Home earth Earth History Geologist Radioactive. Read about How do we know the Age of the Earth? Radiometric dating using the naturally-occurring radioactive elements is simple in concept even though technically complex. If we know the number of radioactive parent atoms present when a rock formed and the number present now, we can calculate the age of the rock using the decay constant. The number of parent atoms originally present is simply the number present now plus the number of daughter atoms formed by the decay, both of which are quantities that can be measured. Samples for dating are selected carefully to avoid those that are altered, contaminated, or disturbed by later heating or chemical events. In addition to the ages of Earth, Moon, and meteorites, radiometric dating has been used to determine ages of fossils, including early man, timing of glaciations, ages of mineral deposits, recurrence rates of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, the history of reversals of Earth's magnetic field, and the age and duration of a wide variety of other geological events and processes.
So, we start out with two isotopes of uranium that are unstable and radioactive. They release radiation until they eventually become stable isotopes of lead.
These two uranium isotopes decay at different rates. In other words, they have different half-lives. The half-life of the uranium to lead is 4. The uranium to lead decay series is marked by a half-life of million years. These differing rates of decay help make uranium-lead dating one of the most reliable methods of radiometric dating because they provide two different decay clocks. This provides a built-in cross-check to more accurately determine the age of the sample. Uranium is not the only isotope that can be used to date rocks; we do see additional methods of radiometric dating based on the decay of different isotopes.
For example, with potassium-argon datingwe can tell the age of materials that contain potassium because we know that potassium decays into argon with a half-life of 1. With rubidium-strontium datingwe see that rubidium decays into strontium with a half-life of 50 billion years. By anyone's standards, 50 billion years is a long time.
Consider, radiometric dating elements used think
In fact, this form of dating has been used to date the age of rocks brought back to Earth from the moon. So, we see there are a number of different methods for dating rocks and other non-living things, but what if our sample is organic in nature?
For example, how do we know that the Iceman, whose frozen body was chipped out of glacial ice inis 5, years old? Well, we know this because samples of his bones and hair and even his grass boots and leather belongings were subjected to radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon datingalso known as carbon dating or simply carbon dating, is a method used to determine the age of organic material by measuring the radioactivity of its carbon content.
So, radiocarbon dating can be used to find the age of things that were once alive, like the Iceman.
Carbon dating using this isotope used in radiometric dating. Some chemical elements have a. Certain naturally occurring radioactive decay, and looking for one . Radiometric dating (often called radioactive dating) is a technique used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, usually based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates. " these [radiometric dating] methods provide largely consistent results for the ages of various rock strata throughout the geologic column, which correlate well with non-radiometric dating methods, including cores, varves, dendrochronology, and others.".
And this would also include things like trees and plants, which give us paper and cloth. So, radiocarbon dating is also useful for determining the age of relics, such the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Shroud of Turin.
With radiocarbon dating, the amount of the radioactive isotope carbon is measured. Compared to some of the other radioactive isotopes we have discussed, carbon's half-life of 5, years is considerably shorter, as it decays into nitrogen Carbon is continually being created in the atmosphere due to the action of cosmic rays on nitrogen in the air. Carbon combines with oxygen to create carbon dioxide.
Because plants use carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, this isotope ends up inside the plant, and because animals eat plants, they get some as well. When a plant or an animal dies, it stops taking in carbon The existing carbon within the organism starts to decay back into nitrogen, and this starts our clock for radiocarbon dating.
A scientist can take a sample of an organic material when it is discovered and evaluate the proportion of carbon left in the relic to determine its age. Let's review. Radiometric dating is a method used to date rocks and other objects based on the known decay rate of radioactive isotopes. The decay rate is referring to radioactive decaywhich is the process by which an unstable atomic nucleus loses energy by releasing radiation.
Each radioactive isotope decays at its own fixed rate, which is expressed in terms of its half-life or, in other words, the time required for a quantity to fall to half of its starting value. There are different methods of radiometric dating. Uranium-lead dating can be used to find the age of a uranium-containing mineral.
Uranium decays to lead, and uranium decays to lead The two uranium isotopes decay at different rates, and this helps make uranium-lead dating one of the most reliable methods because it provides a built-in cross-check. Additional methods of radiometric dating, such as potassium-argon dating and rubidium-strontium datingexist based on the decay of those isotopes.
Radiocarbon dating is a method used to determine the age of organic material by measuring the radioactivity of its carbon content.
With radiocarbon dating, we see that carbon decays to nitrogen and has a half-life of 5, years. To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.
Create your account. Already a member? Log In.
Did you know We have over college courses that prepare you to earn credit by exam that is accepted by over 1, colleges and universities. You can test out of the first two years of college and save thousands off your degree. Anyone can earn credit-by-exam regardless of age or education level. To learn more, visit our Earning Credit Page.
Thermal ionization mass spectrometer used in radiometric dating. Radiometric dating calculates an age in years for geologic materials by measuring the presence of a short-life radioactive element, e.g., carbon, or a long-life radioactive element plus its decay product, e.g., potassium/argon The abundances of parent and daughter isotopes in a sample elements be measured and used to determine their age. This method is known as radiometric dating. Some commonly used dating methods are summarized and Table 1. The rate of decay for many radioactive isotopes has been measured and does not change over time.
Not sure what college you want to attend yet? Log in. Sign Up. Explore over 4, video courses. Find a degree that fits your goals. Try it risk-free for 30 days.
Phrase This radiometric dating elements used consider, that you
An error occurred trying to load this video. Try refreshing the page, or contact customer support. Register to view this lesson Are you a student or a teacher? I am a student I am a teacher. With less advanced equipment, 'memory effects' can be a problem with very young samples. That is, very tiny amounts of argon contaminants from previous analyses may remain within the equipment, which precludes accurate dates for very young samples.
For older samples, which contain more 40Ar, the contamination is diluted and has insignificant effects. Because all but one of the dates [measured by Austin et al].
Henke points out that:. Austin's descriptions in the following statements clearly indicate that he FAILED to adequately separate the phenocrysts and possible xenocrysts from the volcanic glass. Austin admits:. So as we can see, there's no good reason to believe that this Mount St Helens rock-age data proves anything more than the incompetency of creationist researchers.
I think I actually have an idea of what went wrong here: these creationists, at the outset of their study, had a very good plan in place for how to conduct rigorous analysis on this question; in the course of their research, however, they ended up dropping this plan into the volcanoso they just said "Fuck it" and decided to wing it from that point on.
More examples of similar such discrepancies are cited in a lecture given by creationist Andrew Snelling. During his lecture, he shows this slide which features five examples of the known ages of rocks not matching up with the dated ages of rocks. Notice that four of the examples show a radiometric age of less than half a million years with the fifth example showing an age of about 1.
These dates are perfectly in line with the dates we saw in the Mount St Helens study; so perhaps the explanation is, yet again, residual equipment contamination, or foreign rock intrusion? Rather than the dating techniques being flawed, perhaps it's this research that's flawed? Snelling says the following in his lecture :. The answer is we can't. Or maybe we can if we simply use the correct equipment and remove foreign particles from the sample to minimize contamination?
Apologise, but, radiometric dating elements used can recommend come
And recall that, as Henke pointed out, this problem of equipment contamination is unique to younger rocks; if we're dealing with rocks that are hundreds of millions of years old, the trace amounts of leftover argon adding a million years or so to the sample is going to have only the tiniest effect on the dated age of the rock. Let's say the rock is million years old and the trace argon makes it appear million years old; relatively speaking, on a geological timescale, this difference is so minor as to be virtually inconsequential.
By the way, I love the potted plants that Snelling has on stage in front of him. I don't know why, but I kinda like it. It really livens the place up. And why just stop at plants, while we're at it? Why not have a tortoise or a cockatoo just sort of hanging out on stage with you when you give your lecture?
This is the future of public speaking, ladies and gentlemen. The model K-Ar ages for each of the samples ranged from Furthermore, the seven samples from the small amphibolite unit near Clear Creek, which should all be the same age because they belong to the same metamorphosed basalt lava flow, yielded K-Ar model ages ranging from So basically, samples from one section of rock yielded wildly divergent results.
Greg Neyman of Old Earth Ministries-a Christian organization, I might add-points out the very simple problem underlying this study:. So, what do the [creationist researchers do?
Radiometric Dating: Carbon-14 and Uranium-238
So what the creationist is doing here is misapplying these dating techniques and then saying: "See! I told you we couldn't trust these dating techniques. I told you this stuff doesn't get you high. Try tearing out a page from your Bible and rolling a joint with that shit, and then come and talk to me.
Creationists will also point to examples where freshly killed animals are carbon-dated as being thousands of years old-thus, we're told, these dating methods cannot be trusted. For example, we read on CreationToday. A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1, years ago. Kieth and Anderson show considerable evidence that the mussels acquired much of their carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in and from some very old humus as well.
Carbon from these sources is very low in C because these sources are so old and have not been mixed with fresh carbon from the air. Thus, a freshly killed mussel has far less C than a freshly killed something else, which is why the C dating method makes freshwater mussels seem older than they really are.
When dating wood there is no such problem because wood gets its carbon straight from the air, complete with a full dose of C What about the freshly killed seal? As Talk Origins writes. The seals feed off of animals that live in a nutrient-rich upwelling zone.
Radiometric dating elements used
The water that is upwelling has been traveling along the [ocean] bottom for a few thousand years before surfacing. The carbon dioxide in it came from the atmosphere before the water sank. Thus, the carbon in the sea water is a couple of thousand years 'old' from when it was in the atmosphere, and its radiocarbon content reflects this time. Once again, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this discrepancy, and this doesn't justify a wholesale dismissal of radiometric dating.
Notice a pattern here? Now you might be saying at this point: If we can't use these dating methods on certain types of rock or animal, it seems to me that they're just not trustworthy. Understand that nobody is saying radiometric dating works perfectly in every conceivable set of circumstances; as with almost every tool in science, there are certain limitations to radiometric dating-and nobody understands these limitations better than the scientists who use these dating techniques.
As they write on Talk Origins. By analogy, diagnostic tools in medicine will sometimes generate false positives, where the test results inaccurately indicate that a person has a disease that they don't actually have. This doesn't therefore make these tools completely worthless; it just means that sometimes, they get it wrong-but when properly applied, the techniques will give us the correct answer the vast majority of the time.
The next example is much more tantalizing because it purportedly shows two wildly divergent dates taken from the exact same animal. What could possibly explain this?
Eric Hovind, writing for CreationToday. One problem with this quote: It doesn't appear to actually exist-much like God, I might add! Nowhere does the cited study appear to contain this particular sentence. This means that the direct quote given. Secondly, none of the radiocarbon dates for mammoths given in that table are 44, or 29, So not only is the quote a fabrication but the information contained in it is too.
How wrong can a single sentence be?
As we can see here in the table from the studythe two references to mammoths provide one date of 32, years for the first one, and 21, years for the other. There is no indication whatsoever that these two dates are referring to the same mammoth; in fact, quite the opposite is the case.
One is referred to as a baby mammoth, while the other is simply referred to as a mammoth; one is described as being potentially contaminated by glycerine, while the other is not.
This radiometric dating elements used matchless message
On top of that, the two samples were collected years apart! And note that these dates are presented in this table on page 30 of the study-the specific page referenced by Eric Hovind as the source of this quote-so what is going on here? Did somebody along the line misread this study, misrepresent its findings, and has this inaccuracy just been passed along from creationist to creationist like a game of telephone?
Why is a person as prominent as Eric Hovind not making sure that his references actually support what he claims they do? Perhaps he's just too busy polluting the internet with his mental diarrhea to do a bit of research and reading? Arguably the magnum opus of creationist efforts to refute radiometric dating is what's known as the RATE project, short for Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth. Among their many vaunted "findings" are the following, described on AnswersInGenesis.
Creation scientists suggest that there are two possible times that God supernaturally intervened on a global scale-during Creation Week and the Flood.
There are several common radioactive isotopes that are used for dating rocks, artifacts and fossils. The most common is U U is found in many igneous rocks, soil and sediment. U decays to Pb with a half-life of million years. 8 rows Effective Dating Range (years) Dating Sample: Key Fission Product: Lutetium Hafnium . Examples of Radiometric Dating. Uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating: Radioactive uranium comes in two forms, uranium and uranium The number refers to the number of protons plus neutrons. Uranium's atomic number is 92, corresponding to its number of protons.
The age equation The mathematical expression that relates radioactive decay to geologic time is. 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. The equation is most conveniently expressed in terms of the measured quantity N t rather than the constant initial value No.
The above equation makes use of information on the composition of parent and daughter isotopes at the time the material being tested cooled below its closure temperature. This is well-established for most isotopic systems. However, construction of an isochron does not require information on the original compositions, using merely the present ratios of the parent and daughter isotopes to a standard isotope.