radiometric dating

[dad]

We can make one of two assumptions. (1) There was some lead in the rock when it was formed. (2) There wasn't any lead in the rock when it was formed.

If we make the first assumption, then we have to figure out how much there was. Since scientists don't know what process formed the rock in the first place, we can't possible know how much uranium and how much lead that process created. Therefore, the accuracy of the computed date depends entirely upon how well we guess the initial concentrations of uranium and lead. There is no more reason to believe that the rock initially contained 20% uranium and 80% lead than there is to believe that the rock initially contained 80% uranium and 20% lead. If you assume an initial concentration of each kind of material, the calculations will yield an age determined entirely by whatever wild guess you make.

I would say that the amount that decayed in several thousand years comes from decay, the rest was there already.

[Jbuza]

gone

[dad]

"I would say that the amount that decayed in several thousand years comes from decay, the rest was there already"

I would agree with you, but the point is that we don't have any more of a scientific basis to demonstrate that than they do to demonstrate 4 billion years.

In other words either way, it is not science. True. But there is other basis in this world. The bible, for example. If no science says anything against it, why not?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

"I would say that the amount that decayed in several thousand years comes from decay, the rest was there already"

I would agree with you, but the point is that we don't have any more of a scientific basis to demonstrate that than they do to demonstrate 4 billion years.

In other words either way, it is not science. True. But there is other basis in this world. The bible, for example. If no science says anything against it, why not?

What we can do is look at the decay chain of Uranium 238.
http://www.atral.com/U2381.html
Here are their half lives.
Uranium-238 ==>
(half-life: 4.46 billion years)
Thorium-234 ==>
(half-life: 24.1 days)
Protactinium-234m ==>
(half-life: 1.17 minutes)
Uranium-234 ==>
(half-life: 245,000 years)
Thorium-230 ==>
(half-life: 75,400 years)
Radium-226 ==>
(half-life: 1,600 years)
Radon-222 ==>
(half-life: 3.82 days)
Polonium-218 ==>
(half-life: 3.11 minutes)
Lead-214 ==>
(half-life: 26.8 minutes)
Bismuth-214 ==>
(half-life: 19.9 minutes)
Polonium-214 ==>
(half-life: 163 microseconds)
Lead-210 ==>
(half-life: 22.3 years)
Bismuth-210 ==>
(half-life: 5.01 days)
Polonium-210 ==>
(half-life: 138 days)
alpha decay Lead-206
(stable)

The one's we are interested are the longer lived isotopes.
Uranium-234
Thorium-230
Radium-226
We can first find the ratio of lead to Uranium-238.
This will be the oldest possible date.

Then we find the ratio of Uranium-238 to Uranium-234
Uranium-238 to Thorium
Uranium-234 to Thorium
Uranium-238 to Radium
Uranium-234 to Radium
and the ratio of Thorium to Radium.

The different proportions give us slightly different dates.
Most probably agreeing to within +/-4.5%.

This number shows us the relationship between decay products.
Taking the youngest date of these, we estimate the amount of lead not in the original sample.

Subtract this lead from the lead in the sample.
We then use this figure and it's proportion to the remaining Uranium-238 to estimate how long it would have taken that proportion of lead to have formed. This will give us the youngest date.

[dad]

What we can do is look at the decay chain of Uranium 238.

OK, lets look.

Here are their half lives.

Think about it, what is this saying? Theoretically, at present rates of decay, assuming no daughter element to begin with, it would take so and so long to decay! Nothing more.
Now, if we had a process in place before the seperation of the spiritual where we were left in a physical only universe, we could not assume that the materials were then involved in a decay process, though they were present! No scientific reason exists that could possibly support that claim. The whole old age package is built squarely on this assumption, no science whatsoever, just belief!!!

[BGoodForGoodSake]

What we can do is look at the decay chain of Uranium 238.

OK, lets look.

Here are their half lives.

Think about it, what is this saying? Theoretically, at present rates of decay, assuming no daughter element to begin with, it would take so and so long to decay! Nothing more.
Now, if we had a process in place before the seperation of the spiritual where we were left in a physical only universe, we could not assume that the materials were then involved in a decay process, though they were present! No scientific reason exists that could possibly support that claim. The whole old age package is built squarely on this assumption, no science whatsoever, just belief!!!

Ok, I see what your saying, it just looks old.
We can't assume that physical constants were constant in the past, right?

[Mastriani]

Apparently there is a misconception about the parent/daughter relationship with respect to half-life decay.

The parent particle, and radioactive isotope, with a known/understood half-life, goes through decay. Decay means that the isotope(parent) loses particles from it's nucleus, effectively breaking down the isotope. This lose of particles forms a new element(daughter), or more clearly stated, is a product.

The idea that both parent and daughter are present at origin is incorrect. It is the half-life decay of the parent that produces the daughter, and measuring the amount of new element present, with respect to known half-life measurements.

The mathematical expression that relates radioactive decay to geologic time is called the age equation and is given at this URL, only posted because I have referenced it against a book I am familiar with.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Apparently there is a misconception about the parent/daughter relationship with respect to half-life decay.

The parent particle, and radioactive isotope, with a known/understood half-life, goes through decay. Decay means that the isotope(parent) loses particles from it's nucleus, effectively breaking down the isotope. This lose of particles forms a new element(daughter), or more clearly stated, is a product.

The idea that both parent and daughter are present at origin is incorrect. It is the half-life decay of the parent that produces the daughter, and measuring the amount of new element present, with respect to known half-life measurements.

The mathematical expression that relates radioactive decay to geologic time is called the age equation and is given at this URL, only posted because I have referenced it against a book I am familiar with.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html

This is understood, however they are arguing that the products of decay were present at the beginning of creation aprox ~10,000 years ago.

And by this argument that it is impossible to tell how much of the product is from actual radioactive decay and how much was present since the beginning of time.

That is why I posted that differential proportions of the players involved could lead us to determine how much of the lead must be the result of decay no matter what the initial proportions were.

Using this amount of lead and its proportion to the amount of Uranium-238 in the sample would give us the least amount of time the sample had to have existed, no matter how much lead was there from the beginning.

[Mastriani]

Perchance the gentleman could offer a reference as I would like to view the contentions on this debate???

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Perchance the gentleman could offer a reference as I would like to view the contentions on this debate???

Sure here are two links.
Both of them Christian geared I beleive.

FOR YEC(Young earth creationism)http://www.geocities.com/sdc_hyder_cfs/imp-301.htm
FOR OEC (Old earth creationism)http://www.answersincreation.org/rate_index.htm

[Mastriani]

Well done Bgood. That actually resolved two conundrums in one fell swoop.

I have long wondered why I often came across Christians who seemingly had little to no real comprehensive understanding of creation as described in Genesis, now it is much clearer.

Any strike against ignorance is a step towards enlightened living, much appreciated. I wasn't previously aware of these "young earth" creationists.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Well done Bgood. That actually resolved two conundrums in one fell swoop.

I have long wondered why I often came across Christians who seemingly had little to no real comprehensive understanding of creation as described in Genesis, now it is much clearer.

Any strike against ignorance is a step towards enlightened living, much appreciated. I wasn't previously aware of these "young earth" creationists.

I am assuming you are speaking about your own ignorance to YEC?

But if I am incorrect...
Hmm, I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to calling young earth creationist's ignorant, there are very intelligent people in science who are YEC. Their faith supercedes their calling, as it should be.

Also it is within the realm of possibility that the Universe was created to look old.

Of course this is outside the realm of science.

[Mastriani]

Interesting supposition that the universe would be created to look old, for what purpose?

As far as YEC, yes, I would say ignorance, based upon a simple idea repeatedly played out in Genesis: The Divine Creator cast the stage for man in but a few "days".

That begs the question: What makes for a comparative analysis of a "day" to an everlasting being? I should think that would resolve the issue, but nothing of human origin can answer that factually.

P.S. Ignorance is absence of knowledge. Regardless of the perceived levels of intelligence of any group or individual, there is always ignorance, categorically.

P.P.S. Actually the forum index name is "God and Science", which rather overtly, leaves the door open to more esoteric discourses.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Interesting supposition that the universe would be created to look old, for what purpose?

Not sure.

As far as YEC, yes, I would say ignorance, based upon a simple idea repeatedly played out in Genesis: The Divine Creator cast the stage for man in but a few "days".

That begs the question: What makes for a comparative analysis of a "day" to an everlasting being? I should think that would resolve the issue, but nothing of human origin can answer that factually.

Agreed.

P.S. Ignorance is absence of knowledge. Regardless of the perceived levels of intelligence of any group or individual, there is always ignorance, categorically.

You got me here.
I am ignorant as well.

Welcome to the forums.

[Mastriani]

Thank you Bgood, seems a very pleasant forum at that.

You are proving to be a worthy cerebral protagonist, well met.

Where will you take the discussion from here?