Accurately Dating Objects

[the_wise_observer]

So I have been wondering if science has an accurate way to date artifacts, like fossils and early tools, discovered by archeologists and other such scientists.

 

The Earth is only around 7,000 years old (give or take a few thousand...), and, when I read articles about a fossil from millions of years ago, it never ceases to put a large grin on my face. How stupid can people be?

 

So since carbon dating is wrong... or at least the methods they use are... what alternatives are out there? There must be a better way to get an accurate date.

[Moontanman]

So I have been wondering if science has an accurate way to date artifacts, like fossils and early tools, discovered by archeologists and other such scientists.

 

Yes science does have ways to figure the age of objects.

 

 

The Earth is only around 7,000 years old (give or take a few thousand...),

 

Do you have any evidence to back up that statement?

 

and, when I read articles about a fossil from millions of years ago, it never ceases to put a large grin on my face.

 

You must be easily amused.

 

How stupid can people be?

 

I think you just answered your own question.

 

 

So since carbon dating is wrong... or at least the methods they use are... what alternatives are out there? There must be a better way to get an accurate date.

 

What evidence do you have to back up this statement? carbon dating is very accurate, you on the other hand are very inaccurate, especially your name "the_wise_observer"

[modest]

There are many ways to date archaeological artifacts:

• Radiocarbon Dating
  
• Potassium-Argon Dating
  
• Obsidian Hydration Dating
  
• Fission Track Dating
  
• Oxidized Carbon Ratios Dating
  
• Archaeomagnetic and paleomagnetic magnetism
  
• Thermoluminescence dating
  
• Stratigraphy and other more traditional dating methods
  

 

As these methods all regularly give dates greater than 7,000 years, it's obvious that inaccuracy can't be claimed on those grounds.

 

There are also living organisms older than 7,000 years such as clonal trees, and living non-clonal trees that date before Noah's flood.

 

But, hey, counting tree rings isn't accurate, right?

 

~modest

[Tormod]

The Earth is only around 7,000 years old (give or take a few thousand...)

 

How stupid can people be?

 

Your username doesn't seem to work.

 

Anyway, that figure of 7000 +/- "a few thousand" is an interesting number. Where did you find it?

[Turtle]

I noticed no one mentioned Helium so I went for a looky see as I knew it is in use for dating meteor impacts. The other shoe is that the link popping up first is a group of creationist 'scientists' using Helium to argue a 6,000 +- year old Earth 'as in the Bible'.

 

Experiments co-sponsored by the Creation Research Society show that helium leakage deflates radioisotopic ages. In 1982 Robert Gentry found amazingly high retentions of nuclear-decay-generated helium in microscopic zircons (ZrSiO4 crystals) recovered from a borehole in hot Precambrian granitic rock at Fenton Hill, NM. We contracted with a high-precision laboratory to measure the rate of helium diffusion out of the zircons. The initial results were very encouraging. Here we report newer zircon diffusion data that extend to the lower temperatures (100º to 277º C) of Gentry's retention data. The measured rates resoundingly confirm a numerical prediction we made based on the reported retentions and a young age. Combining rates and retentions gives a helium diffusion age of 6,000 ± 2,000 years. This contradicts the uniformitarian age of 1.5 billion years based on nuclear decay products in the same zircons. These data strongly support our hypothesis of episodes of highly accelerated nuclear decay occurring within thousands of years ago. Such accelerations shrink the radioisotopic "billions of years" down to the 6,000-year timescale of the Bible. (§ is section of reference being cited.) .http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium.htm

 

Somebody just shoot me!

[freeztar]

Somebody just shoot me! :hihi:

 

No need.

All we have to do is hand you some Uranium and allow "highly accelerated nuclear decay" to bombard you with billions of years of radiation in just a few short millenia. :eek2: :hihi:

[REASON]

Turtle - The Devil's advocate. :hihi: :eek2:

[freeztar]

Turtle - The Devil's advocate. :eek2: :doh: :hihi:

 

:lol:

 

I thought I saw some horns on that shell. :hihi:

[Moontanman]

No one dating method is perfect, uranium dating comes pretty close but it's only accurate to a few percent. There can be no doubt the Earth is several billion years old and life on earth is at least 3.8 billion years old. All the major important dates have been cross dated using as many different methods as possible. There is no doubt humans have been on this planet for far longer than 7000 years closer to 150,000+ for anatomically modern humans. This guy is just yanking our chains, I notice he hasn't been back to defend his claims.

[modest]

I noticed no one mentioned Helium so I went for a looky see as I knew it is in use for dating meteor impacts. The other shoe is that the link popping up first is a group of creationist 'scientists' using Helium to argue a 6,000 +- year old Earth 'as in the Bible'.

 

From the amounts of radiogenic lead in the zircons, they estimated how much helium the nuclear decay should have deposited in the crystals. They found that "an almost phenomenal amount of He has been retained" in the zircons, despite them being small, hot, and allegedly old (Gentry et al., 1982a). Table I shows their results as samples 1 through 6...

 

gives a helium diffusion age of 6,000 ± 2,000 years.

 

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium.htm

 

This makes no sense. The level of helium is proportional to the length of time the zircon has been below a certain temperature. In other words, more helium means older. These guys found a lot of helium and claim support for a young earth. I think that's completely senseless. It's like finding a rusted hammer and claiming it must be brand new.

 

I haven't read more than the introduction to their paper, so I don't know how they come up with 'rust = new', but it must be pretty convoluted and absurd. Come to think of it... it probably involves the hand of God.

 

~modest (reading on)

 

EDIT:

 

Here is a paper agreeing with the above:

http://www.asa3.org/asa/education/origins/helium-ri.htm

[jab2]

I do not have time now to do a proper search, but from a quick search over a cup of strong brew, I found Humphreys, the 1st author from Turtle's quoted article, to be sort of a questionable character.

 

Here are some interesting reading. Please note I have just scanned it, but it sure does put him under the label, "people not to be taken too seriously". At least not when it comes to scientific theory.

 

The C files: D Russell Humphreys

Flaws in a Young-Earth Cooling Mechanism

Young-Earth Creationist Helium Diffusion "Dates"

"Creation Physicist" D. Russell Humphreys, and his Questionable "Evidence for a Young World"