The Best Online Free Dating Site for the Awake - Awake Dating

100% Free Canada Dating Site For Canadian

dating age in canada

Online Dating by the Numbers". Many members are well educated, successful, and young at heart! Also, the uncertainty in the branching ratio of potassium decay might mean that there is a fudge factor in K-Ar ages of up to a third, and that the occasional agreements between K-Ar ages and other ages are open to question. I'm also curious to know how much of the geologic column is datable by super isochrons for which no mixing can be shown.

World's Best Free Casual Personals!

Indian dating is heavily influenced by the custom of arranged marriages which require little dating, although there are strong indications that the institution is undergoing change, and that love marriages are becoming more accepted as India becomes more intertwined with the rest of the world. One report in China Daily suggests that dating for Chinese university women is "difficult" and "takes work" and steals time away from academic advancement, and places women in a precarious position of having to balance personal success against traditional Chinese relationships. This could cause trouble for Rb-Sr dating. Let me briefly comment on a couple of other articles at Tim Thompson's page. Suppose the partial pressure of argon 40 in lava or magma is initially at least p, as it cools.

Find a hot gay date. Meet sexy single lesbians. Top rated sex personals. Below is a list of our most popular cities in the United States. This website contains adult material, all members and persons appearing on this site have contractually represented to us that they are 18 years of age or older. You must have javascript enabled to use this site Join Now. Private profile options and secure transactions.

Let's also only include rocks which are considered datable by at least one method, since some rocks I believe limestone are considered not to hold argon, for example. Now, we can take a random rock from Gi. We will have to restrict ourselves to places where Gi is exposed, to avoid having to dig deep within the earth. Let's apply all known dating methods to Gi that are thought to apply to this kind of rock, and obtain ages from each one.

Then we can average them to get an average age for this rock. We can also compute how much they differ from one another. Now we have to be careful about lava flows -- which geologic period do they belong to? What about rocks that are thought not to have their clock reset, or to have undergone later heating episodes?

Just to make the test unbiased, we will assign altitude limits to each geologic period at each point on the earth's surface at least in principle and include all rocks within these altitude limits within Gi, subject to the condition that they are datable.

For each geologic period and each dating method, we will get a distribution of values. We will also get a distribution of averaged values for samples in each period. Now, some claim is being made about these distributions. It is undoubtedly being claimed that the mean values ascend as one goes up the geologic column. It is also being claimed that the standard deviations are not too large. It is also being claimed that the different methods have distributions that are similar to one another on a given geologic period.

The only correlation I know about that has been studied is between K-Ar and Rb-Sr dating on precambrian rock. And even for this one, the results were not very good. This was a reference by Hurley and Rand, cited in Woodmorappe's paper.

As far as I know, no study has been done to determine how different methods correlate on the geologic column excluding precambrian rock. The reason for my request is that a correlation is not implied by the fact that there are only 10 percent anomalies, or whatever.

I showed that the fact that the great majority of dates come from one method K-Ar and the fact that many igneous bodies have very wide biostratigraphic limits, where many dates are acceptable, makes the percentage of anomalies irrelevant to the question I am asking.

And since this agreement is the strongest argument for the reliability of radiometric dating, such an assumption of agreement appears to be without support so far. The question of whether different methods correlate on the geologic column is not an easy one to answer for additional reasons. Since the bulk of K-Ar dates are generally accepted as correct, one may say that certain minerals are reliable if they tend to give similar dates, and unreliable otherwise.

We can also say that certain formations tend to give reliable dates and others do not, depending on whether the dates agree with K-Ar dates. Thus we can get an apparent correlation of different methods without much of a real correlation in nature.

It's also possible for other matter to be incorporated into lava as it rises, without being thoroughly melted, and this matter may inherit all of its old correlated radiometric dates. Coffin mentions that fission tracks can survive transport through lava, for example. It may also be that lava is produced by melting the bottom of continents and successively different layers are melted with time, or there could be a tendency for lighter isotopes to come to the top of magma chambers, making the lava there appear older.

But anyway, I think it is important really to know what patterns appear in the data to try to understand if there is a correlation and what could be causing it. Not knowing if anomalies are always published makes this harder. It is often mentioned that different methods agree on the K-T boundary, dated at about 65 million years ago. This is when the dinosaurs are assumed to have become extinct. This agreement of different methods is taken as evidence for a correlation between methods on the geologic column.

One study found some correlated dates from bentonite that are used to estimate the date of the K-T boundary. I looked up some information on bentonite. It is composed of little glass beads that come from volcanic ash. This is formed when lava is sticky and bubbles of gas in it explode. So these small particles of lava cool very fast. The rapid cooling might mean that any enclosed argon is retained, but if not, the fact that this cooling occurs near the volcano, with a lot of argon coming out, should guarantee that these beads would have excess argon.

As the gas bubble explodes, its enclosed argon will be rushing outward along with these tiny bubbles as they cool. This will cause them to retain argon and appear too old. In addition, the rapid cooling and the process of formation means that these beads would have Rb, Sr, U, and Pb concentrations the same as the lava they came from, since there is no chance for crystals to form with such rapid cooling. So to assume that the K-Ar dates, Rb-Sr dates, and U-Pb dates all reflect the age of the lava, one would have to assume that this lava had no Sr, no Pb, and that all the argon escaped when the beads formed.

Since the magma generally has old radiometric ages, I don't see how we could have magma without Pb or Sr. So to me it seems to be certain that these ages must be in error.

Furthermore, the question arises whether bentonite always gives correlated ages, and whether these ages always agree with the accepted ages for their geologic period. I believe that bentonite occurs in a number of formations of different geologic periods, so this could be checked. If bentonite does not always give correlate and correct ages, this calls into question its use for dating the K-T boundary. Let me briefly comment on a couple of other articles at Tim Thompson's page.

This is at least close to what I am looking for. However, it would be better to date all five craters by all four different methods, and see what the agreement is. It is also possible that each crater gives a scatter of dates, and the best ones were selected. Furthermore, it is possible that the craters were chosen as those for which the dating methods agreed.

Possible other sources of correlation Note that if there are small pockets in crystals where both parent and daughter product can accumulate from the lava, then one can inherit correlated ages from the lava into minerals.

Thus even the existence of correlations is not conclusive evidence that a date is correct. Anomalies of radiometric dating If a date does not agree with the expected age of its geologic period, and no plausible explanation can be found, then the date is called anomalous.

But if we really understand what is going on, then we should be able to detect discrepant dates as they are being measured, and not just due to their divergence from other dates. Geologists often say that the percentage of anomalies is low.

But there are quite a number of rather outstanding anomalies in radiometric dating that creationists have collected. These anomalies are reported in the scientific literature. For example, one isochron yielded a date of 10 billion years. A Rb-Sr isochron yielded a date of 34 billion years. K-Ar dates of 7 to 15 billion years have been recorded. It's also not uncommon for two methods to agree and for the date to be discarded anyway. Samples with flat plateaus which should mean no added argon can give wrong dates.

Samples giving no evidence of being disturbed can give wrong dates. Samples that give evidence of being disturbed can give correct dates. The number of dates that disagree with the expected ages is not insignificant. I don't know what the exact percentage is. Many dates give values near the accepted ones.

But even these often differ from one another by 10 or 20 percent. And quite a few other dates are often much, much farther off. Whatever is making some of these dates inaccurate could be making all of them inaccurate. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different sometimes by hundreds of millions of years.

There is not absolutely reliable long-term radiological "clock". The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists As proof of the unreliability of the radiometric methods consider the fact that in nearly every case dates from recent lava flows have come back excessively large. One example is the rocks from the Kaupelehu Flow, Hualalai Volcano in Hawaii which was known to have erupted in These rocks were dated by a variety of different methods.

Of 12 dates reported the youngest was million years and the oldest was 2. The dates average 1. Another source said that about 5 or 6 of the historic lava flows give ages in the hundreds of thousands of years.

Geologists explain the Kaupelehu date by the lava being cooled rapidly in deep ocean water and not being able to get rid of its enclosed argon. Instead, the uncertainty grows as more and more data is accumulated Woodmorappe also mentions that very self-contradictory age spreads in the Precambrian era are common.

In addition, Woodmorappe gives over sets of dates "that are in gross conflict with one another and with expected values for their indicated paleontological positions. This does not include dates from minerals that are thought to yield bad dates, or from igneous bodies with wide biostrategraphic ranges, where many dates are acceptable.

He states that the number of dates within range are less than the number of anomalies, except for the Cenozoic and Cretaceous. When one adds in the fact that many anomalies are unreported, which he gives evidence for, the true distribution is anyone's guess.

There have been criticisms of John Woodmorappe's study, but no one has given any figures from the literature for the true percentage of anomalies, with a definition of an anomaly, or the degree of correlation between methods.

Steven Schimmrich's review of this study often concerns itself with John W's presentation of geologists explanation for anomalies, and not with the percentage of anomalies; the later is my main concern. The carbon age of the buried trees is only years, but some of the overlying volcanic material has a ,year potassium-argon age.

A similar situation is reported in the December issue of Creation ex nihilo in which lava with a K-Ar age of about 45 million years overlays wood that was carbon dated by 3 laboratories using AMS dating to about 35, years.

Still another evidence for problems with radiometric dating was given in a recent talk I attended by a man who had been an evolutionist and taken a course in radiometric dating. The teacher gave 14 assumptions of radiometric dating and said something like "If creationists got a hold of these, they could cut radiometric dating to pieces.

Another evidence that all is not well with radiometric dating is given in the following quote from Coffin p. Many sedimentary uranium ores are not. Since equilibrium should be reached in 1 million years, this is a problem for sediments that are assumed to be older than 1 million years. On another point, if we can detect minerals that were not molten with the lava, as has been claimed, then this is one more reason why there should be no anomalies, and radiometric dating should be a completely solved problem.

But that does not appear to be the case, at least especially on the geologic column. I'm not claiming that anomalous results are being hidden, just that the agreement of a mass of results, none of which has much claim to reliability, does not necessarily mean much. Picking out a few cases where radiometric dates appear to be well-behaved reminds me of evolutionary biologists focusing on a few cases where there may be transitional sequences.

It does not answer the overall question. And as I said above, I'm also interested to know how much of the fossil-bearing geologic column can be dated by isochrons, and how the dates so obtained compare to others. Gerling et al called attention to some chlorites yielding K-Ar dates of 7 to 15 b. It had been noted that some minerals which yield such dates as beryl, cordierite, etc.

They also pointed out that for the anomalies to be accounted for by excess argon, unreasonably high partial pressures of Ar during crystallization would have to be required. They concluded by suggesting some unknown nuclear process which no longer operates to have generated the Ar. This implies that excess argon is coming from somewhere. Here is another quote from Woodmorappe about isochrons, since some people think that mixing scenarios or other age-altering scenarios are unlikely:.

If this condition does not hold, invalid ages and intercepts are obtained. Models yield isochron ages that are too high, too low, or in the future, sometimes by orders of magnitude.

The fact that the only "valid" K-Ar isochrons are those for which the concentration of non-radiogenic argon Ar36 is constant, seems very unusual. This suggests that what is occuring is some kind of a mixing phenomenon, and not an isochron reflecting a true age. We have analyzed several devitrified glasses of known age, and all have yielded ages that are too young. Some gave virtually zero ages, although the geologic evidence suggested that devitrification took place shortly after the formation of a deposit.

Why a low anomaly percentage is meaningless One of the main arguments in favor of radiometric dating is that so many dates agree with each other, that is, with the date expected for their geologic period. But it's not evident how much support this gives to radiometric dating. If a rock dates too old, one can say that the clock did not get reset. If it dates too young, one can invoke a later heating event. Neither date would necessarily be seen as anomalous. If lava intrudes upon geologic period X, then any date for the lava of X or later will not be seen as anomalous.

And even if the date is one or two geologic periods earlier, it may well be close enough to be accepted as non-spurious. If one does not know the geologic period of a rock by other means, then of course one is likely to date it to find out, and then of course the date agrees with the geologic period and this will not be seen as anomalous. So it is difficult to know what would be a reasonable test for whether radiometric dating is reliable or not.

The percentage of published dates that are considered as anomalous has little bearing on the question. The biostrategraphic limits issue The issue about igneous bodies may need additional clarification. If a lava flow lies above geologic period A and below B, then allowable ages are anything at least as large as A and no larger than B.

This is called the biostratigraphic limit of the flow. Now, according to Woodmorappe's citations, many lava flows have no such limits at all, and most of them have large limits. For example, a flow lying on precambrian rock with nothing on top would have no limits on its dates. And such flows often have a large internal scatter of dates, but these dates are not considered as anomalies because of the unrestricted biostratigraphic limit.

Other flows with wide biostratigraphic limits have weak restrictions on allowable dates. This is one reason why just reporting the percentage of anomalies has little meaning. Thus these ages, though they generally have a considerable scatter, are not considered as anomalies. He cites another reference that most igneous bodies have wide biostrategraphic limits.

Thus just by chance, many dates will be considered within the acceptable ranges. Again, the percentage of anomalies means nothing for the reliability of radiometric dating. Now, igneous bodies can be of two types, extrusive and intrusive. Extrusive bodies are lava that is deposited on the surface. These cool quickly and have small crystals and form basalt.

Intrusive bodies are deposited in the spaces between other rocks. These cool more slowly and have larger crystals, often forming granite. Both of these tend on the average to have wide biostrategraphic limits, meaning that a large spread of ages will be regarded as non-anomalous.

And if we recall that most radiometric dating is done of igneous bodies, one sees that the percentage of anomalies is meaningless.

Thus we really need some evidence that the different methods agree with each other. To make the case even stronger, "Many discrepant results from intrusives are rationalized away immediately by accepting the dates but reinterpreting the biostrategraphic bracket," according to John Woodmorappe.

This of course means that the result is no longer anomalous, because the geologic period has been modified to fit the date. Finally, the fact that the great majority of dates are from one method means that the general but not universal agreement of K-Ar dating with itself is sufficient to explain the small percentange of anomalies if it is small. Preponderance of K-Ar dating Now, the point about agreement is that whatever figure is given about how often ages agree with the expected age, is consistent with the fact that there is no agreement at all between K-Ar and other methods, since so many measurements are done using K-Ar dating.

And one of the strongest arguments for the validity of radiometric dating is that the methods agree. So when one combines all of the above figures, the statement that there are only 10 percent anomalies or 5 percent or whatever, does not have any meaning any more.

This statement is made so often as evidence for the reliability of radiometric dating, that the simple evidence that it has no meaning, is astounding to me. I don't object to having some hard evidence that there are real agreements between different methods on the geologic column, if someone can provide it. The precambrian rock is less interesting because it could have a radiometric age older than life, but this is less likely for the rest of the geologic column.

It's not surprising that K-Ar dates often agree with the assumed dates of their geological periods, since the dates of the geological periods were largely inferred from K-Ar dating.

By the way, Ar-Ar dating and K-Ar dating are essentially the same method, so between the two of them we obtain a large fraction of the dates being used. Before the discovery of radioactivity in the late nineteenth century, a geological time scale had been developed on the basis of estimates for the rates of geological processes such as erosion and sedimentation, with the assumption that these rates had always been essentially uniform.

On the basis of being unacceptably old, many geologists of the time rejected these early twentieth century determinations of rock age from the ratio of daughter to radioactive parent large. By , increased confidence in radioisotope dating techniques and the demands of evolution theory for vast amounts of time led to the establishment of an expanded geological time scale. The construction of this time scale was based on about radioisotope ages that were selected because of their agreement with the presumed fossil and geological sequences found in the rocks.

Igneous rocks are particularly suited to K-Ar dating. The crucial determiners are therefore volcanic extrusive igneous rocks that are interbedded with sediments, and intrusive igneous rocks that penetrate sediments.

This verifies what I said about almost all of the dates used to define correct ages for geologic periods being K-Ar dates. Also, the uncertainty in the branching ratio of potassium decay might mean that there is a fudge factor in K-Ar ages of up to a third, and that the occasional agreements between K-Ar ages and other ages are open to question.

So the point is that there is now no reason to believe that radiometric dating is valid on the geologic column. I mentioned the presence of excess argon 40 in a sample as a problem leading to artificially old K-Ar dates.

Henke states in a reply to me, concerning the problem of detecting excess argon,. It is possible that such isochrons are not often done. One cannot always use an isochron, since many minerals may have about the same K and Ar40 concentrations, and there may be some fractionation of argon among the minerals.

It's not clear to me if this three dimensional plot always works, and how often it is used. I was not able to find any mention of it in Faure or Dickin It is true that by using additional isotopes if they are sufficiently abundant and do not fractionate , one can often detect mixings of multiple sources. My point was that the usual mixing test can only detect two sources.

But since these multiple mixing tests are more difficult and expensive, they may not be done very often. One also has to know which isotopes to examine. I was suprised that Dalrymple said nothing about mixings invalidating isochrons. Dalrymple goes to great lengths to explain this away, but I think this figure is very telling, and find his explanations unconvincing. It is also remarkable that we have a test for mixing, which is commonly cited in support of the accuracy of radiometric dating, but when it gives contrary results, it is simply ignored.

It is a fundamental assumption of the mantle isochron model that neither isotope nor elemental ratios are perturbed during magma ascent through the crust. However, it is now generally accepted that this assumption is not upheld with sufficient reliability to attribute age significance to erupted isochrons.

Dickin suggests that mixings may contribute to such isochrons. It seems reasonable, then, that mixings may be affecting all Rb-Sr isochrons in igneous rock. Your hypothetical example in "More Bad News for Radiometric Dating" is often hard to follow, but it is clearly invalid. This example is given to show that a mixing of three sources cannot be detected by the usual two sources test. It is not intended to be natural, but to demonstrate a mathematical fact.

There is a lot of flexibility in the design of such examples, as I indicate, and it is reasonable to assume that some of these examples would be natural. It's the responsibility of the geologist to show that such mixings have not occurred. To really understand what's going on you have to sample the recent works of many different authors. You have to follow arguments between experts on different issues and see where they go. Overall, the geologic time scale is in great shape. Yes, scientists are still making minor adjustments.

However, it's clear from Strahler , Dalrymple , etc. The problem with this approach is that it leaves ample room for the exercise of subjective judgment and evolutionary assumptions. Also, Dalrymple says essentially nothing about the phanerozoic, and thus gives little evidence of the accuracy of the conventional dating scheme on fossil-bearing rocks. I treated this issue of percentage of anomalies in considerable detail in my original "Radiometric Dating Game" article. It is interesting that Woodmorappe gives a number of cases in which standard geological tests are ignored.

For example, dates may be accepted even when there is evidence of weathering, and rejected when there is not. There may be evidence of heating, but the date may be accepted, and there may be no such evidence, but a hypothetical heating event is assumed anyway.

If geological tests are not being applied consistently, one wonders what value they have. Let me clarify the problem with excess argon. It gives the diffusion equation for argon escaping from a rock as it cools. The rate of diffusion is proportional to the gradient of argon concentration, and increases rapidly with temperature. Suppose the partial pressure of argon 40 in the environment is p. Suppose the partial pressure of argon 40 in lava or magma is initially at least p, as it cools. Then the partial pressure of argon 40 in the magma will never decrease below p; excess argon 40 will remain dissolved in the lava or magma as it cools.

This argon 40 will then be trapped within the resulting rocks and lead to artificially old K-Ar dates. Now, the problem with this is that this excess argon 40 will probably be deposited as single atoms of argon distributed evenly within the sample.

This makes it very difficult or even theoretically impossible to distinguish this excess argon 40 from argon generated by radioactive decay. This will make the sample appear artificially old right away.

Even if crystals exclude argon as they form, argon will rapidly diffuse into them as the lava cools, by the diffusion equation mentioned above. A similar problem can occur if the excess argon 40 dissolved within lava or magma is not able to escape, due to rapid cooling or subsequent deposits of sediment or other lava on top.

It is possible that in some cases an isochron might be able to detect such initial argon 40, but this can only happen if the potassium concentration varies significantly within the sample.

It is not clear to me, also, how often such a test for initial argon 40 is performed. And of course, such isochrons can be falsified by mixings or other problems. There are spectrum tests for adsorbed argon involving Ar-Ar dating; basically, one can see whether the argon 40 is concentrated near the surface of the sample or near the interior.

The former would indicated adsorbed argon 40, which would not give a true age. However, this test would not indicate excess argon 40 present during cooling. It seems reasonable to me that this is a uniform problem with K-Ar dating. To me the geological evidence suggests catastrophic conditions and rapid formation of the sedimentary layers in the past. Thus the lava might have been covered before the excess argon was able to escape.

Or the lava might have cooled quickly, due to rainfall. It only needs to cool to about degrees centigrade or less to trap most of the argon, at least for biotite. As I mentioned before, one sometimes finds significant argon 40 in a rock and no potassium at all, as mentioned in Snelling's article. This shows that excess argon is entering these rocks by some means, and calls K-Ar dating into question.

Excess argon could even cause different minerals in a given formation to yield similar K-Ar ages, since they all might have similar concentrations of K, approximately equal to its abundance in the earth's crust, and similar concentrations of argon 40, due to the partial pressure of argon 40 being similar during cooling.

Even sedimentary minerals might have a similar K-Ar age for the same reason. Also, lava magma that cooled within the earth is likely to have artificially old K-Ar ages, since the enclosed excess argon 40 might have a more difficult time escaping.

One sedimentary mineral of particular importance for K-Ar dating is glaucony. The following message from a talk. For example, Plaisted's "explanation" for the correlation of isotopic age with vertical position in the geologic column is essentially that excess argon would have existed in lavas in greater quantity early in the Flood, and decreased as it was outgassed over time. Had Plaisted actually bothered to look at the data e. Glaucony did not come from a "magma chamber," so Plaisted's explanation cannot possibly cover the majority of ages on the younger parts of the column.

Of the or so "anomalous" dates in Woodmorappe , 94 Woodmorappe is clearly misusing illite and glauconite dates to simply pad his list. The fact that glauconies are unreliable is significant, since they provide such a large part of the dates for the mesozoic-cenozoic parts of the geological column.

Glauconies are formed in seawater from a variety of materials, and incorporate potassium from the seawater Faure, , p. The process of their formation gives a ready mechanism for their K-Ar ages, namely, the incorporation of argon 40 as well as potassium from the seawater. We can assume that as a result of a global catastrophe, the oceans were highly enriched in argon 40 in the past, and that the concentration of argon 40 gradually decreased over time, due to its diffusion into the atmosphere and due to a smaller amount being released into the seawater.

Therefore older glauconies would absorb more argon 40 from the seawater, resulting in old K-Ar dates for lower strata which become progressively younger for higher strata. Another factor in this direction is that older glauconies have more time to absorb argon Some minerals contain argon 40 but no potassium, so this indicates excess argon 40, which in the presence of potassium leads to artificially old dates. Many historical volcanoes give K-Ar dates that are much too old, even if the reasons for this are understood.

Finally, I want to comment on the circumstances of the interchange with Dr. During most of our interchange, I was not aware that it would be published on talk. Now it has been web-immortalized on a radiometric dating web page. I was not informed that this exchange had been posted there. In addition, the complete exchange was not posted, but only a portion of it. I do thank Tim Thomson for the courteous and professional manner in which he has interacted with me, and that he has included the rest of my exchange with Dr.

Excuses for anomalies Another issue is that sometimes the geologic periods of rocks are revised to agree with the ages computed. This also makes data about percentages of anomalies less meaningful.

It sometimes seems that reasons can always be found for bad dates, especially on the geologic column. If a rock gives a too old date, one says there is excess argon.

If it gives a too young date, one says that it was heated recently, or cannot hold its argon. How do we know that maybe all the rocks have excess argon? It looks like geologists are taking the "majority view" of K-Ar dating, but there is no necessary reason why the majority of rocks should give the right date.

The relationship of a radioisotope age with real-time must be based on an interpretation. A discussion of rubidium-strontium ages in the Isotope Geoscience Section of the journal, Chemical Geology, specifically states that a radioisotope age determination "does not certainly define a valid age information for a geological system.

Any interpretation will reflect the interpreters presuppositions bias. Need for a double-blind test Concerning the need for a double blind test, it would seem that there are many places where human judgment could influence the distribution of measured radiometric dates.

It could increase the percentage of anomalies, if they were regarded as more interesting. It could decrease them, if they were regarded as flukes. Human judgment could determine whether points were collinear enough to form an isochron.

It could determine whether a point can justifiably be tossed out and the remaining points used as an isochron. It could determine whether one should accept simple parent-to-daughter K-Ar ratios or whether some treatment needs to be applied first to get better ages.

It could influence whether a spectrum is considered as flat, whether a rock is considered to have undergone leaching or heating, whether a rock is porous or not, or whether a sample has been disturbed in some way. Since one of the main reasons for accepting radiometric dates at least I keep hearing it is that they agree with each other, I think that geologists have an obligation to show that they do agree, specifically on the geologic column.

Since we do not know whether or how much human judgment is influencing radiometric dating, a double blind study is most reasonable. And it should not be restricted to just one or two well-behaved places, but should be as comprehensive as possible. Possible changes in the decay rate The following information was sent to me by e-mail:.

Radiometric dating is predicated on the assumption that throughout the earth's history radioactive decay rates of the various elements have remained constant.

Is this a warranted assumption? Has every radioactive nuclide proceeded on a rigid course of decay at a constant rate? This has been challenged by studies involving Carbon C At the temperature or pressure, collisions with stray cosmic rays or the emanations of other atoms may cause changes other than those of normal disintegration.

It seems very possible that spontaneous disintegration of radioactive elements are related to the action of cosmic rays and the rate of disintegration varying from century to century according to the intensity of the rays. The evidence for a strongly increasing change in the cosmic ray influx is most favorable especially in light of the decay of the earth's magnetic field.

Most geochronologists maintain that pleochroic haloes give evidence that decay constants have not changed. Crystals of biotite, for example, and other minerals in igneous or metamorphic rocks commonly enclose minute specks of minerals containing uranium or thorium. The a- alpha particles emitted at high velocity by the disintegrating nuclides interact, because of their charge, with electrons of surrounding atoms which slow them down until they finally come to rest in the host material at a distance from their source that depends on their initial kinetic energy and the density and composition of the host.

Where they finally stop to produce lattice distortions and defects there generally occurs discoloring or darkening.

Each of the 8 a-particles emitted during the disintegration of U to Pb produces a dark ring in biotite. Each ring has its own characteristic radius in a given mineral in this case biotite. This radius measures the kinetic energy, hence the probability of emission of the corresponding a-particle and also the half-life of the parent nuclide according to the Geiger-Nuttall law.

The Geiger-Nuttall law is an empirical relation between half-life of the a-emitter and the range in air of the emitted a-particles. If the radii of these haloes from the same nuclide vary, this would imply that the decay rates have varied and would invalidate these series as being actual clocks. Are the radii in the rocks constant in size or are there variable sizes? Most of the early studies of pleochroic haloes were made by Joly and Henderson.

Joly concluded that the decay rates have varied on the basis of his finding a variation of the radii for rocks of alleged geological ages. This rather damaging result was explained away saying that enough evidence of correct radii for defferent geologic periods and sufficient variation in the same period have been obtained that one is forced to look for a different explanation of such variations as were observed by Joly.

Measurements were later made in an excellent collection of samples with haloes. It was found that the extent of the haloes around the inclusions varies over a wide range, even with the same nuclear material in the same matrix, but all sizes fall into definite groups. The measurements are, in microns, 5,7,10,17,20,23,27, and Shortcuts Browse members by states: Yemen State City show photo personals only.

Quick Statistics We have registered members from Canada Canadian singles: I am Libra, cm 5' 6'' , 65 kg lbs. Let me tell you it was not easy finding a username that wasn't taken. People describe me as being compassionate and kind, poised and enthusiastic.

I am looking for a serious relationship as my marital status will be cha.. Tallerthanyou , 57 y. I am Libra, cm 6' 4'' , kg lbs. Tall kind love ing looking for the same. Marceris , 22 y.

Iamges: dating age in canada

dating age in canada

If bentonite does not always give correlate and correct ages, this calls into question its use for dating the K-T boundary. This is at least close to what I am looking for.

dating age in canada

Plaisted wants to give his readers the impression that argon can readily move in and out of minerals and, therefore, the gas is too volatile for radiometric dating. However Armstrong has questioned whether atmospheric argon, that has been acquired by minerals over a long interval of time, can be removed by this method. But it is more difficult to remove argon that has deposited on cracks in the mineral, which can be difficult to see.

dating age in canada

And geologists admit in any event that isochrons dating age in canada sometimes give false ages. The game has been mentioned, featured, or parodied in several popular films and television shows. Excess argon could even cause different minerals in a given formation to yield similar K-Ar ages, since special interest dating websites all might have similar concentrations of K, approximately equal to its abundance in the earth's crust, and similar concentrations of argon 40, due to the partial pressure of argon 40 being similar during cooling. Ground-water i dating age in canada water movements could produce this effect naturally. Photo Gallery datung Dating errors.