Isotope dating fossils

posted by | Leave a comment

In other words, the age should lie between 197.2 million years and 203.6 million years.

However, this error is not the real error on the date.

From the mapped field relationships, it is a simple matter to work out a geological cross-section and the relative timing of the geologic events.

His geological cross-section may look something like Figure 2.

by Tas Walker A geologist works out the relative age of a rock by carefully studying where the rock is found in the field.

isotope dating fossils-23isotope dating fossils-40

What would our geologist have thought if the date from the lab had been greater than 200 million years, say 350.5 ± 4.3 million years?

And, of course, the reported error ignores the huge uncertainties in the Creationist physicists point to several lines of evidence that decay rates have been faster in the past, and propose a pulse of accelerated decay during Creation Week, and possibly a smaller pulse during the Flood year. He may suggest that some of the chemicals in the rock had been disturbed by groundwater or weathering.

What would our geologist think if the date from the lab were less than 30 million years, say 10.1 ± 1.8 million years? Or he may decide that the rock had been affected by a localized heating event—one strong enough to disturb the chemicals, but not strong enough to be visible in the field.

In fact, he would have been equally happy with any date a bit less than 200 million years or a bit more than 30 million years.

They would all have fitted nicely into the field relationships that he had observed and his interpretation of them.

Leave a Reply

Hot chat lines always free