| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | :''See also [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]''.
| + | ''See also [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]''. |
| | | | |
| | '''Radiometric dating''' is a method of determining the age of an artifact by assuming that on average decay rates have been constant (see below for the flaws in that assumption) and measuring the amount of radioactive decay that has occurred.<ref>[http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html Radiometric Time Scale] USGS</ref> Radiometric dating is mostly used to determine the age of rocks, though a particular form of radiometric dating—called [[Radiocarbon dating]]—can date wood, cloth, skeletons, and other organic material. | | '''Radiometric dating''' is a method of determining the age of an artifact by assuming that on average decay rates have been constant (see below for the flaws in that assumption) and measuring the amount of radioactive decay that has occurred.<ref>[http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html Radiometric Time Scale] USGS</ref> Radiometric dating is mostly used to determine the age of rocks, though a particular form of radiometric dating—called [[Radiocarbon dating]]—can date wood, cloth, skeletons, and other organic material. |
| Line 19: |
Line 19: |
| | === Rate of decay === | | === Rate of decay === |
| | | | |
| − | The rate of decay is assumed to be constant over long periods of time. It is claimed that a 1.5% variance in the half-life of a beryllium isotope fundamentally calls this assumption into question,<ref>At least one example of a change in the rate has been observed in laboratory experiments. See Walker, 2000.</ref> and the rate of decay was almost certainly not constant near the creation or beginning of the universe.<ref>Multiple references:
| + | Another assumption is that the rate of decay is constant over long periods of time. |
| − | *Sibley, Andrew (August 2013). [https://creation.com/radioactive-decay-rates-and-solar-activity Variable radioactive decay rates and the changes in solar activity]. ''Creation Ministries International'' (from the ''Journal of Creation 27(2):3–4''). Retrieved January 4, 2018.
| + | There is no reason to expect that the rate of decay of a radioactive material is largely constant,<ref>At least one example of a change in the rate has been observed in laboratory experiments. See Walker, 2000.</ref> and it was almost certainly not constant near the creation or beginning of the universe. |
| − | *Wieland, Carl. [https://creation.com/rate-group-reveals-exciting-breakthroughs RATE group reveals exciting breakthroughs!]. ''''Creation Ministries International''. Retrieved January 4, 2018.
| |
| − | *Walker, Tas (April 2000). [https://creation.com/radioactive-decay-rate-depends-on-chemical-environment Radioactive decay rate depends on chemical environment]. ''Creation Ministries International'' (from the ''Journal of Creation 14(1):4–5''). Retrieved January 4, 2018.
| |
| − | *Woodmorappe, John (August 2001). [https://creation.com/billion-fold-acceleration-of-radioactivity-demonstrated-in-laboratory Billion-fold acceleration of radioactivity demonstrated in laboratory]. ''Creation Ministries International'' (from the ''Journal of Creation 15(2):4–6''). Retrieved January 4, 2018.
| |
| − | *Thomas, Brian (August 5, 2009). [http://www.icr.org/article/4816 Radioactive Decay Rates Not Stable]. ''Institute for Creation Research''. Retrieved January 4, 2018.
| |
| − | *Snelling, Andrew A. (October 1, 2009). [https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/ Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved January 4, 2018.
| |
| − | *Knapp, Alex (May 3, 2011). [https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/05/03/radioactive-decay-rates-may-not-be-constant-after-all/#4634f095147f Radioactive Decay Rates May Not Be Constant After All]. ''Forbes''. Retrieved January 4, 2018.</ref>
| |
| | | | |
| − | In 1673, John Ray, an English naturalist, reckoned with alternative that ''"im the primitive times and soon after the Creation the earth suffered far more concussions and mutations in its superficial part than afterward"''.<ref name="Rappaport1997">{{cite book |title=When Geologists Where Historians, 1665-1750 |author=Rhoda Rappaport |publisher=Cornell University Press |place=Ithaca and London |year=1997 |pages=194 |isbn=978-0801-433863 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=30U3W2kI7foC |quote=}}</ref>, however John Ray was not a chemist or physicist, and died 191 years before the discovery of radioactive decay in 1896.
| + | As early as of 1673, John Ray, an English naturalist, reckoned with alternative that ''"im the primitive times and soon after the Creation the earth suffered far more concussions and mutations in its superficial part than afterward"''.<ref name="Rappaport1997">{{cite book |title=When Geologists Where Historians, 1665-1750 |author=Rhoda Rappaport |publisher=Cornell University Press |place=Ithaca and London |year=1997 |pages=194 |isbn=978-0801-433863 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=30U3W2kI7foC |quote=}}</ref> The process of decay is as follows. Atoms consist of a heavy central core called the [[nucleus]] surrounded by clouds of lightweight particles (electrons), called [[electron shell]]s. The energy locked in the nucleus is enormous, but cannot be released easily. The phenomenon we know as heat is simply the jiggling around of atoms and their components, so in principle a high enough temperature could cause the components of the core to break out. However, the temperature required to do this is in in the millions of degrees, so this cannot be achieved by any natural process that we know about. The second way that a nucleus could be disrupted is by particles striking it. However, the nucleus has a strong positive charge and the electron shells have a strong negative charge. Any incoming negative charge would be deflected by the electron shell and any positive charge that penetrated the electron shells would be deflected by the positive charge of the nucleus itself. |
| | | | |
| | The decay process is as follows. | | The decay process is as follows. |
| Line 48: |
Line 42: |
| | | | |
| | Atoms themselves consist of a heavy central core called the [[nucleus]] surrounded by arrangements of [[electron shell]]s, wherein there are different probabilities of precisely locating a certain number of electrons (depending on the element). The energy locked in the nucleus is enormous, but cannot be released easily. One way that a nucleus could be disrupted is by particles striking it. However, the nucleus has a strong positive charge and the electron shells have a strong negative charge. Any incoming negative charge would be deflected by the electron shell and any positive charge that penetrated the electron shells would be deflected by the positive charge of the nucleus itself. This interpretation unfortunately fails to consider observed energetic interactions, including that of the strong force, which is stronger the electromagnetic force. | | Atoms themselves consist of a heavy central core called the [[nucleus]] surrounded by arrangements of [[electron shell]]s, wherein there are different probabilities of precisely locating a certain number of electrons (depending on the element). The energy locked in the nucleus is enormous, but cannot be released easily. One way that a nucleus could be disrupted is by particles striking it. However, the nucleus has a strong positive charge and the electron shells have a strong negative charge. Any incoming negative charge would be deflected by the electron shell and any positive charge that penetrated the electron shells would be deflected by the positive charge of the nucleus itself. This interpretation unfortunately fails to consider observed energetic interactions, including that of the strong force, which is stronger the electromagnetic force. |
| − |
| |
| | === Outside influences === | | === Outside influences === |
| | | | |