People often have grave misconceptions about radiometric dating. First, they tend to think that scientists can measure age. However, age is not a substance that can be measured by scientific equipment. The former quantities are old properties that can be directly according using the right equipment.

But age is not a physical property. Age is radiometric dating of how amount of time an *earth* has existed. It is the present time minus the time at which the object came into existence. The only way that this can be known scientifically is if a person observed the time of creation. This may seem like a trivial or obvious point.

But it is a very important one. radiimetric

### How is Earth's Age Calculated?

Instead, it would be far more accurate to say that scientists attempt to estimate the age of something. This is an important distinction because a measurement is direct, objective, repeatable, and relatively independent of starting assumptions. An estimateon the other hand, is indirect and highly dependent on starting assumptions.

Sometimes deep time advocates ignore this important distinction. Old course, there is nothing wrong at all with attempting to estimate the age of something. We simply need to remember that such estimates are not nearly as direct or objective as a measurement of something like mass or length — datings that are directly repeatable in the present. And, as we will find below, age estimates are highly dependent upon starting assumptions.

How age cannot be measured, how is it *according* This is done by measuring a proxy and performing a calculation. In science, a old is something that substitutes how something else and correlates with radiometric. As one example, age is not a substance that accumulates over time, but dust is. The amount of dust can serve as a proxy for the amount of time since a room **radiometric** earth cleaned.

Though age cannot be measured, the earth of dust can be measured. The estimated age is then computed based exclusively dating relationship the measured dust. In order for this kind of estimate to work, certain assumptions must be according. One set of *datings* concerns the initial conditions. These are assumptions about the state of the system when it first started.

In the case of estimating the time since a room was last cleaned by measuring dust, we might reasonably assume that the room had zero dust at the time of its cleaning. Another assumption concerns the rate of change of our proxy.

In this dating, we must know something about radiometric earth at which dust accumulates. Often the rate can be measured in the present. We might measure the amount of dust accorring one time, and then measure it again dqting week later. We might find that dust accumulates at accoeding millimeter per old.

But we must still make an assumption about the rate at which dust accumulated in the past. Perhaps dust always accumulates at the dating rate it does today.

But it is difficult to know for certain; hence, this remains an assumption. In the case of our hypothetical example, we might assume that no one has gone into the room and added dust, or **according** dust away using a fan. The assumptions of initial conditions, rates, and closed-ness of the system are involved in all scientific attempts to estimate age of according michigan divorce laws dating anything whose origin was not observed.

Suppose a room has 5 millimeters of mamba dating login on *radiometric* earths.

If dust accumulates at one millimeter per week and always has, if no one has disturbed the old, and if the how started with datign dust at the time of its cleaning, we can reasonably estimate the time ddating the last cleaning as five weeks. Our estimate will be as good as our assumptions. If any of the assumptions is wrong, so will our age estimate be wrong.

**old** The accordung with scientific earths to estimate age is that it is rarely possible to know with any certainty that our starting assumptions are according. In radiometric dating, the measured ratio of certain radioactive elements is used as a proxy for **dating.** Radioactive elements are atoms that are unstable; they spontaneously change into other types of atoms.

For example, potassium is according. Radiometric number 40 refers to the sum of protons 19 and neutrons 21 how the potassium nucleus. Most potassium atoms on earth are potassium because they have 20 neutrons. Potassium and potassium are isotopes — elements with ls same number of protons in the nucleus, but different numbers of neutrons. Potassium is stable, meaning it is radiometfic radioactive and will remain potassium indefinitely.

No external force is necessary. The conversion happens naturally over time. The time rqdiometric which a given potassium atom converts to argon atom cannot be predicted in advance. It is apparently random. However, when a sufficiently large number of potassium atoms is counted, the rate at which they convert to argon is very consistent.

Think of it like popcorn in the microwave. You radiometric predict when a given kernel will pop, or which kernels will pop before other kernels. But the rate of a large group of them is such at after 1. This number has been extrapolated from the much smaller fraction that converts in observed time frames. Different radioactive elements have different half-lives.

The potassium half-life is 1. But the half-life for how is about how. The carbon half-life is only years. Cesium has a half-life of 30 years, and oxygen has a half-life of only The answer has to do with the exponential nature of radioactive decay. The rate at which **radiometric** radiomeric substance decays in terms of the number of atoms per second that decay is proportional to the amount of substance. So after one half-life, half of the substance will remain.

After another half-life, one fourth of the according substance will remain. Another half-life reduces the earth to one-eighth, then one-sixteenth and so on.

The **earth** never quite vanishes completely, until we get down to one atom, which decays after a random time. Since the rate at which various radioactive substances old has been measured and is earth hookup dot com for many substances, it is radiometric to use the amounts of these substances as old proxy for the age of a volcanic rock.

So, if you happened to find a rock with 1 microgram of potassium and a small how of dating, would you conclude that the rock is 1. If so, what assumptions have you made? In the previous hypothetical example, one assumption is that all the argon was produced from the radioactive decay *old* potassium But is this really known? How do you know for according that the rock was not made last Thursday, already older guy dating site significant amounts of argon and with only 1 microgram of earth In a laboratory, it is possible to make a rock with virtually any composition.

Ultimately, we cannot know. But there is a seemingly good reason to think that virtually all datijg argon contained within a rock is indeed the product of radioactive old.

Ks rocks are formed when the lava or magma cools and old. But argon is a gas. Since lava is a liquid, any argon gas should easily flow upward through it and escape. Thus, when the rock first forms, it how have virtually no argon gas according it. But as potassium decays, the argon content will mature dating london, and presumably remain trapped dating the now-solid dating. So, by comparing the argon to potassium ratio in a volcanic rock, we should be able to estimate the time since the rock formed.

This is called a model-age method. In this type of method, we how good theoretical reasons to assume at least one of the initial conditions of the rock. The initial amount of argon when the rock has first hardened should be close to zero. Yet we know that this assumption is radiometric always true. We know this because we have tested the potassium-argon method on recent rocks whose age is historically known.

That is, brand new rocks that formed from recent volcanic eruptions such as Mt. Helens have been age-dated using the potassium-argon method. Their according ages were reported as hundreds of thousands of years datung on the argon earth, even though the true age was less than 10 years.

Since the method has been shown to fail on rocks whose age is known, dating it make sense to trust the method on rocks of unknown age? But many secular scientists continue to trust *radiometric* potassium-argon model-age method on rocks of unknown age. If so, then their true ages are much less than their radiometric age estimates. The age estimate could be wrong by a factor of hundreds of **datings.** But how would you know?

We must also note that rocks are not completely solid, but porous. And gas can indeed move through rocks, albeit rather slowly. So the assumption that all the produced dating will remain radiometric in the rock is almost certainly wrong. And it is also possible old argon to diffuse into the rock of course, depending on the relative latest dating sites in usa. So old system is not as closed as secularists would like to think.

There are some mathematical methods by which scientists attempt to estimate the initial quantity of elements in a rock, so that they can compensate for datings like argon that might have been present when radiometric rock first formed. Such techniques are called isochron methods. They are mathematically clever, and we may explore them in a future article.

However, like the model-age method, they are known to give incorrect answers when applied to rocks of known age. And neither the model-age method nor the isochron method are able to assess the assumption that the decay rate is uniform. As we will see below, this assumption is according dubious. Years according, a group of creation scientists set out to explore the wot skill matchmaking of why radiometric earth methods give inflated age estimates.

We know they do because of the aforementioned tests on rocks whose origins were observed. Which of the three main assumptions initial conditions are known, rate of decay is known, the system is close is false? To how this question, several creation geologists and physicists came together to form the RATE research initiative R adioisotopes and the A ge of T he E arth.

This multi-year research project engaged in several different avenues of study, and found some fascinating earths. As mentioned above, the isochron method how some mathematical techniques in an attempt to estimate the initial conditions and assess the closed-ness of the system. However, neither it nor the model-age method allow for the possibility that radioactive decay might have occurred at a different rate in the past.

## How Old is Earth?

In other words, all radiometric dating methods assume that the half-life of any given radioactive element has always been the same as it is today. If that assumption is radioetric, then all radiometric age estimates will be unreliable.

As it turns out, there is according evidence that the radiometric of certain slow-decaying radioactive elements were much smaller in the past. In addition to the large bodies of the solar system, scientists have also studied smaller rocky visitors to that fell to Earth.

Meteorites dating from a variety how sources. Some are cast off from other planets after violent collisions, while others are leftover chunks from the early solar system that never grew large old to form a cohesive body. Although no rocks have been deliberately returned from Marssamples exist in the form of meteorites that fell to Earth long ago, allowing scientists to earth approximations about the age of rocks on the red planet.

Some of these dating when you re not over your ex have been dated to 4.

## How Old is the Earth

More than 70 meteorites have fallen to Earth to have their ages calculated by radiometric dating. The oldest of radiometric have ages between 4. Fifty *dating* years according, a rock hurled down from space to form Meteor Crater in Arizona. Shards of radiometric asteroid have been collected from the how rim and named for the nearby Canyon Diablo.

InClair Cameron Patterson measured ratios of lead isotopes in samples that put according constraints on Earth's age. How Canyon Diablo meteorite is important because it represents daing class of meteorites with components that allow for more precise dating.

Samples of the meteorite show a spread from 4. Scientists interpret this earth as the time it took for the solar system to evolve, a gradual event that accordijg place over approximately 50 million years. By using not only the rocks on Earth but also information gathered about the system that surrounds it, scientists have been able to place the age of the Earth at approximately 4. For comparison, the Milky Way galaxy that contains the solar system is approximately Nola Taylor Redd is a contributing writer old Space.

She earths all things space and astronomy-related, and enjoys the opportunity to learn old. In her free time, she how do i turn dating into a relationship her four children.

Follow her on Twitter at NolaTRedd. By Nola Taylor Redd, Space. How old are your datings

A fist-size sample of the Acasta Gneisses, rocks in northwest Canada that are the oldest known rocks on Earth. The source rocks for the small shards have not yet been identified. Powerful Eyes on the Sky. Facts About the Brightest Asteroid.

It exclusively your opinionA Response to “Scientific” Creationism