About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[YoursTrue]

Oh goodness. Here goes from my layman's knowledge.

So you know that matter is made of atoms, yes? And atoms, in turn, are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons, yes? Are you with me? Let me know, because that's essential.

If you're with me, keep reading.

So far I'm with you, although looking it up recently (difference between atoms and molecules--)

Certain atoms are what we call radioactive, which means their nuclei (made of the protons and neutrons I mentioned before) are unstable and thus eject parts of themselves (smaller particles made of protons and neutrons) until the nucleus is stable.

The whole premise of radiometric dating is that we can measure the rate at which that process happens. That process is called radioactive decay. So when it refers to "mother and daughter isotopes," it's referring to those atoms before and after the decay happens. If we know the ratio of mother isotopes and daughter isotopes, we can tell how long the stuff we're measuring has been decaying. If there's lots of daughter isotopes, it's older. If there's fewer, it's younger.

Does that make sense?

Somewhat. So a mother isotope is that from which the decay happens because -- it's not stable?

That's an incredibly simplified version and I apologize to everyone for what was probably an overly simplistic explanation, lol.

Maybe they're glad.

 

[YoursTrue]

The widest spread deposits are from volcanic ash. It is very fine material and can travel fairly long distances. In the case of the Mt. Ste. Helens blast it was found all over the state of Washington. Lava tends to be much more localized and is not as useful.

Perhaps I'll get back to this later, thank you for answering. Oh, so the lava is more stabilized since I guess it's heavier than the ash, which I guess wind can carry more easily.

 

[YoursTrue]

Can you be more specific? Your post does not indicate what questions you may have.

Well, I'd want to ask him how he understands the dating process in particular. But, as mentioned, things have changed since his time, so as I said, even if I asked him back then, I might not have received the most accurate answer.

 

[Left Coast]

So far I'm with you, although looking it up recently (difference between atoms and molecules--)

Molecules are groups of atoms bonded together.

Somewhat. So a mother isotope is that from which the decay happens because -- it's not stable?

Correct. And the daughter isotope is what's left over after a particle is emitted (there are a couple different kinds of particles that can be emitted).

 

[Heyo]

OK, it's true I don't have a genius IQ, but so far I don't understand a word you're saying. Meantime, I'm back to one of the squares. (Not necessarily square 1.) That square is the volcanic ash. However, here is the question right now: Are the dates of the fossils imputed from the sediment or rocks around them, or can fossils themselves minus the sediment be dated? Followed by can or does sediment leach into the bones and/or fossils that are buried?

The problem with dating fossils is that there is little original material in them. When, for example, an animal gets buried by volcanic ash, the ash is relatively stable in its location. The bones decay (biological decay not radioactive) and are replaced by minerals seeping in. During this process (permineralization) younger material from higher strata can replace bone material and thus lead to inaccurate dating. That's why palaeontologists prefer to date the surrounding sediment of a fossil.

 

[Valjean]

OK, it's true I don't have a genius IQ, but so far I don't understand a word you're saying. Meantime, I'm back to one of the squares. (Not necessarily square 1.) That square is the volcanic ash. However, here is the question right now: Are the dates of the fossils imputed from the sediment or rocks around them, or can fossils themselves minus the sediment be dated? Followed by can or does sediment leach into the bones and/or fossils that are buried?

How radiometric dating works, in a nutshell:
Radiometric dating relies on the known rate of decay of radioactive atoms within a substance. Radioactive elements are unstable, that's what radioactivity is. A radioactive atom can't keep it together, and eventually looses one of its neutrons or protons, and turns into either a different isotope* or a different element. These are the "daughter products."

The decay point of a single atom is unpredictable, but the elements in a substance to be dated consist of billions of atoms, with a calculable average decay rate. If the elements and isotopes in a sample, at the time it was formed/deposited, are known, then its age can be calculated by measuring the ratio of daughter products to the original element in question.

There are lots of different elements that have radioactive forms that are incorporated into different organic or rock samples. Lucy is currently dated by the decay rate of Argon 40 into Argon 39. I think potassium to argon decay was the original dating method used at the site, but Argon-argon gives a more precise date.

*Isotopes are forms of an element with different masses because of different numbers of neutrons in their atoms. Same atomic number and chemical properties, different atomic weight.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I'd want to ask him how he understands the dating process in particular. But, as mentioned, things have changed since his time, so as I said, even if I asked him back then, I might not have received the most accurate answer.

Why would you ask him? His answers would be no different from mine. He would have had about as much training in that area. He might have taken a class or two, but not much more. He was a paleontologist so radiometric dating would be outside of his area of expertise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps I'll get back to this later, thank you for answering. Oh, so the lava is more stabilized since I guess it's heavier than the ash, which I guess wind can carry more easily.

Lava is a liquid. It is not going to flow more than a few tens of miles from the source at the most. Ash can go hundreds of miles. It will cover a much broader area. Erosion is a big part of geology A mineral that is widespread is more apt to survive over time than one that is concentrated in just one area.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I found the example that I was thinking of. Good old Answers in Genesis, they still do not seem to understand how a change that only occurs in an extreme plasma state, so we are beyond merely vaporizing the crust, is evidence against them:

Billion-Fold Acceleration of Radioactivity Shown in Laboratory

" More recently, bb decay has been experimentally demonstrated in the rhenium-osmium (187Re-187Os) system. (The Re-Os method is one of the isotopic ‘clocks’ used by uniformitarian geologists5 to supposedly date rocks.) The experiment involved the circulation of fully-ionized 187Re in a storage ring. The 187Re ions were found to decay to a measurable extent in only several hours, amounting to a half-life of only 33 years.6 This represents a staggering billion-fold increase over the conventional half-life, which is 42 Ga! (Ga = giga-annum = a billion (109) years)."

Yes, if Rhenium is put into a state that would not even occur at the center of the Sun it will have a greatly increased decay rate. And this helps them how?

So they exploit the ignorance of people that are already inclined against certain science and give them misleading information as if it is a widely occurring phenomenon and not some artificial, one off situation that doesn't occur in nature. That pretty much seems to be all that one can get from these folks and it is no wonder that many creationists persistently use this sort of "evidence" in their dismissal of science.

This is not my understanding of how Christianity is supposed to operate.

 

[crossfire]

OK, it's true I don't have a genius IQ, but so far I don't understand a word you're saying. Meantime, I'm back to one of the squares. (Not necessarily square 1.) That square is the volcanic ash. However, here is the question right now: Are the dates of the fossils imputed from the sediment or rocks around them, or can fossils themselves minus the sediment be dated? Followed by can or does sediment leach into the bones and/or fossils that are buried?

Opalized fossils are an example of this.
Fossils — Australian Opal Centre

 

[Subduction Zone]

So they exploit the ignorance of people that are already inclined against certain science and give them misleading information as if it is a widely occurring phenomenon and not some artificial, one off situation that doesn't occur in nature. That pretty much seems to be all that one can get from these folks and it is no wonder that many creationists persistently use this sort of "evidence" in their dismissal of science.

This is not my understanding of how Christianity is supposed to operate.

Sadly to date it appears that the saying: "There is no such thing as an honest and informed creationist." holds true.

To work at Answers in Genesis one has to be willing to lie for creationism.

 

[Audie]

So they exploit the ignorance of people that are already inclined against certain science and give them misleading information as if it is a widely occurring phenomenon and not some artificial, one off situation that doesn't occur in nature. That pretty much seems to be all that one can get from these folks and it is no wonder that many creationists persistently use this sort of "evidence" in their dismissal of science.

This is not my understanding of how Christianity is supposed to operate.

Exploitation of the ignorant and credulous
is eviident to the atheist as foundational to
organized religion.

Fwiw I don't think Jesus was trying to
organize a religion.

 

[Audie]

The problem with dating fossils is that there is little original material in them. .

Not necessarily.
And thats not the reason anyway.
The formation inwhich they occur is
the thing to date.

 

[Audie]

Evidently it can be either:

Dating

"Radiometric dating entails measuring the ratio of parent and daughter isotopes in a radioactive sample. These samples must be organic matter (i.e., wood, bones, and shells) or certain minerals and geologic material that contain radioactive isotopes. The rate of decay for many radioactive isotopes has been measured; neither heat, pressure, gravity, nor other variables change the rate of decay."

Organic is only for C14 dating.

 

[Colt]

"The development of radiometric dating techniques in the early 20th century allowed scientists to quantitatively measure the absolute ages of rocks and the fossils they host." Note the last part -- scientists measure the absolute ages of rocks AND the fossils THEY HOST. What do you get from this? Are the dates of the fossils imputed from the sediment or rocks around them, or can fossils themselves minus the sediment be dated?

Errrm, the fossil often isn't the actual bone or carbon material that was covered up by mud rather the fossil became the mold which was subsequently filled by minerals that sept in over ages, like a petrified tree. Actual carbon dating is only good for 40-50 thousand years.

 

[Astrophile]

Are the dates of the fossils imputed from the sediment or rocks around them, or can fossils themselves minus the sediment be dated?

If I understand it correctly, fossils and sedimentary rocks cannot be dated directly. Radiometric ages can be measured for igneous rocks (such as volcanic ash beds) above and below the fossil, and the age of the fossil and the sedimentary rock that contains it is between the ages of these igneous rocks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I understand it correctly, fossils and sedimentary rocks cannot be dated directly. Radiometric ages can be measured for igneous rocks (such as volcanic ash beds) above and below the fossil, and the age of the fossil and the sedimentary rock that contains it is between the ages of these igneous rocks.

There may be some rare exceptions, but yes you have the gist of it.

And there are often a suite of fossils with a deposit and the species all tend to have different appearance and disappearance time. So using worldwide distributions of fossils anyone eruption can give quite a bit of evidence. Eventually the time of an object maybe be identified largely by an eruption around the world.

 

[YoursTrue]

Lava is a liquid. It is not going to flow more than a few tens of miles from the source at the most. Ash can go hundreds of miles. It will cover a much broader area. Erosion is a big part of geology A mineral that is widespread is more apt to survive over time than one that is concentrated in just one area.

ok...

 

[YoursTrue]

There may be some rare exceptions, but yes you have the gist of it.

And there are often a suite of fossils with a deposit and the species all tend to have different appearance and disappearance time. So using worldwide distributions of fossils anyone eruption can give quite a bit of evidence. Eventually the time of an object maybe be identified largely by an eruption around the world.

An eruption around the world? What do you mean by that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

An eruption around the world? What do you mean by that?

An eruption on the other side of the world that lies within a sedimentary strata. If the fossil assemblage is the same one can be very sure that they are of roughly the same age.