Let me by honest: radiometric dating is not out of my or your league to understand, but it is out of my league to explain it technically. Let's start by going back to our clock illustration:
1. A digital clock is observed to run dead at 12:30pm, today.
2. An expert does the math on the probable life of the battery.
3. The math indicates the clock has been running for a year.
This is the scientific essence of radiometric dating. The only difference is that the radioactive substances in the rocks of earth are the "batteries" of the clock. These substances tell how long a rock has been changing from one radioactive substance to another radioactive substance. The expert is the scientist who calculates the rock's life based on rate of change over time.
There are several forms of this dating.
1. Carbon 14-Carbon 14 is in the atmosphere. Living organsims ingest it. When they die, they stop ingestion (duh). Then C-14 starts to decay to lesser elements. The amount of C-14 left indicates at least the death point of the organism. This dating method is used widely to date young substances. Older substances are supposed to be devoid of C-14, because of its relatively short half-life. It works back a few thousand years.
2. Potassium-Argon dating is based on Potassium 40 decaying into Argon 40. It is based on exactly the same procedure as Carbon 14 dating, for the most part. It yields very old dates for some of earth's rocks (over 3 billion years).
3. Rubidium-Strontium dating is the same thing above with different elements. It too yields very old dates.
4. Isochron dating is different than the above methods. It is a "mixed bag" sample. A rock is sampled from its various component matter (crystals, and other diverse molecules). An average age is obtained from the samples using mathematics to factor in events that changed the various components of the rock over time to its various pieces. This average is a "checking mechanism" to give a better picture of the age of the whole rock.
As I said, these dating methods, on the whole, seem to be accurate, and the ones that yield old dates seem to point conclusively to an earth more than 4 billion years old. Geologists of the secular persuasion are uniform in their embrace of these methods. It is scientific dogma, and all the more, because in these cases we have actual tests (instead of unsightly conjectures--a hallmark of evolutionary biology schemes of life). I would also add that Creationists point out that some dates conflict, and seem to be in error. Other scientists are unconvinced, however, given the massive number of agreeing evidence samples.
This is all very convincing evidence to me too, even as a Christian who is historical in his interpretation of Scripture. However, I am inconclusive without further research.
No comments:
Post a Comment