Author Topic: The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution  (Read 83733 times)

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution
« Reply #75 on: August 03, 2008, 10:17:28 PM »
Because there is no billions of years. Do the math.....6 500 000 000 as in 6.5 billion people today 300 years ago there were less then a billion living on earth an some would estimate 150 million 2 000 years ago, does it sound like the earth is even 10 000 years olds? We also have found human remains in the 10-12 foot range, but still humans, we know humans don't grow that tall today, but different atmosphere as in more oxygen mean a slightly different variation within the same species, but always the same species.
LOL OMG your not one of those nuts are you?...what is your education level onetime? Im not trying to be a dick head but you seem to have over looked demographic trends in reference with your population estimates, mainly the effects of agriculture on hunter/gatherers.

Do you believe that believing in evolution contradicts believing in God?

OTHstrong

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14122
  • Jasher
Re: The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution
« Reply #76 on: August 03, 2008, 10:37:53 PM »
LOL OMG your not one of those nuts are you?...what is your education level onetime? Im not trying to be a dick head but you seem to have over looked demographic trends in reference with your population estimates, mainly the effects of agriculture on hunter/gatherers.

Do you believe that believing in evolution contradicts believing in God?
You are asking questions and I am answereing them seriously. Why are you being rude? Evolution is funny to me as my post was funny to you. I did one year in University and dropped out because I need to support my family. I've heard you talk about this ( human pop.) you reffered to someone speaking of this in the past and I looked him up, his explanations are vague and don't cover a lot ground, I think it was you. No I am not a religiouse nut. A lot of intelligent people believe what I believe. You can't believe in both the Bible and and evolution without it contradicting one another. The Bible clearly speaks indicates 6000 years of existing and calls Eve( the first woman) the mother of all living.

Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution
« Reply #77 on: August 03, 2008, 10:42:38 PM »
LOL OMG your not one of those nuts are you?...what is your education level onetime? Im not trying to be a dick head but you seem to have over looked demographic trends in reference with your population estimates, mainly the effects of agriculture on hunter/gatherers.

Do you believe that believing in evolution contradicts believing in God?

This thread is hysterical...Tommy...One time is one of your fellow believers...he believes in Jebus too! ;D
I hate the State.

OTHstrong

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14122
  • Jasher
Re: The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution
« Reply #78 on: August 03, 2008, 10:45:08 PM »
This thread is hysterical...Tommy...One time is one of your fellow believers...he believes in Jebus too! ;D
Your hysterical too ;)

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution
« Reply #79 on: August 03, 2008, 10:49:15 PM »
You are asking questions and I am answereing them seriously. Why are you being rude? Evolution is funny to me as my post was funny to you. I did one year in University and dropped out because I need to support my family. I've heard you talk about this ( human pop.) you reffered to someone speaking of this in the past and I looked him up, his explanations are vague and don't cover a lot ground, I think it was you. No I am not a religiouse nut. A lot of intelligent people believe what I believe. You can't believe in both the Bible and and evolution without it contradicting one another. The Bible clearly speaks indicates 6000 years of existing and calls Eve( the first woman) the mother of all living.
im not trying to be rude or a dick head if i came across that way i apologize. You might have heard me refer to malthus and some of his statements are somewhat vague but there are ppl out there that go into more detail as well. Pls post the verse in the bible that says the earth is 6000 yrs old. Im not sure i see your point on the eve comment either. Do you take a literal view of the bible? Why is it that you say that you cant believe in evolution and the bible? b/c of the time discrepency? what do you make of charles darwin the father of evolution as he was clergy?

Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution
« Reply #80 on: August 03, 2008, 10:53:38 PM »
im not trying to be rude or a dick head if i came across that way i apologize. You might have heard me refer to malthus and some of his statements are somewhat vague but there are ppl out there that go into more detail as well. Pls post the verse in the bible that says the earth is 6000 yrs old. Im not sure i see your point on the eve comment either. Do you take a literal view of the bible? Why is it that you say that you cant believe in evolution and the bible? b/c of the time discrepency? what do you make of charles darwin the father of evolution as he was clergy?

Perhaps he is speaking of mitochondrial Eve?! ;D
I hate the State.

OTHstrong

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14122
  • Jasher
Re: The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution
« Reply #81 on: August 03, 2008, 10:58:24 PM »
Perhaps he is speaking of mitochondrial Eve?! ;D
Decide are you on here for any parcticuler reason because you flote around here acting like your not interested in the the Bible which we both know isn`t the case, something must have caught your attention, you should try reading it sometime.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution
« Reply #82 on: August 03, 2008, 11:06:13 PM »
Perhaps he is speaking of mitochondrial Eve?! ;D
LOL was that a shot at me?

I actually dont mind decide that much, i dont think that you can truely understand you beliefs until you have examined your faith and decide does at times make you question things that are uncomfortable to question. Its his i know better than you do and im better than you are attitude that gets old.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution
« Reply #83 on: August 03, 2008, 11:09:09 PM »
im not trying to be rude or a dick head if i came across that way i apologize. You might have heard me refer to malthus and some of his statements are somewhat vague but there are ppl out there that go into more detail as well. Pls post the verse in the bible that says the earth is 6000 yrs old. Im not sure i see your point on the eve comment either. Do you take a literal view of the bible? Why is it that you say that you cant believe in evolution and the bible? b/c of the time discrepency? what do you make of charles darwin the father of evolution as he was clergy?
bump i think you looked over this onetime?

OTHstrong

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14122
  • Jasher
Re: The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution
« Reply #84 on: August 03, 2008, 11:12:34 PM »
im not trying to be rude or a dick head if i came across that way i apologize. You might have heard me refer to malthus and some of his statements are somewhat vague but there are ppl out there that go into more detail as well. Pls post the verse in the bible that says the earth is 6000 yrs old. Im not sure i see your point on the eve comment either. Do you take a literal view of the bible? Why is it that you say that you cant believe in evolution and the bible? b/c of the time discrepency? what do you make of charles darwin the father of evolution as he was clergy?
You can believe in both but it simply wouldn`t make any sense. In Gen. the bible gives the ages of every person and also gives the ages they were when they had their son that carried them into the next generation. the amount of years that past from Adam to flood was appro. 1600 years. Then Noah and the flood occured and it give ages again in the sam manner. 500 years past from Noah to Abraham then came Isaac, Jacob and Judah... from this lineage came King David which was appro. 900 years after Abraham then it gives a time line from David until the babylonian exile when they took Jurasalem, which we know to be 550 bc.

summery Adam                        4000 bc
             Noah and flood           2400 bc
             Abraham                    1950 bc
             Moses                       1400 bc
             King David                  1000 bc
             Babylonian exile           550 bbc
             persian rule                 450 bc
             Alexander the great
             and greek rule             330bc
             Roman rule                 50 bc
             Jesus birth                  4-7bc
             Getbig                        2008 Ad ;D

Eve being the mother of all living means there could not be living species before her example dinosaurs.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution
« Reply #85 on: August 03, 2008, 11:26:42 PM »
You can believe in both but it simply wouldn`t make any sense. In Gen. the bible gives the ages of every person and also gives the ages they were when they had their son that carried them into the next generation. the amount of years that past from Adam to flood was appro. 1600 years. Then Noah and the flood occured and it give ages again in the sam manner. 500 years past from Noah to Abraham then came Isaac, Jacob and Judah... from this lineage came King David which was appro. 900 years after Abraham then it gives a time line from David until the babylonian exile when they took Jurasalem, which we know to be 550 bc.

summery Adam                        4000 bc
             Noah and flood           2400 bc
             Abraham                    1950 bc
             Moses                       1400 bc
             King David                  1000 bc
             Babylonian exile           550 bbc
             persian rule                 450 bc
             Alexander the great
             and greek rule             330bc
             Roman rule                 50 bc
             Jesus birth                  4-7bc
             Getbig                        2008 Ad ;D

Eve being the mother of all living means there could not be living species before her example dinosaurs.
so you do take a literal view of the bible then ill assume...what scientific findings do you have to contradict modern dating techniques? In all of time lets use your time line for this the bible has been written down, translated, rewritten by man what makes you think that the bible is the way it was when it was originally written?, what makes you think that it is not skewed? as with anything man sets his hand to they eventually will become skewed, imagine playing a game of telephone that stretches 6000 yrs you cant possibly think that the ending message is exactly the same as the beginning. So you are saying that all creatures lived together, dinosaurs, humans etc.. right? why then do the dating methods show different ages? if they are from the same time frame then they should give the same date. What if Eve was a single celled organism? and God creating eve from Adams rib was that single celled organism reproducing itself? why does the bible have to be interpreted in one way? that seems very arrogant to me to think that in all the world and all of time and of all different interpretations of the bible that yours is correct.

OTHstrong

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14122
  • Jasher
Re: The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution
« Reply #86 on: August 03, 2008, 11:38:36 PM »
so you do take a literal view of the bible then ill assume...what scientific findings do you have to contradict modern dating techniques? In all of time lets use your time line for this the bible has been written down, translated, rewritten by man what makes you think that the bible is the way it was when it was originally written?, what makes you think that it is not skewed? as with anything man sets his hand to they eventually will become skewed, imagine playing a game of telephone that stretches 6000 yrs you cant possibly think that the ending message is exactly the same as the beginning. So you are saying that all creatures lived together, dinosaurs, humans etc.. right? why then do the dating methods show different ages? if they are from the same time frame then they should give the same date. What if Eve was a single celled organism? and God creating eve from Adams rib was that single celled organism reproducing itself? why does the bible have to be interpreted in one way? that seems very arrogant to me to think that in all the world and all of time and of all different interpretations of the bible that yours is correct.
Bro this is non- nogotiable, wether you think its arrogant or not, the Bible has 42 human generation between Adam and Jesus, this cannot be interpreted to equal millions of years. wether its true or not is a different point, the questioon was can you belive in the Bilble that gives clearly under anyones interpretaion a 6000 year acount of mankind and evolution and the answere is no. Dating methods would not be accepted in a court room, they are not accurate. All the species lived together in one period,. WHY NOT.

Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution
« Reply #87 on: August 03, 2008, 11:59:36 PM »
Decide are you on here for any parcticuler reason because you flote around here acting like your not interested in the the Bible which we both know isn`t the case, something must have caught your attention, you should try reading it sometime.

My name, for the thousandth time, is Deicide, not 'Decide'...oy vey.

Yes, I do enjoy reading the Bible; I find it to be an excellent manual on the sorts of war crimes and atrocities that ought to be brought to the attention of the court in Den Hague in the Netherlands. In this sense it, with its unmitigated brutality, barbaricism and cruelty, can be quite practical.

Do you have a university education Mr. Onetimehard?
I hate the State.

Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution
« Reply #88 on: August 04, 2008, 12:02:08 AM »
Bro this is non- nogotiable, wether you think its arrogant or not, the Bible has 42 human generation between Adam and Jesus, this cannot be interpreted to equal millions of years. wether its true or not is a different point, the questioon was can you belive in the Bilble that gives clearly under anyones interpretaion a 6000 year acount of mankind and evolution and the answere is no. Dating methods would not be accepted in a court room, they are not accurate. All the species lived together in one period,. WHY NOT.

Very sad. :'(
I hate the State.

OTHstrong

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14122
  • Jasher
Re: The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution
« Reply #89 on: August 04, 2008, 09:00:32 AM »
Very sad. :'(
Sorry about your name, but I only said it once not a thousand times, anyway I was referring to time line, of course there are different interpretations to certain meanings in the Bible but not from Adam to Jesus, glad to see you read the Bible.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution
« Reply #90 on: August 04, 2008, 09:19:13 AM »
Bro this is non- nogotiable, wether you think its arrogant or not, the Bible has 42 human generation between Adam and Jesus, this cannot be interpreted to equal millions of years. wether its true or not is a different point, the questioon was can you belive in the Bilble that gives clearly under anyones interpretaion a 6000 year acount of mankind and evolution and the answere is no. Dating methods would not be accepted in a court room, they are not accurate. All the species lived together in one period,. WHY NOT.
sorry it took so long i had hit the hay for a little bit

Do you understand dating methods? all things being equal if man and dinosaur lived within the same time period they would yield the same age. I am uneducated on the bible and must do something about that, I would suggest to you to educate yourself in certain areas as well.

LOL again you believe that you know better than Darwin, lyell, mendell? all of whom have played great roles in our better understanding of evolution and our place in this world as well as God?

ever heard of platos euthyphro? you should look it up and get back to me or i can elaborate here if you are to busy.
How big was noah's ark? arent there measurements for that in the bible?

OTHstrong

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14122
  • Jasher
Re: The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution
« Reply #91 on: August 04, 2008, 09:32:46 AM »
sorry it took so long i had hit the hay for a little bit

Do you understand dating methods? all things being equal if man and dinosaur lived within the same time period they would yield the same age. I am uneducated on the bible and must do something about that, I would suggest to you to educate yourself in certain areas as well.

LOL again you believe that you know better than Darwin, lyell, mendell? all of whom have played great roles in our better understanding of evolution and our place in this world as well as God?

ever heard of platos euthyphro? you should look it up and get back to me or i can elaborate here if you are to busy.
How big was noah's ark? arent there measurements for that in the bible?
You are very thourough, wich I like, but sometime it seems that you don't read my entire posts. The dating methods make assumptions that are inaccurate so they are flawed. When you see a bone in the ground in order to find a date for this bone you have to know how his atmosphere was ( the ration of oxygen, carbon nitrogen etc) and you have to know what kind of activities occured throughout time in that environment. You can't assume these thing or your numbers will be off.

Dinosaurs live with man up until the flood, then they were discontinued. You reffered to dinosaurs and their dates, the dates are measured in what layer of rock they are found in as in geographic column. These layer of rocks have their aged stamped on them by a human like me or you that is justing sticking these enormous numbers (dates) on them with no proof.

As for Noah ark, well if you are suggesting that all the animals don't fit, they not only fit but 5 sets would fit as well. It is 1 500 000 square feet, any idea of how may baby elephants can fit in this figure, at least 100 000 comfortably.

Hustle Man

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1351
  • What is the most common form of stupidity?
Re: The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution
« Reply #92 on: August 04, 2008, 09:33:38 AM »
What is the scientific explanation for how life began according to the theory of evolution? 

W

OTHstrong

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14122
  • Jasher

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution
« Reply #94 on: August 04, 2008, 09:54:07 AM »
PLEASE READ, then we can discuss the problems you have with radiometric dating. this is quite simple and straightforward, and is the most elementary account i could find, good old wiki.

Radiometric dating
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Radiometric dating (often called radioactive dating) is a technique used to date materials, usually based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates.[1] It is the principal source of information about the absolute age of rocks and other geological features, including the age of the Earth itself, and can be used to date a wide range of natural and man-made materials. Among the best-known techniques are radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating. By allowing the establishment of geological timescales, it provides a significant source of information about the ages of fossils and the deduced rates of evolutionary change. Radiometric dating is also used to date archaeological materials, including ancient artifacts.

Different methods of radiometric dating vary in the timescale over which they are accurate and the materials to which they can be applied.

Contents [hide]
1 Fundamentals of radiometric dating
1.1 Blocking temperature
1.2 The age equation
1.3 Limitation of techniques
2 Modern dating techniques
2.1 U-Pb long time scale method
2.2 Other long time scale methods
3 Short-range dating techniques
3.1 Carbon-14 method
3.2 Other short time scale methods
4 Dating with shortlived extinct radionuclides
5 Types of radiometric dating
6 See also
7 References
8 External links
 


[edit] Fundamentals of radiometric dating
All ordinary matter is made up of combinations of chemical elements, each with its own atomic number, indicating the number of protons in the atomic nucleus. Additionally, elements may exist in different isotopes, with each isotope of an element differing in the number of neutrons in the nucleus. A particular isotope of a particular element is called a nuclide. Some nuclides are inherently unstable. That is, at some point in time, an atom of such a nuclide will spontaneously transform into a different nuclide. This transformation may be accomplished in a number of different ways, including radioactive decay, either by emission of particles (usually electrons (beta decay), positrons or alpha particles) or by spontaneous fission, and electron capture.

While the moment in time at which a particular nucleus decays is unpredictable, a collection of atoms of a radioactive nuclide decays exponentially at a rate described by a parameter known as the half-life, usually given in units of years when discussing dating techniques. After one half-life has elapsed, one half of the atoms of the nuclide in question will have decayed into a "daughter" nuclide or decay product. In many cases, the daughter nuclide itself is radioactive, resulting in a decay chain, eventually ending with the formation of a stable (nonradioactive) daughter nuclide; each step in such a chain is characterized by a distinct half-life. In these cases, usually the half-life of interest in radiometric dating is the longest one in the chain, which is the rate-limiting factor in the ultimate transformation of the radioactive nuclide into its stable daughter. Isotopic systems that have been exploited for radiometric dating have half-lives ranging from only about 10 years (e.g., tritium) to over 100 billion years (e.g., Samarium-147).

In general, the half-life of a nuclide depends solely on its nuclear properties; it is not affected[2] by external factors such as temperature, pressure, chemical environment, or presence of a magnetic or electric field. (For some nuclides which decay by the process of electron capture, such as Beryllium-7, Strontium-85, and Zirconium-89, the decay rate may be slightly affected by local electron density, therefore these isotopes may not be as suitable for radiometric dating.) But in general, the half-life of any nuclide is essentially a constant. Therefore, in any material containing a radioactive nuclide, the proportion of the original nuclide to its decay product(s) changes in a predictable way as the original nuclide decays over time. This predictability allows the relative abundances of related nuclides to be used as a clock that measures the time from the incorporation of the original nuclide(s) into a material to the present.

The processes that form specific materials are often conveniently selective as to what elements they incorporate during their formation. In the simplest case, the material will incorporate a parent nuclide and reject the daughter nuclide. In this case, the only atoms of the daughter nuclide present in a sample must have been deposited by radioactive decay since the sample formed. When a material incorporates both the parent and daughter nuclides at the time of formation, a correction must be made for the initial proportion of the radioactive substance and its daughter; generally this is done by construction of an isochron, e.g. in Rubidium-strontium dating.

Accurate radiometric dating generally requires that neither the parent nuclide nor the daughter product can enter or leave the material after its formation, that the parent has a long enough half-life that it will still be present in significant amounts at the time of measurement (except as described below under "Dating with shortlived extinct radionuclides"), the half-life of the parent is accurately known, and enough of the daughter product is produced to be accurately measured and distinguished from the initial amount of the daughter present in the material. The procedures used to isolate and analyze the parent and daughter nuclides must be precise and accurate.[citation needed]


[edit] Blocking temperature
If a material that selectively rejects the daughter nuclide is heated, any daughter nuclides that have been accumulated over time will be lost through diffusion, setting the isotopic "clock" to zero. The temperature at which this happens is known as the blocking temperature or closure temperature and is specific to a particular material and isotopic system. These temperatures are experimentally determined in the lab by artificially resetting sample minerals using a high-temperature furnace.


[edit] The age equation
Considering that radioactive parent elements decay to stable daughter elements [3], the mathematical expression that relates radioactive decay to geologic time, called the age equation, is [4]:

 
where
t = age of the sample
D = number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the sample
P = number of atoms of the parent isotope in the sample
λ = decay constant of the parent isotope
ln = natural logarithm
The decay constant (or rate of decay[5]) is the fraction of a number of atoms of a radioactive nuclide that disintegrates in a unit of time. The decay constant is inversely proportional to the radioactive half-life of the parent isotope, which can be obtained from tables such as the one on this page.


[edit] Limitation of techniques
Although radiometric dating is accurate in principle, the precision is very dependent on the care with which the procedure is performed. The possible confounding effects of initial contamination of parent and daughter isotopes have to be considered, as do the effects of any loss or gain of such isotopes since the sample was created.

Precision is enhanced if measurements are taken on different samples from the same rock body but at different locations. Alternatively, if several different minerals can be dated from the same sample and are assumed to be formed by the same event and were in equilibrium with the reservoir when they formed, they should form an isochron. Finally, correlation between different isotopic dating methods may be required to confirm the age of a sample.

The precision of a dating method depends in part on the half-life of the radioactive isotope involved. For instance, carbon-14 has a half-life of about 6000 years. After an organism has been dead for 60,000 years, so little carbon-14 is left in it that accurate dating becomes impossible. On the other hand, the concentration of carbon-14 falls off so steeply that the age of relatively young remains can be determined precisely to within a few decades. The isotope used in uranium-thorium dating has a longer half-life, but other factors make it more accurate than radiocarbon dating.[citation needed]


[edit] Modern dating techniques
Radiometric dating can be performed on samples as small as a billionth of a gram using a mass spectrometer. The mass spectrometer was invented in the 1940s and began to be used in radiometric dating in the 1950s. The mass spectrometer operates by generating a beam of ionized atoms from the sample under test. The ions then travel through a magnetic field, which diverts them into different sampling sensors, known as "Faraday cups", depending on their mass and level of ionization. On impact in the cups, the ions set up a very weak current that can be measured to determine the rate of impacts and the relative concentrations of different atoms in the beams.


[edit] U-Pb long time scale method
The uranium-lead radiometric dating scheme is one of the oldest available, as well as one of the most highly respected. It has been refined to the point that the error in dates of rocks about three billion years old is no more than two million years.[citation needed]

Uranium-lead dating is often performed on the mineral "zircon" (ZrSiO4), though it can be used on other materials. Zircon incorporates uranium atoms into its crystalline structure as substitutes for zirconium, but strongly rejects lead. It has a very high blocking temperature, is resistant to mechanical weathering and is very chemically inert. Zircon also forms multiple crystal layers during metamorphic events, which each may record an isotopic age of the event. In situ micro-beam analysis can be achieved via laser ICP-MS or SIMS techniques [6] .

One of its great advantages is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235's decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238's decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in crosscheck that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost.


[edit] Other long time scale methods
Two other radiometric techniques are used for long-term dating. Potassium-argon dating involves electron capture or positron decay of potassium-40 to argon-40. Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.3 billion years, and so this method is applicable to the oldest rocks. Radioactive potassium-40 is common in micas, feldspars, and hornblendes, though the blocking temperature is fairly low in these materials, about 125°C (mica) to 450°C (hornblende).

Rubidium-strontium dating is based on the beta decay of rubidium-87 to strontium-87, with a half-life of 50 billion years. This scheme is used to date old igneous and metamorphic rocks, and has also been used to date lunar samples. Blocking temperatures are so high that they are not a concern. Rubidium-strontium dating is not as precise as the uranium-lead method, with errors of 30 to 50 million years for a 3-billion-year-old sample.


[edit] Short-range dating techniques
There are a number of dating techniques that have short ranges and are so used for historical or archaeological studies. One of the best-known is the carbon-14 (C14) radiometric technique.


[edit] Carbon-14 method
Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon, with a half-life of 5,730 years (very short compared with the above). In other radiometric dating methods, the heavy parent isotopes were synthesized in the explosions of massive stars that scattered materials through the Galaxy, to be formed into planets and other stars. The parent isotopes have been decaying since that time, and so any parent isotope with a short half-life should be extinct by now.

Carbon-14 is an exception. It is continuously created through collisions of neutrons generated by cosmic rays with nitrogen in the upper atmosphere. The carbon-14 ends up as a trace component in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).

An organism acquires carbon from carbon dioxide during its lifetime. Plants acquire it through photosynthesis, and animals acquire it from consumption of plants and other animals. When an organism dies, it ceases to intake new carbon-14 and the existing isotope decays with a characteristic half-life (5730 years). The proportion of carbon-14 left when the remains of the organism are examined provides an indication of the time lapsed since its death. The carbon-14 dating limit lies around 58,000 to 62,000 years.[7]

The rate of creation of carbon-14 appears to be roughly constant, as cross-checks of carbon-14 dating with other dating methods show it gives consistent results. However, local eruptions of volcanoes or other events that give off large amounts of carbon dioxide can reduce local concentrations of carbon-14 and give inaccurate dates. The releases of carbon dioxide into the biosphere as a consequence of industrialization have also depressed the proportion of carbon-14 by a few percent; conversely, the amount of carbon-14 was increased by above-ground nuclear bomb tests that were conducted into the early 1960s. Also, an increase in the solar wind or the earth's magnetic field above the current value would depress the amount of carbon-14 created in the atmosphere. These effects are corrected for by the calibration of the radiocarbon dating scale. See the article on radiocarbon dating.


[edit] Other short time scale methods
Another relatively short-range dating technique is based on the decay of uranium-238 into thorium-230, a substance with a half-life of about 80,000 years. It is accompanied by a sister process, in which uranium-235 decays into protactinium-231, which has a half-life of 34,300 years.

While uranium is water-soluble, thorium and protactinium are not, and so they are selectively precipitated into ocean-floor sediments, from which their ratios are measured. The scheme has a range of several hundred thousand years.

Natural sources of radiation in the environment knock loose electrons in, say, a piece of pottery, and these electrons accumulate in defects in the material's crystal lattice structure. Heating the object will release the captured electrons, producing a luminescence. When the sample is heated, at a certain temperature it will glow from the emission of electrons released from the defects, and this glow can be used to estimate the age of the sample to a threshold of approximately 15 percent of its true age. The date of a rock is reset when volcanic activity remelts it. The date of a piece of pottery is reset by the heat of the kiln. Typically temperatures greater than 400 degrees Celsius will reset the "clock". This is termed thermoluminescence.

Finally, fission track dating involves inspection of a polished slice of a material to determine the density of "track" markings left in it by the spontaneous fission of uranium-238 impurities.

The uranium content of the sample has to be known, but that can be determined by placing a plastic film over the polished slice of the material, and bombarding it with slow neutrons. This causes induced fission of 235U, as opposed to the spontaneous fission of 238U. The fission tracks produced by this process are recorded in the plastic film. The uranium content of the material can then be calculated from the number of tracks and the neutron flux.

This scheme has application over a wide range of geologic dates. For dates up to a few million years micas, tektites (glass fragments from volcanic eruptions), and meteorites are best used. Older materials can be dated using zircon, apatite, titanite, epidote and garnet which have a variable amount of uranium content. Because the fission tracks are healed by temperatures over about 200°C the technique has limitations as well as benefits. The technique has potential applications for detailing the thermal history of a deposit.

Large amounts of otherwise rare 36Cl were produced by irradiation of seawater during atmospheric detonations of nuclear weapons between 1952 and 1958. The residence time of 36Cl in the atmosphere is about 1 week. Thus, as an event marker of 1950s water in soil and ground water, 36Cl is also useful for dating waters less than 50 years before the present. 36Cl has seen use in other areas of the geological sciences, including dating ice and sediments.


[edit] Dating with shortlived extinct radionuclides
At the beginning of the solar system there were several relatively shortlived radionuclides like 26Al, 60Fe, 53Mn, and 129I present within the solar nebula. These radionuclides—possibly produced by the explosion of a supernova—are extinct today but their decay products can be detected in very old material such as meteorites. Measuring the decay products of extinct radionuclides with a mass spectrometer and using isochronplots it is possible to determine relative ages between different events in the early history of the solar system. Dating methods based on extinct radionuclides can also be calibrated with the U-Pb method to give absolute ages.


[edit] Types of radiometric dating
argon-argon (Ar-Ar)
fission track dating
helium (He-He)
iodine-xenon (I-Xe)
lanthanum-barium (La-Ba)
lead-lead (Pb-Pb)
lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf)
neon-neon (Ne-Ne)
optically stimulated luminescence dating
potassium-argon (K-Ar)
radiocarbon dating
rhenium-osmium (Re-Os)
rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr)
samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd)
uranium-lead (U-Pb)
uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He)
uranium-thorium (U-Th)
uranium-uranium (U-U)

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution
« Reply #95 on: August 04, 2008, 09:58:38 AM »
You are very thourough, wich I like, but sometime it seems that you don't read my entire posts. The dating methods make assumptions that are inaccurate so they are flawed. When you see a bone in the ground in order to find a date for this bone you have to know how his atmosphere was ( the ration of oxygen, carbon nitrogen etc) and you have to know what kind of activities occured throughout time in that environment. You can't assume these thing or your numbers will be off.

Dinosaurs live with man up until the flood, then they were discontinued. You reffered to dinosaurs and their dates, the dates are measured in what layer of rock they are found in as in geographic column. These layer of rocks have their aged stamped on them by a human like me or you that is justing sticking these enormous numbers (dates) on them with no proof.

As for Noah ark, well if you are suggesting that all the animals don't fit, they not only fit but 5 sets would fit as well. It is 1 500 000 square feet, any idea of how may baby elephants can fit in this figure, at least 100 000 comfortably.
Pls explain to me indepth how dating methods are flawed, carbon dating which is the one you are refering to is only good to about 70,000 yrs but is considered to be very accurate. The problem i see is that they do compare the fossil to the surronding rock so they do take into account atmosphere, and by studying the surronding rock you can find enviromental activities as well. There are also other methods of dating the simplest i think you hit on is stratographic dating in which the oldest fossil is generally further down in the rock than the youngest one and by the way the dates assigned to layer of rock are not arbitrary.

Why did noah not take the dinosaurs on the ark? what happend to the flying swimming dinosaurs? they would have survived.

Ok up till now weve have gone over the arguements for the earth being 4.5 billion years old and the problems as you see them in that theory.
what evidence do you have that say the earth is as old as you say it is?

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution
« Reply #96 on: August 04, 2008, 10:07:28 AM »
You are very thourough, wich I like, but sometime it seems that you don't read my entire posts. The dating methods make assumptions that are inaccurate so they are flawed. When you see a bone in the ground in order to find a date for this bone you have to know how his atmosphere was ( the ration of oxygen, carbon nitrogen etc) and you have to know what kind of activities occured throughout time in that environment. You can't assume these thing or your numbers will be off.

Dinosaurs live with man up until the flood, then they were discontinued. You reffered to dinosaurs and their dates, the dates are measured in what layer of rock they are found in as in geographic column. These layer of rocks have their aged stamped on them by a human like me or you that is justing sticking these enormous numbers (dates) on them with no proof.

As for Noah ark, well if you are suggesting that all the animals don't fit, they not only fit but 5 sets would fit as well. It is 1 500 000 square feet, any idea of how may baby elephants can fit in this figure, at least 100 000 comfortably.

what assumptions that are flawed? half lifes? radio active decay, they have never once been different in the history of man kind.

"When you see a bone in the ground in order to find a date for this bone you have to know how his atmosphere was ( the ration of oxygen, carbon nitrogen etc) and you have to know what kind of activities occured throughout time in that environment. You can't assume these thing or your numbers will be off. "

where are you getting this misinformation? temperature, pressure has no effect on decay of sub atomic particles. You are lying or grossly misinformed.

"As for Noah ark, well if you are suggesting that all the animals don't fit, they not only fit but 5 sets would fit as well. It is 1 500 000 square feet, any idea of how may baby elephants can fit in this figure, at least 100 000 comfortably."

how did the animals from different continents get to noah? did they swim the ocean? what about insects? to beleive this story is literally is to beleive that first off your ALL LOVING god killed the entire populace out of venegence(there goes the perfect theory).


"Dinosaurs live with man up until the flood, then they were discontinued. You reffered to dinosaurs and their dates, the dates are measured in what layer of rock they are found in as in geographic column. These layer of rocks have their aged stamped on them by a human like me or you that is justing sticking these enormous numbers (dates) on them with no proof."

what? we know the active decay of particular isotopes or half lifes, so the rocks depending on how much isotope they have can be fit into a isotope decay formula relevant to those isotopes and extrapolated. This method is very accurate, within a couple decades for some methods. What you do is you indepentdently test the samples using multiple methods and multiple researchers and see if the age correlates. This is how they date, they just dont make wild assumptions, one test etc.. they throughly test the samples using multiple methods and equipment as well as the surrounding samples to verify there numbers. Please learn about science.

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution
« Reply #97 on: August 04, 2008, 10:10:10 AM »


 "But in general, the half-life of any nuclide is essentially a constant. Therefore, in any material containing a radioactive nuclide, the proportion of the original nuclide to its decay product(s) changes in a predictable way as the original nuclide decays over time. This predictability allows the relative abundances of related nuclides to be used as a clock that measures the time from the incorporation of the original nuclide(s) into a material to the present."

present some evidence against evolution

OTHstrong

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14122
  • Jasher
Re: The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution
« Reply #98 on: August 04, 2008, 10:16:37 AM »
Pls explain to me indepth how dating methods are flawed, carbon dating which is the one you are refering to is only good to about 70,000 yrs but is considered to be very accurate. The problem i see is that they do compare the fossil to the surronding rock so they do take into account atmosphere, and by studying the surronding rock you can find enviromental activities as well. There are also other methods of dating the simplest i think you hit on is stratographic dating in which the oldest fossil is generally further down in the rock than the youngest one and by the way the dates assigned to layer of rock are not arbitrary.

Why did noah not take the dinosaurs on the ark? what happend to the flying swimming dinosaurs? they would have survived.

Ok up till now weve have gone over the arguements for the earth being 4.5 billion years old and the problems as you see them in that theory.
what evidence do you have that say the earth is as old as you say it is?

It isn't my field so I will not go in depth about dating, but I do know that scientist don't consider them 100% accurate, hence they wouldn't be accepted in a court of law,

Noah did not take the dinos in the ark because, man this is a long answere, only if you isist.
 The earth cannot be old for reasons I stated above. One being that the earth is slowing down by a few seconds every 10 years witch means it used to be faster, over the course of  10 000 years it would only be faster by 1 hour or so, if you do the math over 100 000 years the earth would've been a wreck, The sun losses weight every day how much weight would you have to put on the sun for are temp. to be higher. If thats sun has been burning up for 4 billion years it would have easily have been exponentially bigger, our earth would have been way to hot to sustain life

OTHstrong

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14122
  • Jasher
Re: The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution
« Reply #99 on: August 04, 2008, 10:21:32 AM »
decaying has never been different, you don't have a clue what your talking about. Of course the rate of decay will vary signifcantly in the case of a catostrophic event.