Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,415 Year: 3,672/9,624 Month: 543/974 Week: 156/276 Day: 30/23 Hour: 3/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Buz's refutation of all radiometric dating methods
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5947
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 260 of 269 (486148)
10-16-2008 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Raedril Delvon
10-16-2008 11:36 AM


Re: Radiometric dating.
Uranium has a very short life span, so if the earth is, what was it? "65,000,000 years" old, much less 65,000 years... URANIUM WOULD NOT BE EXISTANT!
???
From the Uranium article at Uranium - Wikipedia:
quote:
In nature, uranium atoms exist as uranium-238 (99.284%), uranium-235 (0.711%),[2] and a very small amount of uranium-234 (0.0058%). Uranium decays slowly by emitting an alpha particle. The half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.47 billion years and that of uranium-235 is 704 million years,[3] making them useful in dating the age of the Earth (see uranium-thorium dating, uranium-lead dating and uranium-uranium dating).
I'm sorry, but I do not understand how 4.47 billion years would qualify as "short". Could you please explain?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Raedril Delvon, posted 10-16-2008 11:36 AM Raedril Delvon 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