that can flow up the food chain/food web to things like seals that eat fish that ate plankton. So the carbon in such a seal is a combination of new carbon and very old carbon. Therefore, the dates do not work out correctly. Scientists wondered about this possibility and then went out and tested and found that they were correct, and it is a problem.
dirtyvarmint (3 years ago)
can you get a date for when the sediments were deposited in new Zealand? maybe by measuring the amount of density or whatever. in other words. how long does it take that particular type of rock to get that hard and dense from a liquidish state?
Orion The Hunter (3 years ago)
Wrong! The Earth is 6000 years old. Just kidding, it's sad that many people think that though.
Old YouTubeVideos (2 years ago)
oh lol. The sad thing is most people who accept evolution theory cannot explain it.
bees knees (3 years ago)
+KubiqFeet how do you know that the date of the fossil is actually correct? do scientists have something that assures that they are correct, just like they are able to use people to see if their new medicine actually works against a certain virus?
The Best Dunker (3 years ago)
The Best Dunker (3 years ago)
i am dating a rock and she's very lazy
zzzubrrr (4 years ago)
And so how do you know that when the rock formed there was only uranium in there that you found, no any lead?
Norm Plewm (3 years ago)
Thanks for the links
Craig Covell (3 years ago)
+Norm Plewm  I was fortunate enough to locate Dalrymple both at the local college library and on the USGS site.   http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr86110    And this is also a nice intro to the topic, also by the USGS with what looks to be another link to Dalryple, but I could not find it at the site. Mabye if you hunt around a bit...   http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html    .  Enjoy!
Norm Plewm (3 years ago)
The only method in which you can be relatively certain that there is no daughter isotope is K - Ar. All other methods including various U - Pb assume an initial unknown amount of daughter isotope. The isochron and other similar methods are used to both determine the initial ratios of parent to daughter and the age of a rock.  The method requires multiple samples from different minerals in the same formation and two daughter isotopes are measured against the parent. These multiple samples will create one isochron with an assigned date range. To ensure that the data is correct, many isochrones will be created. Different element with different decay rated may be measured. So the Apollo and Luna missions to the moon completed perhaps 70 radiometric dating tests (isochrons)  and used decays of Ar-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd at various locations to conclude that the earliest moon rocks are 3.86 - 3.9 Ga old.   If you would like to learn more about radiometric dating and how the isochron method works, I suggest "The Age of the Earth" by Brent Dalrymple. It probably won't be carried at your local book store, but it is a really thorough explanation by probably the most knowledgeable person on the subject. 
James Dillon (4 years ago)
I was explaining to friend at work about how old the earth is and she said it's only 6000 years. I explained to her that geologists have dated it at 4.54 billion and told her that it was determined by using radiometric dating. I even used a very simplified explanation of it  stating that radiometric dating uses the decay of radio active partials that decay at know rates. She answered with " Carbon dating is not a accurate method" This is why creationists think there is a raging debate in the science community cause they shut down and plan their response before you even finish providing information to them.
stoneystannio (1 day ago)
eactly what i think.... and to further comment on the dating... to measure the decay, don't you have to know the starting values?
Georgi Dimov (2 months ago)
An interesting religion is evolution. C14 is not the same amount as it was 50 years ago and it was even less than 5,000 years ago, so finding a dead animal and not knowing how much C14 there was when it died because you do not know when it died how you calculate it without faith and imagination? Equilibrium of C14 is not yet on the planet and is still growing.
James Dillon (3 years ago)
+QuantumFrost Well it dose and wishful thinking will not change that fact.
QuantumFrost (3 years ago)
Maybe she's stupid But doesn't mean radio metric dating actually works
it'sme (4 years ago)
Wrong
RON DAMON (4 years ago)
circular...
Omar Saffouri (4 years ago)
Thank you and al the physicists for all the effort
lantern bearer (4 years ago)
The rate of isotopic decay is unquestionable. But the earth has suffered so many cataclysms that to posit that there has been no addition or  gain or loss of parent isotope during the rock’s history or no gain or loss of daughter product during the rock’s history is simply UNREALISTIC ...that puts this method and the entire fossil dating at odds with the history of the planet and therefore a deeper science.
45overdrive (3 years ago)
Scientists were exposing rocks with radioactive decay to numerous external pressures (like extreme heat and extreme cold, magnetic and electric influence) and the rate stayed the same.
Peter Kirouac (4 years ago)
this stone is 4 billion year old , this dinosaur is 4 million years old , and hear is my mom she is 78 . But what i know she never tells me her age she keeps saying 45.
aqabdulaziz (4 years ago)
That shows how little you know or how ignorant you are.
David Dees (4 years ago)
The fact of the matter is nobody knows how old the earth is.  There are far too many variables to accurately say how old the earth is. Radiometric dating is far too simple of a theory and ignores an infinite amount of variables that can affect it's accuracy. 
Craig Covell (3 years ago)
+aqabdulaziz  Your logic is impeccable. You are obviously living in the real world. But those you debate are not. When you talk, they hear everything through a religious filter which  makes all your words sound "evil".   And the most pathetic part of their position is that they don't understand what "objective" even means. When they talk about what they "believe" it is not based on anything, not evidence, not math, not logic, just faith. You can't beat that. And worse yet, is that they don't even know what the bible even actually says! They just knee-jerk to anything with the response, "Lies! It's all lies from the pit of hell!" They don't actually defend the bible, per se, they defend THEIR PERSONAL understanding of it, as if it was infallible (just a million little popes running around declaring their own doctrine or the parroting of their "super-spiritual" pastor, who is soooo smart!)    Reason can never win out with religious folk. All we can do as rational adults, is make sure that they don't pass any legislation declaring "Creation Science" as official school curriculum. If they do, we must fight it tooth and nail with reason, logic, facts, math, and their own contradictions as support. Then hope you get a judge who did not just return from a cult meeting. But keep up the fight for science! Truth is worth the effort.
aqabdulaziz (4 years ago)
+Kjell Williams 3.8 million hard-working scientists (half of them Christians) are running around making stupid claims that are clearly false.  But 300 scientists (extremely religious) - who work for religious organizations and have no experience in real science - are totally aware that other real scientists are making claims that are not true.  Now I wonder if Christ Jesus, who knows it all, will bless 3.8 million hard-working real scientists or the 300 scientists who pass judgments on real scientists.   
Kjell Williams (4 years ago)
+blaq7427 wrote: "That's just it . It's an assumption and it isn't verified" Why do you claim it's not verified? Who told you that? What makes you think that thousands of scientists are just running along, trusting in the infallibility of an unverified assumption?
aqabdulaziz (4 years ago)
+blaq7427 Ok, verify the following with scientific proof: 1. virgin birth 2. Adam made from clay and Eve made from a rib bone 3. Talking snake 4. Talking donkey 5. fire breathing monsters 6. Trees growing to reach the sky 7. Flat earth 8. Earth made 6,000 years ago 7. Dead people waking up 8. People turning into salt pillars 9. Psalm 17:9 10. 1. Peter 2:18 11. Luke 19:27 12. Isaiha 34:3 13. John 2:15 14.  Deutoronomy 13: 6-9
TakeSomeAdvice (4 years ago)
I heard a smart sounding accent and 'scientist' say something was true, so I believe it. He's a smarty pants. He's a smarty. 
GSpotter63 (4 years ago)
The scientific community has been using radiometric dating to verify the assumed dates of the geologic column and it's index fossils for about 100 years now. So tell me, How can one be certain that their dating system is accurate? What method have they used to verify it's results? I have been told that the decay rate of the isotopes used in the dating methods have been thoroughly tested and it is just a matter of doing the math. ( That is, if the myriad of un-testable variables are not taken into account) Well, Look it up. The RATE Group: Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE). This assembly of PhD scientists gathered more than 300 samples of igneous rock from over 30 volcanic sites around the world and sent those samples to multiple labs for dating using 4 different radiometric dating methods. (Potassium-Argon, Rubidium-Strontium, Led-Led, Samarium-Neodymium) In ((EVERY SINGLE CASE)) the results returned were inconsistent with each other and were hundreds of millions to billions of years off of the historically known ages of the samples. Samples that were dated by eyewitness and imperial observation. Is this proof that the radio isotope dating methods are off and do not work? It has been explained to me many times, and I fully understand. " You can't use radiometric dating to date an igneous rock younger than 10,000 years. Radiometric dating was never intended to date something so young and would give inaccurate results." AND YOU ARE 100% CORRECT. But stop and think about that for a second, if the entire world was indeed less than 10,000 years old, then every single rock in the entire world would be less than 10,000 years old. So, no matter what rocks we tested, the results would be in error, and indicate that they are ALL hundreds of thousands to billions of years old regardless of their actual true date. So, if the data provided by radiometric dating can fit both the young world paradigm, as well as the old would paradigm, then radiometric dating proves absolutely nothing. So tell me again, If the dating system can fit both paradigms. How can one be certain that the dates returned by the dating system fits evolution and not a young earth? What method have they used to verify that it fits theirs? Were the dates returned by the radio dating system verified by observable, repeatable, and verifiable data, or to something CONTRIVED in their own minds over 200 years ago? (AKA the igneous rocks found in the geologic column and their ASSIGNED DATES) Thought check----- Which of these two methods of determining the length of a pipe would give the most reliable results? 1. The guesses gathered from 1000,000 people and averaged out? Or 2. The data acquired from the use of a measuring tape? ( something that can be observed, demonstrated, and repeated ). So then, which of these two methods of determining the accuracy of a radio metric dating system would give the most reliable results? 1. Comparing the dating system to the guesses of 100,000 people? (AKA the igneous rocks found in the geologic column and their ASSIGNED DATES, something that Charles Lyle and his cronies CONTRIVED in their own mind 200 years ago). Igneous rocks that I must point out that nobody ever saw form.  Or 2. Testing the dating methods against  igneous rocks from places like Mt. Saint Helens, the Hawaiian volcanoes, or any number of hundreds of other volcanoes throughout the world in which man actually watched and recorded the date that the rocks were formed on? Now, if you think that the geologic column, index fossils, and all their assigned dates CONTRIVED IN THE MINDS of Charles Lyle and the myriad of scientists over the last 200 years are more reliable then something that is observable, repeatable, and verifiable, today, then you might need to stand back a bit and take another look at the motivation of your dreadful deductive reasoning.
Kjell Williams (4 years ago)
+GSpotter63 claims: "the results returned were inconsistent with each other and were hundreds of millions to billions of years off of the historically known ages of the samples.". This would indeed be a hugely important piece of evidence against radiometric dating methods. Could you give me the source of your info, please? I'd love to read the report!
Adrian Racovita (4 years ago)
Or try isochron dating technique. The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204. Chondrites (CM, CV, H, L, LL, E) 13 Sm-Nd 4.21 +/- 0.76 Carbonaceous chondrites 4 Rb-Sr 4.37 +/- 0.34 Chondrites (undisturbed H, LL, E) 38 Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.02 Chondrites (H, L, LL, E) 50 Rb-Sr 4.43 +/- 0.04 H Chondrites (undisturbed) 17 Rb-Sr 4.52 +/- 0.04 H Chondrites 15 Rb-Sr 4.59 +/- 0.06 L Chondrites (relatively undisturbed) 6 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.12 L Chondrites 5 Rb-Sr 4.38 +/- 0.12 LL Chondrites (undisturbed) 13 Rb-Sr 4.49 +/- 0.02 LL Chondrites 10 Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06 E Chondrites (undisturbed) 8 Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.04 E Chondrites 8 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.13 Eucrites (polymict) 23 Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.19 Eucrites 11 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.30 Eucrites 13 Lu-Hf 4.57 +/- 0.19 Diogenites 5 Rb-Sr 4.45 +/- 0.18 Iron (plus iron from St. Severin) 8 Re-Os 4.57 +/- 0.21 As shown in the table, there is excellent agreement on about 4.5 billion years, between several meteorites and by several different dating methods. Note that young-Earthers cannot accuse us of selective use of data -- the above table includes a significant fraction of all meteorites on which isotope dating has been attempted. talkorigin.com ;) 
pon33villin (4 years ago)
That's nice. If you measure the tree-rings in some areas, and how several generations of trees living thousands of years each overlap histories of particular climate changes in that region, back from present-day thousand-year-old trees, you can get reliable histories stretching back over 11,000 years. So, by that fact alone, unless God zapped trees into existence before rocks, your hypothesis is FU$#@*. But there are other facts. Like erosion around the entire world. And the visibility of distant galaxies in an expanding Universe where the speed of light is constant. And geomagnetic reversal happens every 50,000-80,000 years and reverses over the course of thousands of years alone, arrived at through several methods of determination not including radiometric dating. And ice core samples which have yearly rings that show 100,000+ years of history. Science isn't for the most part about deductive reasoning. Common sense, the poor man's 'science', utilizes that far more often. Science is INDUCTIVE, which means you have to take in new facts and add them ALL up, because they ALL represent reality. Sorry, G, but you need to get out of your 6"x10"x3" book and meet the 13,700,000,000ly x 13,700,000,000ly x 13,700,000,000ly Universe. It's telling things to people that the people in your book couldn't even imagine knowing.
BiggerJose (4 years ago)
Hai me Rinaldis
Mario Gruber (4 years ago)
no it isn't, by pseudoscience maybe, it is stronlgy contradicted by all of proper science
Mario Gruber (4 years ago)
We examine minerals or crystals, that strongly reject lead but incorporate uranium into their structure. When their is lead inside of them we know it has come from uranium. Just wikipedia this stuff, if you're not convinced check out wikipedia's sources, if you're still not convinced, do the experiments and math yourself. If you disprove this method you will win the noble prize ^^
Mario Gruber (5 years ago)
E=mc2, the radiation from the uranium turns into mass (lead).
Mario Gruber (5 years ago)
E=mc2, the radiation from the uranium turns into mass (lead).
Ester Samuels (5 years ago)
Relativity is related to nuclear decay?
warriorprince101010 (5 years ago)
Creation is supported by all science we have, no problems we are a war of.
islandonlinenews (5 years ago)
how many rocks have you dated?
frankos rooni (5 years ago)
Facts --that is what you haven't got and we have---bags of it!!!. You creationist clowns should stick to bothering people in shopping mall carparks and leave real science to those who know something about it. .You liars are an embarrassment to christianity and honest people
frankos rooni (5 years ago)
Ironic that you are so happy to lie. You are obviously a religious zealot lying for jesus --but the fact that you slander the name of hardworking scientists who are looking for the actual objective truth disgusts me. Scientists have a strict code of ethics, peer review and jounal publishing before they can claim a single thing as a hypotheis --whereas you lying clowns just vomit up whatever crap you want. Not one creationist "scientist" has ever passed peer review --you are just an irrelevance
frankos rooni (5 years ago)
Where? The video (and a huge mass of evidence besides) certainly disproves a 6000 yr old earth.. It says nothing about a creator god --but shows no evidence for one either
frankos rooni (5 years ago)
Not a bit of it --the geological column has benn cross tested by lots of different dating techniques --and other than some small C14 anomolies which we are very well aware of --there has been huge consistency. You have got to understand that accuracy matters to scientists --if these were not accurate methods they would have been discarded years ago. I'm afraid some ignorant creationists have been posting crap about dating --based more on their religion than any actual facts
frankos rooni (5 years ago)
Please watch the video again --the mass loss is proportionate --so any given amount of zircon the uranium to lead decay can be used. This is a very accurate method used acroos the entire geolical column without many anomolies No ---nothing affects uranium decay --if it did the nuclear industry would be delighted So your so called variables are bogus -- If you have any serious questions please feel free to ask a working physicist who has been analysing these rocks for his whole life
Andrish Mana (5 years ago)
Ok. I'm annoyed. My cousin lives on the floor above me and he recently became outstanding with a lot of women. He found the Master Attraction site (Lookup in Google) by Jake Ayres. Now I hear him bringing women back. He's constantly bringing the ladies back and I can't help but hear it. It's disgusting and I wish he never discovered that site. My closest friend is getting laid now too coz of that site.
islandonlinenews (5 years ago)
so how much radioactive material, uranium I guess, was in the rock when it formed? how long did it take for that rock to form? has any uranium or lead escaped the rock? wouldn't all these factors greatly effect the age? how can you be confident in the age with all these unknown variables?
islandonlinenews (5 years ago)
I definitely see evidence for creation.
freqimann (5 years ago)
prove it. you keep saying it is. that doesn't make it true. PROVE IT. give an example. something physical, something i can witness. otherwise you are deluding yourself.
warriorprince101010 (5 years ago)
All that we see is evidence for creation.
freqimann (5 years ago)
there is no actual evidence for creation. it MAY have happened the way you say it did, but the evidence supports evolution. i am disinclined to believe your assertion that it is true.
warriorprince101010 (5 years ago)
We see creation, so yes it is true.
freqimann (5 years ago)
if we see it, its not made up... that would, you know, make it... true...
Niklas Wikstrom (5 years ago)
The facts are based on evidence, which is unfortunately not what you use for your "facts".
Niklas Wikstrom (5 years ago)
Oh really? I'm pretty sure that lying is considered sinful, even when used to further your creationist agenda. Sorry about that
mrdokma (5 years ago)
Science agrees with the theory of Creation in every aspect and refutes the fairy tale of billions of years in every step. For example in this video we are not informed that helium diffusion refutes Uranium/Lead dating without hope of recovery.
NoodleStudioRecords (5 years ago)
Please answer where apart from textbooks is a complete geological column? How much helium was found in the zircon and what do you consider to be the dissipation rate of helium over let's say 1000 years? Surely fossils form quickly like cement otherwise how do you explain the perfect formations. Why is there no bioturbation inbetween sedimentary layers? Why are dates thrown out that do not fit the geological column? What percentage of dates are thrown out as wrong? I hope you can answer thanks
Snbkr (5 years ago)
Nothing in our solar system is over 4.53 billion yrs? how could would test everything in our solar system? Is the uranium and lead in the mineral that is in the rock perfectly spread in the rock? That would need to be true to get a true number of age right?
SnoopyDoo (5 years ago)
What the hell are you talking about??? What has that to do with my comment? I think you posted your reply to the wrong user.
SnoopyDoo (5 years ago)
50,000 years isn't its half life. 5730 years is the half life.
warriorprince101010 (5 years ago)
You evolutionists tend to work together when making up facts from what we have seen.
Niklas Wikstrom (5 years ago)
It's amazing what facts you can make up on your own with no basis whatsoever. Well done!
warriorprince101010 (5 years ago)
Ok, thanks.
Niklas Wikstrom (5 years ago)
Science is happy with creation? Wow
Jonathan Gasser (5 years ago)
There is a certain mineral, glauconite, that forms at the same time as certain sedimentary rocks. These minerals have potassium, which disintegrates to argon, permitting dating. However, these minerals don't form in all sedimentary rocks, and I don't know the methods for dating the other sedimentary rocks, their origins being diverse. For the fossils, I guess we would just use carbon 14 dating on the actual fossils, and not on the rocks they are embedded in.
Jonathan Gasser (5 years ago)
I love the comparison with the two sides of the argument. One emits a statement, with no argumentation backing it up; the other refutes it with a huge source of fact. The first then proceeds ignore and repeat the same statement. The latter comes up with more back up. Repeat, forever.
warriorprince101010 (5 years ago)
Evolutionism has indeed been refuted. Science is happy with creation.
warriorprince101010 (5 years ago)
"Reasoned arguments and verifiable evidence with strong peer reviewed scientific consensus "...Radiometric dating has none of that.
warriorprince101010 (5 years ago)
Never tried drugs, but looking at you it looks like I dodged a bullet on that one.
bjchua (5 years ago)
I never knew radiometric dating was disproved or that DNA goes back to mere thousands of years. May I find out which lab published these data? Or could you cite the papers in question? If someone indeed manage to overturn a scientific theory, he/she would be quite celebrated in the scientific community. Also which history journal published about population numbers? Many civilizations existed before, Jiahu in China 7000bc, Mesopotamia 7-800BC, Plocnik 5500bc each civ. studied in great detail...
warriorprince101010 (5 years ago)
Radiometric dating has been refuted scientifically. DNA goes back 6500 years, historical records also and population numbers go back 4400 to the flood. Science, history and logic are happy with creation.
bjchua (5 years ago)
There are quite a number of problems. For example, in the field of astrophysics, evidence of galaxies so far away that light has to travel millions of years to reach us, in geology, different dating techniques Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, Lu-Hf, Re-Os etc all point to a different time scale from creationism. What's incredible is that when you use DNA to date things, this also corresponds to the dates independently derived in geology.It is difficult to incorporate creationism in current understanding of science
warriorprince101010 (5 years ago)
Every field of science supports creation and fossil records are exactly what they should be if a global flood covered the earth 4400 years ago. Science is happy with creation, there are no problems we are aware of.
bjchua (5 years ago)
I'm curious which predictions of evolution that you were taught has been refuted by experiments? Almost every field of biology relies on evolution to predict certain things like genes or mutations, so its the first time I'm hearing that its been refuted. By which publication? Which university? Scientists are comfortable with personal beliefs, but for things that can be tested like the age of rocks, experiments fr. many labs and many techniques have to give the same answer to be accepted
warriorprince101010 (5 years ago)
Science is in full support of creation. Everything points to design.
leptismagna10 (5 years ago)
what kind of backwards ignorance is that? evolution refuted? hahaha, yeah, and adam and eve have been found...
warriorprince101010 (5 years ago)
Every prediction of evolutionism has been refuted. Science is happy with creation and all fossils are where they should be if there was flood 4400 years ago.
GSpotter63 (5 years ago)
Part 1) If you found a set of foot prints in the concrete of your garage and you wanted to know the age of those foot prints. You could remove a piece of aggregate from that concrete and have it radiometric dated. Would that give you the date that the concrete was poured and so the date of the foot prints, or would it just give you the date of the piece of aggregate? Let me point out that that aggregate would have formed in another place and time and would have been brought there.
GSpotter63 (5 years ago)
Part 4) The bottom line is, that dating the particles (material) containing a fossil, dates the age of said particles covering the fossil, and not the date that the fossil itself was formed, and so the date of the death of the animal. If a worldwide flood did take place we would expect to see young fossils embedded in new deposits formed from eroded material taken from older rock: and that is exactly what we find.
GSpotter63 (5 years ago)
Part 5) Wow! this thinking that dating the content (particles) found in a sedimentary rock will date the time of its deposition instead of the date of the original formation of the particles is either a massive cover up (No pun intended), or just plain foolishness.
warriorprince101010 (5 years ago)
Truth searchers all support creation. Yes evolutionism is a knowing lie and open fraud, it was never anything else.
KoolBreeze420 (5 years ago)
Your brainwashed it does work their is no fraud their are no extremists just truth searchers nothing more Its to bad your another Ray Comfort idiot who thinks that all scientist have made up evolution just so they can sin or some stupid concept or whatever you think it is open your brain start to think for yourself and quit being controlled by an ancient book that has never got anything right. I cant believe that ppl can believe in a book where the authors aren't even known it baffles me
KoolBreeze420 (5 years ago)
As I said your wrong get over it I'd like to see you prove this cause you cant God did it doesn't work
warriorprince101010 (5 years ago)
Science does indeed demand a designer, no room for accident. Science supports creation.
KoolBreeze420 (5 years ago)
Wrong science doesn't demand a designer Faith and The bible demand a creator.Science just shows the truth nothing more and creationist like Ray Comfort and Eric Hovind and his father are out to poison minds and make sure we drop back into the dark ages they want to make sure you cant think for yourself they want you obedient to the magic man all because of one thing they want your money Science has no motivations except truth and to better mankind with things like medical science
KoolBreeze420 (5 years ago)
No it sure doesn't unless your going to say That god created us using evolution but there is no evidence that we just popped into existence as you believe.The fossil record, Dna and a variety of other sciences all prove we evolved Ken Miller proved to the world not to long ago that Chromosome number 2 is ultimate proof that we share a common ancestor with modern day primates.Bacteria have been seen to evolve in the lab.
bjchua (5 years ago)
Actually, you might be surprised - Evolution has predicted the appearance of specific fossils at locations where the right age of rocks are exposed, the appearance of specific genes in various animals and also, the lack of genes in some, it predicted specific retrovirally inserted genes in others too. Its really quite a beautiful tapestry of mutually supportive evidences that spans genetics, geology, physics. Some scientists have even began using evolution to manufacture proteins since 2002!
warriorprince101010 (5 years ago)
Evolutionism is fraud and has predicted nothing. Similarity, imperfection, fossil record all supports creation.
bjchua (5 years ago)
I think more than anything, Science demands evidence that can withstand rigorous testing and demonstrate predictive powers. For example, evolution could predict certain genetic oddities like the fusion of telomeres in the human genome, or particular types of fossils within a rock layer of certain dates. As for intelligent design, its prediction of irreducible complexity failed many times. Its incredibly hard for a scientist to accept a hypothesis that fails under testing - you can't blame them.
warriorprince101010 (5 years ago)
Science demands a designer, no room for magic accident in science.
warriorprince101010 (5 years ago)
There is no scientific basis of magic accident. Science demands a designer. Logic and science both demand a designer.
TheTomtuffy (5 years ago)
It is used by real scientists because it is accurate to say otherwise is pointing towards a yec sympathiser clutching at straws.
warriorprince101010 (5 years ago)
You have been shown to eb the no proof accidentalist. No room in science for accident.
TheTomtuffy (5 years ago)
Coming from you that means sweet fa,no proof typical theist.

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.