• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

About fossils -- would you say this is true?

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
"The development of radiometric dating techniques in the early 20th century allowed scientists to quantitatively measure the absolute ages of rocks and the fossils they host." Note the last part -- scientists measure the absolute ages of rocks AND the fossils THEY HOST. What do you get from this? Are the dates of the fossils imputed from the sediment or rocks around them, or can fossils themselves minus the sediment be dated?
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
"The development of radiometric dating techniques in the early 20th century allowed scientists to quantitatively measure the absolute ages of rocks and the fossils they host." Note the last part -- scientists measure the absolute ages of rocks AND the fossils THEY HOST. What do you get from this? Are the dates of the fossils imputed from the sediment or rocks around them, or can fossils themselves minus the sediment be dated?

Evidently it can be either:

Dating

"Radiometric dating entails measuring the ratio of parent and daughter isotopes in a radioactive sample. These samples must be organic matter (i.e., wood, bones, and shells) or certain minerals and geologic material that contain radioactive isotopes. The rate of decay for many radioactive isotopes has been measured; neither heat, pressure, gravity, nor other variables change the rate of decay."
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
"The development of radiometric dating techniques in the early 20th century allowed scientists to quantitatively measure the absolute ages of rocks and the fossils they host." Note the last part -- scientists measure the absolute ages of rocks AND the fossils THEY HOST. What do you get from this? Are the dates of the fossils imputed from the sediment or rocks around them, or can fossils themselves minus the sediment be dated?
As the link says it can be both or whichever material is analysed.

 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Usually it is rather difficult to date sedimentary beds. But people keep forgetting about such things as volcanic ash. Volcanic ash is igneous and can be dated using radiometric dating.

Before radiometric dating existed geologists had could only determine relative ages. They could see that certain species existed at certain times. And that some of them were worldwide. That means long before radiometric dating there were good relative dates for ages of strata. The Cambrian was clearly older than the Ordovician.

Once radiometric dating existed then wherever there was a layer of ash between sedimentary layers they were able to get an accurate date for that point. The fossils in the sediments above it and below it tied it into relative dating. Over time the number of such points accumulated so that now with the combination of the two methods a reliable date can be given for almost any sedimentary strata.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Evidently it can be either:

Dating

"Radiometric dating entails measuring the ratio of parent and daughter isotopes in a radioactive sample. These samples must be organic matter (i.e., wood, bones, and shells) or certain minerals and geologic material that contain radioactive isotopes. The rate of decay for many radioactive isotopes has been measured; neither heat, pressure, gravity, nor other variables change the rate of decay."

There is one example that I know of where the rate of decay of an isotope was varied. But they had to go through extremes to accomplish this. A transition metal had all of its electrons stripped. And it had a massive decrease in half life. The problem is that even within the Sun there is not enough energy to strip such an element of all of its electrons. This particular case has been used by creationists to show that sometimes the rate of decay can be made to vary. They try to cover up the fact how difficult it was to accomplish this. In nature the needed conditions would also melt the crust and then some. In fact the one that I am thinking of would probably vaporize the crust.

For all practical purposes decay rates cannot be altered.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
There is one example that I know of where the rate of decay of an isotope was varied. But they had to go through extremes to accomplish this. A transition metal had all of its electrons stripped. And it had a massive decrease in half life. The problem is that even within the Sun there is not enough energy to strip such an element of all of its electrons. This particular case has been used by creationists to show that sometimes the rate of decay can be made to vary. They try to cover up the fact how difficult it was to accomplish this. In nature the needed conditions would also melt the crust and then some. In fact the one that I am thinking of would probably vaporize the crust.

For all practical purposes decay rates cannot be altered.

giphy-2.gif
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I found the example that I was thinking of. Good old Answers in Genesis, they still do not seem to understand how a change that only occurs in an extreme plasma state, so we are beyond merely vaporizing the crust, is evidence against them:

Billion-Fold Acceleration of Radioactivity Shown in Laboratory

" More recently, bb decay has been experimentally demonstrated in the rhenium-osmium (187Re-187Os) system. (The Re-Os method is one of the isotopic ‘clocks’ used by uniformitarian geologists5 to supposedly date rocks.) The experiment involved the circulation of fully-ionized 187Re in a storage ring. The 187Re ions were found to decay to a measurable extent in only several hours, amounting to a half-life of only 33 years.6 This represents a staggering billion-fold increase over the conventional half-life, which is 42 Ga! (Ga = giga-annum = a billion (109) years)."

Yes, if Rhenium is put into a state that would not even occur at the center of the Sun it will have a greatly increased decay rate. And this helps them how?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Evidently it can be either:

Dating

"Radiometric dating entails measuring the ratio of parent and daughter isotopes in a radioactive sample. These samples must be organic matter (i.e., wood, bones, and shells) or certain minerals and geologic material that contain radioactive isotopes. The rate of decay for many radioactive isotopes has been measured; neither heat, pressure, gravity, nor other variables change the rate of decay."
Well, I don't understand, so let's see if you can explain it where someone like me can understand it. In a simiple enough way. Let me start at the beginning before I even get into what radiometric dating is and what timetable it is usually involved in. So -- if you don't want to explain because it's too involved, etc., then I understand and it will be ok.
It starts out by saying that radiometric dating entails measuring the ratio of parent and daughter isotopes in a radioactive sample. Woah! Anyway, can you explain to an extent what is the importance of "parent and daughter isotopes" in the dating process?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Usually it is rather difficult to date sedimentary beds. But people keep forgetting about such things as volcanic ash. Volcanic ash is igneous and can be dated using radiometric dating.

Before radiometric dating existed geologists had could only determine relative ages. They could see that certain species existed at certain times. And that some of them were worldwide. That means long before radiometric dating there were good relative dates for ages of strata. The Cambrian was clearly older than the Ordovician.

Once radiometric dating existed then wherever there was a layer of ash between sedimentary layers they were able to get an accurate date for that point. The fossils in the sediments above it and below it tied it into relative dating. Over time the number of such points accumulated so that now with the combination of the two methods a reliable date can be given for almost any sedimentary strata.
ok, well, I'd have to look at that particular point (volcanic ash) in more detail perhaps later. It may be an important point in examining the dating process. Boy, and to think I knew Stephen Jay Gould's cousin while he was alive, but did not have the interest in this then. :-( But then again -- maybe science wasn't up to its present state back then anyway. :)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Well, I don't understand, so let's see if you can explain it where someone like me can understand it. In a simiple enough way. Let me start at the beginning before I even get into what radiometric dating is and what timetable it is usually involved in. So -- if you don't want to explain because it's too involved, etc., then I understand and it will be ok.
It starts out by saying that radiometric dating entails measuring the ratio of parent and daughter isotopes in a radioactive sample. Woah! Anyway, can you explain to an extent what is the importance of "parent and daughter isotopes" in the dating process?

Yes, We need to know both the amount of parent and daughter product at the start because radiometric dating is based upon the change in amount of daughter and parent isotopes. We can measure the current amounts but if we do not know the initial amounts we are screwed.

Luckily we can usually do that.

For example there are some crystals that like the parent product, but hate the daughter product. One such example are zircons. Uranium has no problem fitting into the crystalline structure. Lead on the other hand is excluded. Zircon will not take in lead when it forms. As a result we know that for a zircon crystal the initial amount of the daughter product was zero. Any lead that we see in it was due to nuclear decay.

Does that make sense? There are other isotopes, and other ways of calculating amounts. But that one is pretty easy.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I found the example that I was thinking of. Good old Answers in Genesis, they still do not seem to understand how a change that only occurs in an extreme plasma state, so we are beyond merely vaporizing the crust, is evidence against them:

Billion-Fold Acceleration of Radioactivity Shown in Laboratory

" More recently, bb decay has been experimentally demonstrated in the rhenium-osmium (187Re-187Os) system. (The Re-Os method is one of the isotopic ‘clocks’ used by uniformitarian geologists5 to supposedly date rocks.) The experiment involved the circulation of fully-ionized 187Re in a storage ring. The 187Re ions were found to decay to a measurable extent in only several hours, amounting to a half-life of only 33 years.6 This represents a staggering billion-fold increase over the conventional half-life, which is 42 Ga! (Ga = giga-annum = a billion (109) years)."

Yes, if Rhenium is put into a state that would not even occur at the center of the Sun it will have a greatly increased decay rate. And this helps them how?
still wondering about the volcanic material distribution. We'll see maybe eventually and I mean in this lifetime. :)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
ok, well, I'd have to look at that particular point (volcanic ash) in more detail perhaps later. It may be an important point in examining the dating process. Boy, and to think I knew Stephen Jay Gould's cousin while he was alive, but did not have the interest in this then. :-( But then again -- maybe science wasn't up to its present state back then anyway. :)
Like all sciences radiometric dating has improved since that time. I took a course on it while in college, but about half of the methods, though they still work, are not used much today because with new technology there are better and easier methods for dating.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Yes, We need to know both the amount of parent and daughter product at the start because radiometric dating is based upon the change in amount of daughter and parent isotopes. We can measure the current amounts but if we do not know the initial amounts we are screwed.

Luckily we can usually do that.

For example there are some crystals that like the parent product, but hate the daughter product. One such example are zircons. Uranium has no problem fitting into the crystalline structure. Lead on the other hand is excluded. Zircon will not take in lead when it forms. As a result we know that for a zircon crystal the initial amount of the daughter product was zero. Any lead that we see in it was due to nuclear decay.

Does that make sense? There are other isotopes, and other ways of calculating amounts. But that one is pretty easy.
OK, it's true I don't have a genius IQ, but so far I don't understand a word you're saying. Meantime, I'm back to one of the squares. (Not necessarily square 1.) That square is the volcanic ash. However, here is the question right now: Are the dates of the fossils imputed from the sediment or rocks around them, or can fossils themselves minus the sediment be dated? Followed by can or does sediment leach into the bones and/or fossils that are buried?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Like all sciences radiometric dating has improved since that time. I took a course on it while in college, but about half of the methods, though they still work, are not used much today because with new technology there are better and easier methods for dating.
I am not necessarily speaking of what was in the past and since improved, but rather about the sediment and the dating of fossils now. And its relation to sediment. Thanks. If S.J. Gould were alive now, and he would be as honest as he was in the past, I'd love to meet him. But I'll wait. :)
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
You can find volcanic deposits in quite a few locations. Some areas were near volcanoes in the past. But if you look at the "ring of fire" you will see that volcanoes are still quite active today.
I realize that, thank you. So the lava (?) may be coming up and out and over the landscape, is that right, in an "active" volcano?
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Well, I don't understand, so let's see if you can explain it where someone like me can understand it. In a simiple enough way. Let me start at the beginning before I even get into what radiometric dating is and what timetable it is usually involved in. So -- if you don't want to explain because it's too involved, etc., then I understand and it will be ok.
It starts out by saying that radiometric dating entails measuring the ratio of parent and daughter isotopes in a radioactive sample. Woah! Anyway, can you explain to an extent what is the importance of "parent and daughter isotopes" in the dating process?

Oh goodness. Here goes from my layman's knowledge. :)

So you know that matter is made of atoms, yes? And atoms, in turn, are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons, yes? Are you with me? Let me know, because that's essential.

If you're with me, keep reading.

Certain atoms are what we call radioactive, which means their nuclei (made of the protons and neutrons I mentioned before) are unstable and thus eject parts of themselves (smaller particles made of protons and neutrons) until the nucleus is stable.

The whole premise of radiometric dating is that we can measure the rate at which that process happens. That process is called radioactive decay. So when it refers to "mother and daughter isotopes," it's referring to those atoms before and after the decay happens. If we know the ratio of mother isotopes and daughter isotopes, we can tell how long the stuff we're measuring has been decaying. If there's lots of daughter isotopes, it's older. If there's fewer, it's younger.

Does that make sense?

That's an incredibly simplified version and I apologize to everyone for what was probably an overly simplistic explanation, lol.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I am not necessarily speaking of what was in the past and since improved, but rather about the sediment and the dating of fossils now. And its relation to sediment. Thanks. If S.J. Gould were alive now, and he would be as honest as he was in the past, I'd love to meet him. But I'll wait. :)
Can you be more specific? Your post does not indicate what questions you may have.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I realize that, thank you. So the lava (?) may be coming up and out and over the landscape, is that right, in an "active" volcano?
The widest spread deposits are from volcanic ash. It is very fine material and can travel fairly long distances. In the case of the Mt. Ste. Helens blast it was found all over the state of Washington. Lava tends to be much more localized and is not as useful.
 
Top