Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System Answers in Genesis , the leading young-earth creationist ministry, disowns cosmic dust arguments. The most amazing thing about the cosmic dust argument is that it is still being used! It has coasted along on obsolete evidence, and nothing but obsolete evidence, for the last 25 years!! It nicely illustrates how creationists borrow from each other and never do any outside reading. The obsolescence of this argument has been brought out in numerous debates and published in countless books, journals, and newsletters. It can be discovered by anyone who exercises his or her library card. It’s not a state secret! What does it take to get through to the creationist brain?? The earliest use of the cosmic dust argument that Van Till Van Till et al, could find was in an article by Harold Slusher, which was published in the June issue of Creation Research Society Quarterly. Slusher made several blunders which are handed down in the “scientific” creationist literature to this very day.

The Fossil Record

In response to Richard Dawkin’s statement: There’s questions such as: It’s deduced that we were created supernaturally not by naturalism’s random materialistic processes. If you explain angels as having their origins through supernatural laws, “without having any regard for physics, reality, etc. Spiritual people, and those who assume the existence of angels, cannot have it both ways with a false dichotomy that argues for a purely naturalistic origins of humanity – theistic evolution – while accepting we have a spirit, mind, intelligence, personality – which originated like that of angels.

No longer is “naturalism” the only laws at work in the universe, to explain our body, soul, and spirit requires supernatural origins for humanity.

1. The shrinking-sun argument contains two errors. The worst, by far, is the assumption that if the sun is shrinking today, then it has always been shrinking!. That’s a little like watching the tide go out and concluding that the water level must have fallen at that rate since the earth began.

Human timeline and Nature timeline Hutton based his view of deep time on a form of geochemistry that had developed in Scotland and Scandinavia from the s onward. Hutton’s innovative theory, based on Plutonism , visualised an endless cyclical process of rocks forming under the sea, being uplifted and tilted, then eroded to form new strata under the sea.

In the sight of Hutton’s Unconformity at Siccar Point convinced Playfair and Hall of this extremely slow cycle, and in that same year Hutton memorably wrote “we find no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end”. As a young naturalist and geological theorist, Darwin studied the successive volumes of Lyell’s book exhaustively during the Beagle survey voyage in the s, before beginning to theorise about evolution. Physicist Gregory Benford addresses the concept in Deep Time: John McPhee discussed “deep time” at length with the layman in mind in Basin and Range , parts of which originally appeared in the New Yorker magazine.

Consider the Earth’s history as the old measure of the English yard, the distance from the King’s nose to the tip of his outstretched hand. One stroke of a nail file on his middle finger erases human history. Berry proposes that a deep understanding of the history and functioning of the evolving universe is a necessary inspiration and guide for our own effective functioning as individuals and as a species.

Chronological dating

Land Relief The physiography of Africa is essentially a reflection of the geologic history and geology that is described in the previous section. The continent , composed largely of a vast rigid block of ancient rocks, has geologically young mountains at its extremities in the highlands of the Atlas Mountains in the northwest and the Cape ranges in the south. Between these mountainous areas is a series of plateau surfaces, with huge areas that are level or slightly undulating, above which stand occasional harder and more resistant rock masses.

Kilimanjaro 19, feet [5, metres] is the highest point on the continent; the lowest is Lake Assal feet [ metres] below sea level in Djibouti.

Dating – Rubidium–strontium method: The radioactive decay of rubidium (87Rb) to strontium (87Sr) was the first widely used dating system that utilized the isochron method. Rubidium is a relatively abundant trace element in Earth’s crust and can be found in many common rock-forming minerals in which it substitutes for the major element potassium.

Acknowledgements Introduction his document discusses the way radiometric dating and stratigraphic principles are used to establish the conventional geological time scale. It is not about the theory behind radiometric dating methods, it is about their application, and it therefore assumes the reader has some familiarity with the technique already refer to “Other Sources” for more information. As an example of how they are used, radiometric dates from geologically simple, fossiliferous Cretaceous rocks in western North America are compared to the geological time scale.

To get to that point, there is also a historical discussion and description of non-radiometric dating methods. A common form of criticism is to cite geologically complicated situations where the application of radiometric dating is very challenging. These are often characterised as the norm, rather than the exception. I thought it would be useful to present an example where the geology is simple, and unsurprisingly, the method does work well, to show the quality of data that would have to be invalidated before a major revision of the geologic time scale could be accepted by conventional scientists.

Geochronologists do not claim that radiometric dating is foolproof no scientific method is , but it does work reliably for most samples. It is these highly consistent and reliable samples, rather than the tricky ones, that have to be falsified for “young Earth” theories to have any scientific plausibility, not to mention the need to falsify huge amounts of evidence from other techniques. This document is partly based on a prior posting composed in reply to Ted Holden.

How Good are those Young

Shirey and James E. The loose crystals range from 1. Photo by Orasa Weldon.

C Ca-Cd Ce-Ch Ci-Co Cp-Cz. Ca-Cd. Cenozoic Paleogeographic Reconstruction of the Foreland System in Colombia and Implications on the Petroleum Systems of the Llanos Basin, Víctor M. Caballero, Andrés Reyes-Harker, Andrés R. Mora, Carlos F. Ruiz, and Felipe de la Parra, # ().. The Magnitude vs. Distance Plot – A Tool for Fault Reactivation Identification, Carlos Cabarcas and Oswaldo.

Herbchronology Dating methods in archaeology[ edit ] Same as geologists or paleontologists , archaeologists are also brought to determine the age of ancient materials, but in their case, the areas of their studies are restricted to the history of both ancient and recent humans. Thus, to be considered as archaeological, the remains, objects or artifacts to be dated must be related to human activity. It is commonly assumed that if the remains or elements to be dated are older than the human species, the disciplines which study them are sciences such geology or paleontology, among some others.

Nevertheless, the range of time within archaeological dating can be enormous compared to the average lifespan of a singular human being. As an example Pinnacle Point ‘s caves, in the southern coast of South Africa , provided evidence that marine resources shellfish have been regularly exploited by humans as of , years ago. It was the case of an 18th-century sloop whose excavation was led in South Carolina United States in Dating material drawn from the archaeological record can be made by a direct study of an artifact , or may be deduced by association with materials found in the context the item is drawn from or inferred by its point of discovery in the sequence relative to datable contexts.

Dating is carried out mainly post excavation , but to support good practice, some preliminary dating work called ” spot dating ” is usually run in tandem with excavation. Dating is very important in archaeology for constructing models of the past, as it relies on the integrity of dateable objects and samples. Many disciplines of archaeological science are concerned with dating evidence, but in practice several different dating techniques must be applied in some circumstances, thus dating evidence for much of an archaeological sequence recorded during excavation requires matching information from known absolute or some associated steps, with a careful study of stratigraphic relationships.

In addition, because of its particular relation with past human presence or past human activity, archaeology uses almost all the dating methods that it shares with the other sciences, but with some particular variations, like the following: Written markers[ edit ] Epigraphy — analysis of inscriptions, via identifying graphemes, clarifying their meanings, classifying their uses according to dates and cultural contexts, and drawing conclusions about the writing and the writers. Numismatics — many coins have the date of their production written on them or their use is specified in the historical record.

Recent Advances in Understanding the Geology of Diamonds

Can science prove the age of the earth? No scientific method can prove the age of the earth and the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here. Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed. There is no independent natural clock against which those assumptions can be tested.

For example, the amount of cratering on the moon, based on currently observed cratering rates, would suggest that the moon is quite old.

The standard approach to looking at fossils in the geological column is to assume that lower is older. Since the geologic column represents millions of years of Earth’s history, then obviously the fossils in each of the layers must be the same age as the layer in which they are found. What is especially interesting is that the fossils do appear to show a progression from the most “simple” of.

What about the fact that the “simple” organisms are buried in the lower levels and the more “complicated” ones are buried in the higher levels? Doesn’t this fact support the notion that simple organisms evolved into more and more complex organisms over time, with the more complex organisms buried and fossilized above the earlier and simpler life forms?

Certainly this seems like a very logical assumption. But, things just aren’t that easy. There are a number of potential problems with this interpretation of the fossil record. For example, it is interesting to note that some general kinds of fossilized creatures are very generally found in the same relative vertical orientation, with respect to each other in the fossil record, that they would have naturally been found in during life. Single celled organisms make their first appearance in the lowest layers followed by multicelled ocean bottom-dwelling creatures like sponges and worms etc.

Higher up come creatures like bony fishes, then land plants and animals, then birds and larger land animals.

Unreliability of Radiometric Dating and Old Age of the Earth

The Radiometric Dating Game Radiometric dating methods estimate the age of rocks using calculations based on the decay rates of radioactive elements such as uranium, strontium, and potassium. On the surface, radiometric dating methods appear to give powerful support to the statement that life has existed on the earth for hundreds of millions, even billions, of years. We are told that these methods are accurate to a few percent, and that there are many different methods.

We are told that of all the radiometric dates that are measured, only a few percent are anomalous.

Figure 2. How relative dating of events and radiometric (numeric) dates are combined to produce a calibrated geological time scale. In this example, the data demonstrates that “fossil B time” was somewhere between and million years ago, and that “fossil A time.

Rubidium—strontium method The radioactive decay of rubidium 87Rb to strontium 87Sr was the first widely used dating system that utilized the isochron method. Because rubidium is concentrated in crustal rocks, the continents have a much higher abundance of the daughter isotope strontium compared with the stable isotopes. A ratio for average continental crust of about 0. This difference may appear small, but, considering that modern instruments can make the determination to a few parts in 70, , it is quite significant.

Dissolved strontium in the oceans today has a value of 0. Thus, if well-dated, unaltered fossil shells containing strontium from ancient seawater are analyzed, changes in this ratio with time can be observed and applied in reverse to estimate the time when fossils of unknown age were deposited. Dating simple igneous rocks The rubidium—strontium pair is ideally suited for the isochron dating of igneous rocks.

As a liquid rock cools, first one mineral and then another achieves saturation and precipitates, each extracting specific elements in the process.

Deep time

Herbchronology Dating methods in archaeology[ edit ] Same as geologists or paleontologists , archaeologists are also brought to determine the age of ancient materials, but in their case, the areas of their studies are restricted to the history of both ancient and recent humans. Thus, to be considered as archaeological, the remains, objects or artifacts to be dated must be related to human activity. It is commonly assumed that if the remains or elements to be dated are older than the human species, the disciplines which study them are sciences such geology or paleontology, among some others.

Nevertheless, the range of time within archaeological dating can be enormous compared to the average lifespan of a singular human being. As an example Pinnacle Point ‘s caves, in the southern coast of South Africa , provided evidence that marine resources shellfish have been regularly exploited by humans as of , years ago.

How radiometric dating works in general: Radioactive elements decay gradually into other elements. The original element is called the parent, and the result of the decay process is .

Human timeline and Nature timeline Hutton based his view of deep time on a form of geochemistry that had developed in Scotland and Scandinavia from the s onward. Hutton’s innovative theory, based on Plutonism , visualised an endless cyclical process of rocks forming under the sea, being uplifted and tilted, then eroded to form new strata under the sea. In the sight of Hutton’s Unconformity at Siccar Point convinced Playfair and Hall of this extremely slow cycle, and in that same year Hutton memorably wrote “we find no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end”.

As a young naturalist and geological theorist, Darwin studied the successive volumes of Lyell’s book exhaustively during the Beagle survey voyage in the s, before beginning to theorise about evolution. Physicist Gregory Benford addresses the concept in Deep Time: John McPhee discussed “deep time” at length with the layperson in mind in Basin and Range , parts of which originally appeared in the New Yorker magazine.

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale

Chronological dating, or simply dating, is the process of attributing to an object or event a date in the past, allowing such object or event to be located in a previously established usually requires what is commonly known as a “dating method”. Several dating methods exist, depending on different criteria and techniques, and some very well known examples of disciplines using.

Geologic time: relative dating