## What are the assumptions used with radiometric dating

In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight. This value is exceedingly useful and lets us do something really neat. Isochron methods, using a non-radiogenic isotopes to tell us the amount of daughter present to start with, avoids assumptions about initial amounts. Namely, direct observation is actually very unreliable, and you can use simple inductive logic to reach conclusions about something without directly observing it i. Remember that inductive logic is the type of logic that goes from a series of observations to a general conclusion.

How do we know what the half-life is? How can this observation be explained? How about Maupertius, Leclerc and Lamarck? All scientific theories and laws are arrived at by inductive logic.

The theory of universal gravity states that all objects with mass produce gravity and are acted on by the gravity from other bodies. They assume it was the same amount as what is in the atmosphere today. Suppose we went out to some tribe of people that had never been studied before, and we took a blood sample from one of them and put it under a microscope. An isotope is one of two or more atoms which have the same number of protons in their nuclei, dating site china but a different number of neutrons. And how do scientists know how much radioactive carbon was in the atmosphere in the past?

For example, Uranium U is a radioisotope. Hume identified the problem of induction and various philosophers have grappled with it. It is merely a form of probabilistic argument. The problem with radiometric dating is, if the assumptions which must be used to date the object are wrong, the interpretation of the measurements will be wrong. You understate the case for radiometric dating.

They continue to decay going through various transitional states until they finally reach stability. Anyway, I find it amusing to note that Lamarckism is essentially an inductive theory. Induction is not just a fallacy, it is a myth. There is no sense in which you can go from a series of observations to a general law.

So, for example, germ theory was proposed as a hypothesis before bacteria, viruses, etc. Importantly, we can never prove that G actually is a constant, because doing that would require us to test G against every single piece of matter in the universe. Radiometric Dating - A Brief Explanation Radiometric dating is the primary dating scheme employed by scientists to determine the age of the earth. Therefore, via inductive logic, we must accept that it is constant until we have been shown a compelling reason to think that it is not constant.

## Radiometric Dating

- That is by definition inductive logic.
- Your example of gravity is quite revealing.
- However, even more important is the fact that the age of the earth determined by standard radiometric dating techniques is incompatible with the clear revelation and meaning of Scripture.
- Note that the theory existed before any germs were discovered.

And there lies much of the reason why it is very difficult to come to an agreement on these things. This is where things get interesting and problematic for creationists. So atomic theory existed as a theory first. For any two bodies, if we know the mass of each object and the distance between them, then we can use G to calculate the force of gravity between those two objects. Are these foundational assumptions reasonable?

There is absolutely no reason to think that coral reefs grew faster in the past, or ice cores and varves formed multiple layers annually, or radioactive particles decayed faster, etc. Therefore, we went form all of those observations to the general conclusion that all living things are made of cells. In summary, radiometric dating is based on well tested, scientific results, not assumptions. For if those laws had been different, the whole of physical science would have been different, and we would not have had rocks of recognisable chemistry being laid down in the first place. All theories are based on inductive logic.

## Assumptions of Radiometric Dating

It came from the atmosphere the organism lived in when it was alive. Many of the calculations involved use the gravitational constant. Certain crystals called zircons, obtained from drilling into very deep granites, contain uranium which has partly decayed into lead.

## Radiometric Dating

Here then is an experimental question. Even so, we have measured the rates of radiometric decay over and over again and they have always been constant. Therefore, via inductive logic, we must accept that they are constant until we have been shown a compelling reason to think that they are not constant. So, based on all available evidence, all living things are made of cells, but it is always possible that we will find evidence in the future that discredits that.

They were that you knew the starting amount of ice and that you knew the rate the ice melted. Create a free website or blog at WordPress. Thus, it is always possible that somewhere in the universe there is a living thing that is not made of cells, but until we find such a thing, there is no reason not to accept cell theory. Indeed, this seems to be the definition that creationists use, but this definition is also fraught with problems and inconsistencies. Surely he was aware of the evolutionary theory of his own grandfather!

- It is very strange to encounter someone still proselytizing it.
- This is at first glance surprising, because of the ease with which one would expect helium with its tiny, light, unreactive atoms to escape from the spaces within the crystal structure.
- First, do you think that all living things are probably made of cells?
- Well, quite simply, we have tested it over and over again and it has always been correct.
- The assumptions are very different.

Helen, and the *radiometric* dating said it was old. **Can we date sedimentary rocks using radiometric dating techniques? Radiometric Dating - The Assumptions Many of the ages derived by radiometric dating techniques are highly publicized.**

The former risks giving a free pass to fallacies, while the latter risks spreading the creationist meme. For example, based on all available evidence, best way to write a life on this planet has slowly evolved for millions of years and natural selection has been the dominant force of that evolution i. The theory predicts the results of future tests. There have been many proofs that induction is impossible.

## Radiometric Dating

Finally, we know the rate at which uranium decays into lead because we have repeatedly measured it, and it has always been the same. Thus, inductive logic tells us what is probably true, not what is definitely true. As I will demonstrate, coral growth rates, radioactive decay rates, dating etc.

We can take a zircon, measure the amount of U and the amount of Pb, and the ratio of those two chemicals will tell us how old the rock is. Could these rates be affected by forces such as temperature, magnetic fields, or quantum vacuum fluctuations? In other words, we accept it as true because of inductive logic i. Everyone on the entire planet agrees that it will, dating but we agree because of inductive logic. Where did that radioactive carbon come from?

And despite the powers of induction, we now know there is no force of gravity. Second, explain how the theory of evolution by natural selection is not inductive. And yet I was responding the arguments that creationists actually make, and that you will find spelt out in any creationist text. Therefore, we proposed atomic theory which states that all matter is made of atoms. So your characterization of science is logically impossible, historically inaccurate and rather naive.

## The Logic of Science

Boltzmann committed suicide in in part because the scientific establishment refused to accept the existence of atoms. That is not induction by any stretch of the imagination! Quarks along with leptons are the smallest units of matter that we have confirmed to date. If no, defend your answer, if yes, explain how you reached that conclusion without using inductive logic.

There was no direct evidence so the Inductivists refused to accept the explanatory power of atomic theory. Do you think that all living things are probably made of cells? How do you explain the results of radiometric dating which say the earth is billions of years old, and the Bible's account of creation? If this were the case, the first assumption would be deemed unreasonable.

What assumptions did you have to use in order for your measurements and calculations to be interpreted correctly? An easy illustration to show why these assumptions are critical for radiometric dating is an ice cube. Therefore, from all of that evidence, we draw the general inductive conclusion that it is most likely true. This is true for all science.