PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Dating methods
       Lots of them.

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

http://www.darwiniana.org/datingmethods.htm

Index:
Superposition
Stratigraphy
Dendrochronology
Radiocarbon C14
Radiometric Dating Methods
Obsidian Hydration Dating
Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic
Luminescence Dating Methods
Amino Acid Racemization
Fission-track Dating
Ice Cores
Varves
Pollens
Corals
Cation Ratio
Fluorine Dating
Patination
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio
Electron Spin Resonance
Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:00 PM on February 19, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My two favorites are fission track dating and annual glacier layers.

Fission track dating is cool because it completely defuses the argument that you don't know the beginning concentration.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:38 PM on February 26, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I know nothing about fission track dating. =/

If you think it's that cool i think i should look it up.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:32 AM on February 27, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fission track dating works in glassy minerals, essentially you count the number of tracks of uranium atoms that have undergone spontaneous fission.  To find the initial concentration, you put the sample in a reactor, and use the neutron flux of the reactor to cause fission in the remaining uranium.  Because of the glass nature of the material, and the large size of the uranium atom, there is no diffusion of the atoms in or out of the matrix after it hardens from magma.

Obviously there is a lot more, but this is the high level view.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:40 AM on February 27, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks for the explanation!

It's very interesting, even though i never got to learn about this subject.

I couldn't understand how to find the initial concentration though.

How could you guess the initial concentration by causing fission in the remaining uranium?

You mean you find how much uranium remains by doing that? If so, how could that tell you how much it had to begin with?

If it's a constant, then you're not finding it out, so i guess it's not (or you wouldn't say it's found).
If it's not a constant, then you need have to know when the sample hardened from magma in order to know its initial concentration.

In other words, you would need to know its age.

So... What is it good for?

I'm sure i'm very wrong. I know next to nothing about this, and it's obvious that this method is actually used for something. My ignorance doesn't let me see it though.

Three ideas.
1) When this uranium decays it leaves some residual besides the tracks, with a constant ratio (but why would you need the tracks if that was the case?). Remaining uranium + residual stuff = initial concentration.
2) This method isn't useful to date samples but thermal variations (since you said something about cooling).
3) I got you wrong about the initial concentrations, and they are already known so you can date the samples.

I'm quite confused.

Reading about it would be easier on my brain. Haha!
Edit: OMG...

Tracks ARE a residual stuff...

Tracks + remaining uranium = initial concentration...

Silly me...

That's it, isn't it?


(Edited by wisp 2/28/2010 at 12:06 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:58 PM on February 27, 2010 | IP
Galileo

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Another really good youtube vid from cdk007, he goes into a bit of detail on U/Pb decay. Be warned though, it reveals that the earth isn't as old as we thought it was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGDrq8rikJc&channel=cdk007


-------
Hallowed are the Invisible Pink Unicorns
 


Posts: 160 | Posted: 4:34 PM on March 4, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I love his videos, and will check this one out, but i tell you beforehand that this doesn't make sense.

Scientists are dogmatic and don't change. Anything that makes reality look one millimeter closer to Yahweh will be tossed away. ؟

Edit (before posting): We're used to the excellence in his works, but this one was really great.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:06 PM on March 4, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Galileo at 12:34 AM on March 5, 2010 :
Another really good youtube vid from cdk007, he goes into a bit of detail on U/Pb decay. Be warned though, it reveals that the earth isn't as old as we thought it was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGDrq8rikJc&channel=cdk007



Excellent video, nicely put together.  Thanks.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 7:22 PM on March 4, 2010 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.