Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How, exactly, is dating done?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 4 of 58 (67109)
11-17-2003 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Will_Drotar
11-17-2003 3:17 PM


Please don't tell me they're right.
LOL, given the history of the YEC sources what are the odds they will get it right?
I would expect there is a YEC or two here who might disagree with the above. If so, please jump in and point to an online source that does "get it right". This seems to be an area that they are particulary bad at.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Will_Drotar, posted 11-17-2003 3:17 PM Will_Drotar has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 9 of 58 (67189)
11-17-2003 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Rei
11-17-2003 4:16 PM


that for some God-given reason, radioactive decay went faster in the past
I won't bother with finding the sites unless someone really wants to but:
There is a creationist site that actually sites specific scientific papers about difference in the rate of radioactive decay. They talk about "bound state beta decay" and another condition which causes very significant changes in the rate of change of nucluli. This is, of course, used to support the suppostition that dating of rocks could be wrong because decay rates can TOO change.
Unfortunately for the credibility of this source it leaves out a couple of facts. I would say that leaving them out makes it dishonest but perhaps that is in the mind of the beholder.
Bound state beta decay (only one of the ways for something to decay) requires complete or nearly complete ionization of the atom in question. This is not mentioned (odd that) nor are the conditions required to produce this mentioned. Not mention is made of the chances of the rocks of the earth being in a plasma state anytime during the past 4 Gyrs made.
The other change does mention the conditions --- I don't remember the exact numbers -- something like 200 million degress if I remember right. That fact that this might apply to a supernova and not even the core of the sun seems to have gotten left out. Something of an oversight perhaps?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Rei, posted 11-17-2003 4:16 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Rei, posted 11-17-2003 6:03 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 11 by JonF, posted 11-17-2003 6:12 PM NosyNed has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024