Scientist have unreliable assumptions and they should not promote claimed radioactive ages. But this gives opportunities or chance to other scientists to make a reliable assumption and accurate radioactive ages.
FOR ME RADIOACTIVE DECAY OR BY USING CLOCKS IS A NO NO, BECAUSE IT CAN NOT MEASURE EXACT DATE OF THE AGE OF THE ROCKS. IT IS ONLY AN ASSUMPTION SO HOW PEOPLE CAN TRUST RADIOACTIVE DECAY IF THEY CAN NOT PROVE HOW OLD THE ROCK IS.
For the evidences shown in this article radioactive dating is not that reliable because it does not give accurate dating. But at the same time I believe that it is not useless because determining the compositions of a particular component and comparing it to tha other component on the same location can help the scientist to know their relationship if they were produce at the same time. Some precised dates may not be true but some can be, we all don't know because one good way to know the age of these things are witnesses that is hard to find.
I think they should find or make another method that could be more reliable than this current method. Accurate methods should be used to avoid compromising efforts in studying fossils.
John Ferdinand E. Chavez Gr. 12 Shunem answer: yes because this theory is not fully 100% real base of the scientist, because based of what I've read some of the details of this article is questionable and unreliable.
Absolute and Not . Absolute because Radiometric clocks are "set" when each rock forms. "Forms" means the moment an igneous rock solidifies from magma, a sedimentary rock layer is deposited, or a rock heated by metamorphism cools off. It's this resetting process that gives us the ability to date rocks that formed at different times in earth history. and Not if all the assumptions where true.
If the clocks are based on faulty assumption then scientist should not use this system in order to know the ages of rock. Because it doesn't have any assurance that the information they will get is precise, it can make people confuse and believe a thing that is not true
It depends i think, it can be absolute if it's not that old yet like not over 100,000 years old and it can be not that accurate also if it's older over 100,000 years old.
I think Radioactive Dating shouldn't be trusted. If there really are faulty assumptions with no reliable proof, what use would it have? It won't really benefit anyone either, since with no reliable data and results, scientists are just obtaining false information resulting from bad assumptions and vague details.
In my own opinion, radiometric dating is unreliable and is not that really effective. We can measure many things about a rock, we cannot directly measure its age. We can crush the rock and measure its chemical composition and the radioactive elements it contains. But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age.
Today’s geologists were not at ground zero to see the earth at its beginning, but we do have eyewitnesses who have left an accurate account: the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This accurate account is found in God’s Holy Word. Two different approaches (faith and unbelief) result in two very different worldviews.
I think these clock should not be trusted and promoted in terms of usage for it is very clear as it illustrates above that is is not accurate into today's measured ages. I think that if it is already said to be unrealible, the claimed radiocative "ages" should be replace by more accurate and realible sources of age to avoid faulty assumption and misconception.
I think the scientists themeselves do not rely entirely on the error estimates and the self checking features of age diagnostic diagrams to evaluate the accuracy of radiometric ages. The use of different radiometric dating methods on the same rock is an excellentway to check the accuracy of age results. If two or more radiometric clocks based on different elements and running at different rates give the same age, that's powerful evidence that the age are probably correct.
The unending efforts of scientists to improve radiometric dating of rocks should be well appreciated. But if this method has lots of faults and may lead to unreliable results, then it should not be promoted yet until it can be proven correct. Knowledge is very powerful but if we're lead to wrong information it will be a big disadvantage for us.
As it is being stated above that the clocks result into unreliable and faulty assumptions, I think that these shouldn’t be a basis in radioactive ages. As we already have a today’s reference of measured ages, that should be use instead of the old ones to avoid faulty and unrealiable results.
If these clocks and assumptions are all faulty, scientists should not be using this constants and assumptions because it would only lead to errors and lies.
I think also that scientists should not trust and use this method if it's faulty. Because it will lead to false knowledge and won't lead to advancement of humanity.
I think I agree about what is stated in the article about the faulty assumption in radioactive ages, because when this radioactive failed to give the right ages of some fossils it can damage or affect the studies and research for fossils.
Base with our technology and knowledge we currently have it's hard to determine the exact time or date of an fossil or occurence from the past so I say in this type nobody is right nor wrong
I think scientists should not simply trust any assumptions but collect more evidences and investigate further to know what is not and what is a faulty assumption.
I think it's true that the radiometric dating of rocks is unreliable since base from the given example from this article that's denying the radiometric , but we can't also deny that some of the rocks determined the exact date of the fossils.
I think it's true that the radiometric dating of rocks is unreliable since base from the given example from this article that's denying the radiometric , but we can't also deny that some of the rocks determined the exact date of the fossils.
Scientist should not promote the claimed radioactive "ages" of countless millions of years. Its because some of there statements is far from there observations. They only predict things that some of there discoverations or experiments are real and some of it are not.
I think at the end of the day it will still come down to your assessment.In my assessment I think that Radioactive "AGES" still has a basis since in early times scientist used that method but as the time passed by more discoveries has been discovered and more things or more facts needed to be considered. On that note, I must say that maybe we can trust the Radioactive "AGES" because that is the fundamental of what the scientist's data had as of now and they must consider the fact that the assumptions about it is their fundamental of what data they had now. Also, I must say that by that early assumption they must conduct more studies or theories to proof or find answers on the unanswered questions and make an improvement out of the early studies. Use the early studies as your guide as you find the real answers as the time passed by.
ANSWER: I Think maybe because in some way scientist used this method to determine or to claimed radioactive ages, but as said in the article there are a lot of reason that contradicts the radioactive method. For me it depends on the situation.
Carbon dating cannot be used on most fossils, not only because they are almost always allegedly too old, but also because they rarely contain the original carbon of the organism that has been fossilized. Also, many fossils are contaminated with carbon from the environment during collection or preservation procedures.
Despite these limitations, radiocarbon dating will often get you a decent ballpark figure. While other methods of dating objects exist, radiocarbon dating has remained vital for most archaeologists. For example, it makes it possible to compare the ages of objects on a worldwide scale, allowing for indispensible comparisons across the globe.
If the assumptions became failed, scientists should embark enough time to reexamine the different types of radioactive dating. Scientists should deliberately assess the scope of a radioactive dating and its limitations. Scientists should also consider the significance of Earth’s activity to the type of fossils you want to measure its age and the device for measuring rock age. Basically, in a scientific community, modifications are evident such these instances as it will give more accurate details to the public and does not outcry misleading information. Modification is a must for this problem.
WILLIAM PAUL MANALO GRADE 12 - SINAI - There were enermous of reasons to be considered to justify if this clocks is accurate or not. To tell you honestly the idea of studying the age of a rock is a very hard task. Radio active is indeed a very defining process that we can rely on as of the moment. Soon enough as as our technology works on, this process will provide more accurate ages based on enhance radioactive results.
What do YOU Think ? -In my opinion, radiometric dating could be a reliable method for determining the age of the fossils as long as the half-life of the radioactive isotope involved is accurate and the process would be done precisely and carefully.
I think the Assumption 3: Constant decay rate has the most point and can be true because it is said that the psysicists catefully measured the radioactive decay rates or parent radiosotopes.
For me, Yes scientist should not use radiometric datings. As said above, there will be a lot of factors to consider before you can absolutely get the right age of a certain rock. The points of radiometric datings also has a lot of inconsitences. If scientists study further about this, they can really discover other factors that affect the age of a rock just like what are said above contradictory results, different age but same rock, and ancient-age rocks from recent eruption.
For me,Even though these clocks have unreliable results and failed to give expected means, the clocks can be useful to us in terms of dating the relative sequence of rock formation during earth history. The clocks may have different starting point so it ends with slightly different results that are not accurate and reliable.So it is possible that relative radioactive ages of rocks, could be used to compare and correlate similar rocks in other areas. And scientists use these clocks for basis only but it doesn't mean that it is exact and accurate.
For me,Even though these clocks have unreliable results and failed to give expected means, the clocks can be useful to us in terms of dating the relative sequence of rock formation during earth history. The clocks may have different starting point so it ends with slightly different results that are not accurate and reliable.So it is possible that relative radioactive ages of rocks, could be used to compare and correlate similar rocks in other areas. And scientists use these clocks for basis only but it doesn't mean that it is exact and accurate.
Although Radioactive dating is not that accurate when determining ages of rocks, at the present Radioactive dating is the best bet of mankind to date rocks and other things, an assumption gives us an insight on what is the age of a thing and sometimes those assumptions lead to more important discoveries. Having an approximate date which Radioactive dating gives is better than having no means of determining the age of something.
Radiometric dating is often used to “prove” rocks are millions of years old. Once you understand the basic science, however, you can see how wrong assumptions lead to incorrect dates.Radioactive rocks offer a similar “clock.” Radioactive atoms, such as uranium the parent isotopes, decay into stable atoms, such as lead the daughter isotopes, at a measurable rate. To date a radioactive rock, geologists first measure the “sand grains” in the top glass bowl the parent radioisotope, such as uranium-238 or potassium-40.
I think they should not trust the claimed radioactive "ages" of countless million of years because like as said in the last paragraph that is not accurate because rock may have been contaminated when they moved through other rocks to the current location or in flowing water may have.mixed isotopes into the rock so its should not trust because their is a posibility that is not true.
I think they should not trust the claimed radioactive "ages" of countless million of years because like as said in the last paragraph that is not accurate because rock may have been contaminated when they moved through other rocks to the current location or in flowing water may have.mixed isotopes into the rock so its should not trust because their is a posibility that is not true. vince borja 12-salem
I consider that they should not trust the claimed radioactive "ages" of countless million of years because like i said in the last paragraph that is not precise because rock may have been contaminated when they moved during other rocks to the current location or in flowing water may have mixed isotopes into the rock so its should not believe because there is a possibility that is not true.
I consider that they should not trust the claimed radioactive "ages" of countless million of years because like i said in the last paragraph that is not precise because rock may have been contaminated when they moved during other rocks to the current location or in flowing water may have mixed isotopes into the rock so its should not believe because their is a possibility that is not true.
I think scientists shall find another way of dating an organism, substance etc. that can truly identify the age of that organism, substance etc. Because radioactive dating shows inconsistency based on the findings above.
I think they should not trust it. Because it gives the scientist a confused vision of what is happening inside a rock. The scientists should find an alternative way to indicate on how many claimed radioactive ages of countless millions of years.
I think that Conditions at Time Zero it is value of an evolving variable at some point in time designated as the initial time but it is hard to know because it is start in zero/.And No Contamination is not a presence of an unwanted constituent, contaminant or impurity in a material, physical body, natural environment, workplace, etc. Then Constant Decay Rate is depends on the decay constant. The time required for half of the original population of radioactive atoms to decay is called the half-life. John Aldrin Beringuela STEM_Salem
For me, scientist should not trust and use radiometric dating because based on the information here,radiometric dating shows different results. Based on its results I could say that radiometric dating is ineffective when it comes to measuring ages.
No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotopes. For example, with regard to the volcanic lavas that erupted, flowed, and cooled to form rocks in the unobserved past, evolutionary geologists simply assume that none of the daughter argon-40 atoms was in the lava rocks.
After the explanation above I was convinced not to trust radioactive dating of rocks to know the age of a specific rock. The article and the author is very convincing with those faulty assumptions thus it lead me to think that there's somthing wrong in this kind of dating therefore for me it's not absolute and must not use as much as possible to avoid wrong estimation. Especiall when one at the top and one at the bottom of the Canyon had the same age because the younger one inherited the isotopes of the source. In this way scientists should be careful in this method or else they need to undergo more research or study just to know the ages of rock.
After the explanation above I was convinced not to trust radioactive dating of rocks to know the age of a specific rock. The article and the author is very convincing with those faulty assumptions thus it lead me to think that there's somthing wrong in this kind of dating therefore for me it's not absolute and must not use as much as possible to avoid wrong estimation. Especiall when one at the top and one at the bottom of the Canyon had the same age because the younger one inherited the isotopes of the source. In this way scientists should be careful in this method or else they need to undergo more research or study just to know the ages of rock.
yes, indeed that they should not promote or trust the radioactive "ages" as it was a lot of factor to deal with and also because it may cause confusions and miscalculation of ages of organi sm.
There is a possibility that rocks may have inherited or daughter isotopes came from other organisms. Rocks are not only stayed on one place, sometimes they carried by water, by air or maybe by soil and there are possibilities in flowing water that there are other isotopes mixed into rocks or maybe small mixtures mixed into the rocks, and it causes the radioactive decay rate to become not unstable. And because it is not stable, scientist should not trust radioactive ages.
There is a possibility that rocks may have inherited or daughter isotopes came from other organisms. Rocks are not only stayed on one place, sometimes they carried by water, by air or maybe by soil and there are possibilities in flowing water that there are other isotopes mixed into rocks or maybe small mixtures mixed into the rocks, and it causes the radioactive decay rate to become not unstable. And because it is not stable, scientist should not trust radioactive ages.
Not absolute at some organism . Some organisms died and their remains may absorb more radioactive decays or carbon in the process of it being a fossil that will affect the dating results and eventually give a bigger number of "ages" . I think the solution is scientist should solve for the time of the radioactive decay or carbon timeline in a specific organism that they will date and then try to get results from the fossil that's been found and formed naturally.
Royce Dannrhey Balmas Shiloh-12 Radiometric dating of rocks is not a perfect absolute beacause we didn't know the real age of a rock and we can't say if the radiometric is correct or not although the result is small deference of the true age of rocks.
Yes, They don't have any proof that will testify their explanation. They should not promote or trust radioactive "ages" because it may cause miscalculation the ages of dead organism.
Scientist should not trust the radioactive ages because there is a possibility that rocks may have inherited isotopes from other organisms. The rocks are carried by air, water or soil that some are mixed with other isoptopes from other organism.
Quiz 3: So if these clocks are based on faulty assumptions and yield unreliable results, then scientists should not trust or promote the claimed radioactive “ages” of countless millions of years.
What do YOU Think ?
Most people think that radioactive dating has proven the earth is billions of years old. Yet this view is based on a misunderstanding of how radiometric dating works.
Based on my research, The known rate of radioactive decay, they estimate the time it has taken for the daughter isotope to accumulate in the rock. However, unlike the hourglass whose accuracy can be tested by turning it upside down and comparing it to trustworthy clocks, the reliability of the radioactive “clock” is subject to three unprovable assumptions.
Quiz 3: So if these clocks are based on faulty assumptions and yield unreliable results, then scientists should not trust or promote the claimed radioactive “ages” of countless millions of years.
What do YOU Think ?
Most people think that radioactive dating has proven the earth is billions of years old. Yet this view is based on a misunderstanding of how radiometric dating works.
Based on my research, The known rate of radioactive decay, they estimate the time it has taken for the daughter isotope to accumulate in the rock. However, unlike the hourglass whose accuracy can be tested by turning it upside down and comparing it to trustworthy clocks, the reliability of the radioactive “clock” is subject to three unprovable assumptions.
Scientists should not trust radioactive ages because rocks has a possibility to have a mixture of isotope from other dead organisms and it has also a possibility that is taken away by floods, soil, air into other places
i think it depends on the people if they will trust and if they will believe on it. because no one will prove that everything is real and it happened this things on exact years. people in the past millions of years is one dead now and we do not know what happened to those human who were past. depending on whether these people had left true letters and ancestors who have been up to now lives and passes to be a history of this event over the last few years.
Radiometric dating must be studied furtherly before it can be trusted 100% effective because there are some cases that radiometric dating will fail to prove the exact year because it possible to mix with isotope of other dead organism and can be taken awy by flood that causes to mislead the exact time
I think this study has no evidence to prove that it is factual, in their experiments the results are all bad results, and it states that we should not be based in this study.
Scientists should not trust radioactive ages because rocks has a possibility to have a mixture of isotope from other dead organisms and it has also a possibility that rocks are not only stayed on one place, sometimes they carried by water, by air, by flood, by soil into other places.
Eventhough it is based on faulty assumptions and unreliable results I think that the scientist can promote the radioactive ages but not fully or not for too long bacause new generation scientists can make a reliable result that have evidences. In the information that has been given, I think that the scientist before is working hard to come up with the evidence to promote the radioactive ages or decays but because of lack of information no one can really know if they can trust or promote the radioactive ages. But I think that through the help of the previous information that has been given by the scientists before it can help the new generations scientist to know if they can really promote the radioactive ages.
I believe in radioactive clocks because it can tell the age of the fossils by the atom because atom has been in existence by knowing the rate, and calculating how much is left and how long it will take to decay it. Also radioactive clock can know the half-life of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known.
Radiometric dating of rocks is not absolute but scientists have to use this assumptions to merely or somehow nearly find out our history more because it is vital for mankinds to know the ages, to somehow connect it to how things originates. Scientists are seeking ways and evidences to find the truth about how things in this world originates so they are using this assumptions to know it, it's not accurate but somehow, scientifically it is nearly accurate.
We have to use this assumptions to find out our history because it is vital for mankinds to know the ages, and maybe to connect it to how things originates.
We have to use this assumptions to find out our history because it is vital for mankinds to know the ages, and maybe to connect it to how things originates.
We still have to use radioactive dating, As long as there's no tool that we can use in dating the age of rock.I think scientists and people are not contented on the knowledge that they had,they want to explore more,so that scientists will invent and innovate to have a better tool to use in dating the age of a rock that it will be accurate.
For me, if radioactive dating causes faulty assumptions maybe we shouldn't be using it. We may have wrong assumptions on the actual ages of the rocks, bput we are just using it to have an idea on the ages of the rocks but not the exact age of the rocks.
These assumptions are important because it form much of the basis for how we interact with the world and each other every day but the scientific method cannot disprove the general existence of supernatural effects or the existence of a God.
Until scientists can't find any other more reliable way to know the true ages of rocks then I think as of now we still have to use the scientists assumptions to somehow find connections between the rocks and help complete our world history's events and other importamt stuffs that may help us in the future (Maria Sophia Mojica - Shechem)
For me, radioactive dating is not accurate because it causes faulty assumptions on dating rocks. Maybe we shouldn't be using it, but we can use it to have an idea on the ages of rocks but not their exact ages.
According to their calculations which frequently have the wrong answer, I cannot asure that this type of method in dating is accurate and even be correct. Those wrong answers that they themselves produced is the evidence itself that the method is cannot be or must be not believed a hundred percent. Deep or Wide calculations and research is needed.
Most absolute dates for rocks are obtained with radiometric methods. These use radioactive minerals in rocks as geological clocks.
The atoms of some chemical elements have different forms, called isotopes. These break down over time in a process scientists call radioactive decay. Each original isotope, called the parent, gradually decays to form a new isotope, called the daughter. Each isotope is identified with what is called a ‘mass number’. When ‘parent’ uranium-238 decays, for example, it produces subatomic particles, energy and ‘daughter’ lead-206.
According to their calculations which frequently have the wrong answer, I cannot asure that this type of method in dating is accurate and even be correct. Those wrong answers that they themselves produced is the evidence itself that the method is cannot be or must be not believed a hundred percent. Deep or Wide calculations and research is needed.
Bejenia, Kim C. STEM- Shiloh I believe in radioactive clocks because it can tell the age of the fossils by the atom because atom has been in existence by knowing the rate, and calculating how much is left and how long it will take to decay it. Also radioactive clock can know the half-life of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known.
Casas, Mark Joseph. STEM-Shiloh For me I believe in radioactive clocks because the clock will tell the age of the fossils by the atom because atom has been in existence by knowing the rate, and calculating how much is left and how long it will take to decay it. Also radioactive clock can know the half-life of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known.
Angelo Leon Aurelio Shechem -In my opinion this assumpstions may still be helpful for the dating of the rocks because using this assumptions there have been many connections made between the history of our world and other related things about it.
- Mm, these assumptions still will be a great help for us to have the knowledge about how long things exist before and how many years have past starting from before at the present day even though it is not that accurate.
It may be a scientist faulty assumptions and yield unreliable results but it can be a big help for the further research or studys near future. This assumptions we called it today as a theory -- a theoritical assumption or study ...
I believe in radioactive clocks because it can tell the age of the fossils by the atom because atom has been in existence by knowing the rate, and calculating how much is left and how long it will take to decay it. Also radioactive clock can know the half-life of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known. Francisco S. Tan Shechem
Good, because IF THESE CLOCKS ARE BASED ON FAULTY ASSUMPTIONS AND YIELD UNRELIABLE RESULTS, THEN SCIENTISTS SHOULD NOT TRUST OR PROMOTE THE CLAIMED RADIOACTIVE “AGES.”
Good, Because IF THESE CLOCKS ARE BASED ON FAULTY ASSUMPTIONS AND YIELD UNRELIABLE RESULTS, THEN SCIENTISTS SHOULD NOT TRUST OR PROMOTE THE CLAIMED RADIOACTIVE “AGES.”
These assumptions are important because it form much of the basis for how we interact with the world and each other every day but the scientific method cannot disprove the general existence of supernatural effects or the existence of a God.
For me, for educational purpose it can be applied like in biology class but professors must note that it is not very reliable since many faulty assumption is obvious. It can be a basis for us to somehow trace back our past to prepare more to our future eventhough it is not very accurate. just like our teacher said. the significance of this study is to know the fault of the past so we may prevent the danger of the future.
Zapanta Shan Kyle STEM-SHECHEM p.s. :sir nakaabot ako sa oras inulit kolang to nakalimutan ko kasi kung nalagyan ko ng pangalan ung napublish ko eh.
For me, for educational purpose it can be applied like in biology class but professors must note that it is not very reliable since many faulty assumption is obvious. It can be a basis for us to somehow trace back our past to prepare more to our future eventhough it is not very accurate. just like our teacher said. the significance of this study is to know the fault of the past so we may prevent the danger of the future
For me it is not reliable because even scientist admit that there are alot of faulty assumptions so why we need to believe in this method full of errors?
The assumptions above have significance, nowadays, because through this it becomes the basis for how we interact to the world and to other but the scientific method cannot explain the specific existence of supernatural effects or the existence of the Lord.
wilfredo c. tapat jr stem smyrna i think that scientist should promote the radioactive dating. here in earth, we have limited resources so we can rather trust the radioactive dating purpose to be able to date what time the rock or organism existed
For me it is not good to take this method because it is full of faulty assumptions because there are a lot of factors that can alter the result of the dating.
Jhonnie barrientos STEM-SHECHEM For me no one should use this method because it's just a lie and no method is accurate. this can only be applied to bio class and reference purpose not by scientist
Gelmore Laguio Stem Salem I think that the earth has a very limited resources to be able to date a certain age of fossil or organism. scientist should promote using this kind of methodology to be able to gain more knowledge in the past
Mark Casas STEM-Shiloh For me this is far a good method to use. I mean no method is accurate enough to miss only a few years in computation so when we use this method lets take the reality that theres no accurate method but at least we found a way to ease our greedy brains to have a knowledge about the past
Janine Ramos stem-shiloh for me, no one should rely on this mehthod since many scientist honestly stated that there are alot of faulty assumption using this method. but in the other side it is the best tool to somehow trace back our past.
Seeing as though the assumptions are faulty and do not seem to be getting any better, Scientists must create a more accurate and consistent method of determining Radioactive Ages.
If the problem was due to the other rocks surrounding the volcano, adding and or contaminating the lava, making it difficult to compute an accurate age then it would be highly unlikely that results would be promising unless Scientists would somehow magically scrape off the different forms and kinds of rock.
The entire article misrepresents science. Just as I did for the homology article, I will answer the main points of this article:
1. Lava that is "older" than it should be - All scientific instruments need to be used properly. For instance, K-Ar dating is only appropriate for samples that are too young because not enough Ar-40 would have been created to be statistically meaningful or quantifiable. Recall from Khan Academy's videos how K-40 decay works: Every 2.4B years, 50% of the sample will decay, and that 50% has an 11% CHANCE to decay into Ar-40. This results in a high margin of error for any sample younger than ~10,000 years. - The Mt St Helens crater was only ~10 years old when it was analyzed. It was scientifically meaningless to perform K-Ar dating in this case. Unsurprisingly, the study is not taken seriously by mainstream science, nor has it been published in a peer-reviewed journal. 2. Contamination - Contamination is a common problem, which is why geologists take great care to ensure that their samples are pure. However it does not invalidate radiometric dating. If it did, then radiometric dating should show that different samples from the same lava flow of Mt Ngaruhoe have the same age. However, this was not the observation. - The most common solution geologists use is isochronic dating, wherein they plot the amounts of parent and daughter samples. 3. Is decay rate constant? - Yes: https://journals.aps.org/prc/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevC.74.064610 - The Oklo reactor allows us to measure Sommerfeld's constant from almost 2 billions years ago. There has been no change in the decay rate for at least over 160000 years, well over the creationist's 6000 years.
This is a broad and complex subject. Being a grade 12 student I am certainly not an expert, and most likely neither is anyone reading this. But the biologists, geologists, and physicists who use radiometric dating are experts who know what they're doing. The weight of probable truth leans heavily on them.
"When the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain. When they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert. When they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment." - Bertrand Russell
Quiz 3: So if these clocks are based on faulty assumptions and yield unreliable results, then scientists should not trust or promote the claimed radioactive “ages” of countless millions of years. What do YOU think? - Yes, I think scientists shouldn't trust this faulty assumptions and as said in this article, rocks may have inherited parent and daughter isotopes from their sources, or they may have been contaminated when they moved through other rocks to their current locations, so it's not right for scientists to believe in this kind of "assumption".
Since there is already a research about the reliability of radiometric dating, then it can still be used. Radiometric dating already undergo a lot of process, and so if there is a chance on unreliability of radiometric dating, it would be less because a lot have used this process already. But scientist should have more further studies for it to be 100% accurate.
I agree, scientists should rather use other dating methods instead of radiometric methods in measuring the ages of rock. They might use: Relative dating methods, wherein it uses the principle of stratigraphy, which place events recorded in rocks from oldest to youngest. After determining the chronological order of events, they might use absolute dating, wherein after the rocks formed; the main purpose of this method is to measure the radioactive decay of isotopes or the effects of radiation on the crystal structure of minerals. Lastly, they might use paleomagnetism, with the main purpose of measuring the ancient orientation of the Earth's magnetic field to help determine the age of rocks.
Regardless of these confinements, radiocarbon dating will regularly get you a respectable ballpark figure. While different strategies for dating objects exist, radiocarbon dating has stayed essential for generally archeologists. For instance, it makes it conceivable to think about the periods of articles on an overall scale, taking into consideration essential examinations over the globe.
Scientist have unreliable assumptions and they should not promote claimed radioactive ages. But this gives opportunities or chance to other scientists to make a reliable assumption and accurate radioactive ages.
ReplyDeleteDaniella mae babol
ReplyDeletethey should not promote clocks because they do not have reliable results.
JASPE, JULIA MARIE
ReplyDeleteFOR ME RADIOACTIVE DECAY OR BY USING CLOCKS IS A NO NO, BECAUSE IT CAN NOT MEASURE EXACT DATE OF THE AGE OF THE ROCKS. IT IS ONLY AN ASSUMPTION SO HOW PEOPLE CAN TRUST RADIOACTIVE DECAY IF THEY CAN NOT PROVE HOW OLD THE ROCK IS.
For the evidences shown in this article radioactive dating is not that reliable because it does not give accurate dating. But at the same time I believe that it is not useless because determining the compositions of a particular component and comparing it to tha other component on the same location can help the scientist to know their relationship if they were produce at the same time. Some precised dates may not be true but some can be, we all don't know because one good way to know the age of these things are witnesses that is hard to find.
ReplyDeleteRajen Hanwel T. Maglaque
ReplyDelete12-Salem
I think that It so Complicated When Determining the age of a certain Rock But when it comes to science nothing is Impossible
Yes it is unreliable because the results obtained using this method are only assumptions and is condradicting the actual or correct age if these rocks
ReplyDeleteKyle Erjo Dela Cruz
STEM-Samaria
I think they should find or make another method that could be more reliable than this current method. Accurate methods should be used to avoid compromising efforts in studying fossils.
ReplyDeleteJohn Ferdinand E. Chavez
ReplyDeleteGr. 12 Shunem
answer: yes because this theory is not fully 100% real base of the scientist, because based of what I've read some of the details of this article is questionable and unreliable.
Absolute and Not . Absolute because Radiometric clocks are "set" when each rock forms. "Forms" means the moment an igneous rock solidifies from magma, a sedimentary rock layer is deposited, or a rock heated by metamorphism cools off. It's this resetting process that gives us the ability to date rocks that formed at different times in earth history. and Not if all the assumptions where true.
ReplyDeleteIf the clocks are based on faulty assumption then scientist should not use this system in order to know the ages of rock. Because it doesn't have any assurance that the information they will get is precise, it can make people confuse and believe a thing that is not true
ReplyDeleteIt depends i think, it can be absolute if it's not that old yet like not over 100,000 years old and it can be not that accurate also if it's older over 100,000 years old.
ReplyDeleteLenie Anne L. Perez (Salem)
ReplyDeleteI think Radioactive Dating shouldn't be trusted. If there really are faulty assumptions with no reliable proof, what use would it have? It won't really benefit anyone either, since with no reliable data and results, scientists are just obtaining false information resulting from bad assumptions and vague details.
In my own opinion, radiometric dating is unreliable and is not that really effective. We can measure many things about a rock, we cannot directly measure its age. We can crush the rock and measure its chemical composition and the radioactive elements it contains. But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age.
ReplyDeleteClaire Angelie R. Sison
ReplyDelete12 - Salem
Today’s geologists were not at ground zero to see the earth at its beginning, but we do have eyewitnesses who have left an accurate account: the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This accurate account is found in God’s Holy Word. Two different approaches (faith and unbelief) result in two very different worldviews.
maybe because they have no other references to know how to get the ages of the rock or maybe because they are used to it.
ReplyDeleteI think these clock should not be trusted and promoted in terms of usage for it is very clear as it illustrates above that is is not accurate into today's measured ages. I think that if it is already said to be unrealible, the claimed radiocative "ages" should be replace by more accurate and realible sources of age to avoid faulty assumption and misconception.
ReplyDeleteThey said that rocks are not constant so that scientist should not trust.
ReplyDeleteI think the scientists themeselves do not rely entirely on the error estimates and the self checking features of age diagnostic diagrams to evaluate the accuracy of radiometric ages. The use of different radiometric dating methods on the same rock is an excellentway to check the accuracy of age results. If two or more radiometric clocks based on different elements and running at different rates give the same age, that's powerful evidence that the age are probably correct.
ReplyDeleteThe unending efforts of scientists to improve radiometric dating of rocks should be well appreciated. But if this method has lots of faults and may lead to unreliable results, then it should not be promoted yet until it can be proven correct. Knowledge is very powerful but if we're lead to wrong information it will be a big disadvantage for us.
ReplyDeleteAs it is being stated above that the clocks result into unreliable and faulty assumptions, I think that these shouldn’t be a basis in radioactive ages. As we already have a today’s reference of measured ages, that should be use instead of the old ones to avoid faulty and unrealiable results.
ReplyDeleteIf these clocks and assumptions are all faulty, scientists should not be using this constants and assumptions because it would only lead to errors and lies.
ReplyDeleteI think also that scientists should not trust and use this method if it's faulty. Because it will lead to false knowledge and won't lead to advancement of humanity.
ReplyDeleteI think I agree about what is stated in the article about the faulty assumption in radioactive ages, because when this radioactive failed to give the right ages of some fossils it can damage or affect the studies and research for fossils.
ReplyDeleteBase with our technology and knowledge we currently have it's hard to determine the exact time or date of an fossil or occurence from the past so I say in this type nobody is right nor wrong
ReplyDeleteVon Panlaqui
12-Salem
I think scientists should not simply trust any assumptions but collect more evidences and investigate further to know what is not and what is a faulty assumption.
ReplyDeleteI think it's true that the radiometric dating of rocks is unreliable since base from the given example from this article that's denying the radiometric , but we can't also deny that some of the rocks determined the exact date of the fossils.
ReplyDeleteI think it's true that the radiometric dating of rocks is unreliable since base from the given example from this article that's denying the radiometric , but we can't also deny that some of the rocks determined the exact date of the fossils.
ReplyDeleteTroncoso, Joshua V.
Scientist should not promote the claimed radioactive "ages" of countless millions of years. Its because some of there statements is far from there observations. They only predict things that some of there discoverations or experiments are real and some of it are not.
ReplyDeleteAlbert Balagat
STEM - Salem
Scientists should stop using these methods if their assumptions and constants are faulty because it will only lead to errors and lies
ReplyDeleteScientists should stop using these methods if their assumptions and constants are faulty because it will only lead to errors and lies
ReplyDeleteI think at the end of the day it will still come down to your assessment.In my assessment I think that Radioactive "AGES" still has a basis since in early times scientist used that method but as the time passed by more discoveries has been discovered and more things or more facts needed to be considered. On that note, I must say that maybe we can trust the Radioactive "AGES" because that is the fundamental of what the scientist's data had as of now and they must consider the fact that the assumptions about it is their fundamental of what data they had now. Also, I must say that by that early assumption they must conduct more studies or theories to proof or find answers on the unanswered questions and make an improvement out of the early studies. Use the early studies as your guide as you find the real answers as the time passed by.
ReplyDeleteScientists should stop using these methods if their said assumptions and constants are faulty because it would only lead to lies and errors.
ReplyDeleteJHON FHEL DURAN 12-SAMARIA
ReplyDeleteANSWER: I Think maybe because in some way scientist used this method to determine or to claimed radioactive ages, but as said in the article there are a lot of reason that contradicts the radioactive method. For me it depends on the situation.
Rone Jerome Narvaez 12-Shunem
ReplyDeleteI think scientist should not trust this unreliable information it will lead to an false result of every people.
I think its not that very accurate but it could be a reference so that they can use this as a basis for other upcoming results
ReplyDeleteIan Lopez
ReplyDelete12 - Salem
Carbon dating cannot be used on most fossils, not only because they are almost always allegedly too old, but also because they rarely contain the original carbon of the organism that has been fossilized. Also, many fossils are contaminated with carbon from the environment during collection or preservation procedures.
Mario P. Esguerra III
ReplyDeleteStem - Salem
Despite these limitations, radiocarbon dating will often get you a decent ballpark figure. While other methods of dating objects exist, radiocarbon dating has remained vital for most archaeologists. For example, it makes it possible to compare the ages of objects on a worldwide scale, allowing for indispensible comparisons across the globe.
Dave S. Bulactiar
ReplyDeleteSTEM/Salem
If the assumptions became failed, scientists should embark enough time to reexamine the different types of radioactive dating. Scientists should deliberately assess the scope of a radioactive dating and its limitations. Scientists should also consider the significance of Earth’s activity to the type of fossils you want to measure its age and the device for measuring rock age. Basically, in a scientific community, modifications are evident such these instances as it will give more accurate details to the public and does not outcry misleading information. Modification is a must for this problem.
WILLIAM PAUL MANALO
ReplyDeleteGRADE 12 - SINAI
- There were enermous of reasons to be considered to justify if this clocks is accurate or not. To tell you honestly the idea of studying
the age of a rock is a very hard task. Radio active is indeed a very defining process that we can rely on as of the moment. Soon enough as
as our technology works on, this process will provide more accurate ages based on enhance radioactive results.
I think it is not absolute because now a days we do nat have the knowledge and the equipment to detrmine.
ReplyDeleteWhat do YOU Think ?
ReplyDelete-In my opinion, radiometric dating could be a reliable method for determining the age of the fossils as long as the half-life of the radioactive isotope involved is accurate and the process would be done precisely and carefully.
-Mark Hachero
Scientists should stop using these methods if their assumptions and constants are faulty because it will only lead to errors and lies.
ReplyDeleteJc Democrito
STEM SALEM
Jeruel T. De Villa
ReplyDeleteSalem
I think the Assumption 3: Constant decay rate has the most point and can be true because it is said that the psysicists catefully measured the radioactive decay rates or parent radiosotopes.
For me, Yes scientist should not use radiometric datings. As said above, there will be a lot of factors to consider before you can absolutely get the right age of a certain rock. The points of radiometric datings also has a lot of inconsitences. If scientists study further about this, they can really discover other factors that affect the age of a rock just like what are said above contradictory results, different age but same rock, and ancient-age rocks from recent eruption.
ReplyDeleteFor me,Even though these clocks have unreliable results and failed to give expected means, the clocks can be useful to us in terms of dating the relative sequence of rock formation during earth history. The clocks may have different starting point so it ends with slightly different results that are not accurate and reliable.So it is possible that relative radioactive ages of rocks, could be used to compare and correlate similar rocks in other areas. And scientists use these clocks for basis only but it doesn't mean that it is exact and accurate.
ReplyDeleteFor me,Even though these clocks have unreliable results and failed to give expected means, the clocks can be useful to us in terms of dating the relative sequence of rock formation during earth history. The clocks may have different starting point so it ends with slightly different results that are not accurate and reliable.So it is possible that relative radioactive ages of rocks, could be used to compare and correlate similar rocks in other areas. And scientists use these clocks for basis only but it doesn't mean that it is exact and accurate.
ReplyDeleteScientists should stop using these methods if their assumptions and constants are faulty because it will only lead to errors and lies.
ReplyDeleteJc Democrito
STEM SALEM
Glen Marc Hizon
ReplyDeleteGr. 12 - Salem
Although Radioactive dating is not that accurate when determining ages of rocks, at the present Radioactive dating is the best bet of mankind to date rocks and other things, an assumption gives us an insight on what is the age of a thing and sometimes those assumptions lead to more important discoveries. Having an approximate date which Radioactive dating gives is better than having no means of determining the age of something.
Ralfh John Villena
ReplyDeleteStem-salem
Radiometric dating is often used to “prove” rocks are millions of years old. Once you understand the basic science, however, you can see how wrong assumptions lead to incorrect dates.Radioactive rocks offer a similar “clock.” Radioactive atoms, such as uranium the parent isotopes, decay into stable atoms, such as lead the daughter isotopes, at a measurable rate. To date a radioactive rock, geologists first measure the “sand grains” in the top glass bowl the parent radioisotope, such as uranium-238 or potassium-40.
I think they should not trust the claimed radioactive "ages" of countless million of years because like as said in the last paragraph that is not accurate because rock may have been contaminated when they moved through other rocks to the current location or in flowing water may have.mixed isotopes into the rock so its should not trust because their is a posibility that is not true.
ReplyDeleteAndre agassi lobrio
12-salem
I think they should not trust the claimed radioactive "ages" of countless million of years because like as said in the last paragraph that is not accurate because rock may have been contaminated when they moved through other rocks to the current location or in flowing water may have.mixed isotopes into the rock so its should not trust because their is a posibility that is not true.
ReplyDeletevince borja
12-salem
I consider that they should not trust the claimed radioactive "ages" of countless million of years because like i said in the last paragraph that is not precise because rock may have been contaminated when they moved during other rocks to the current location or in flowing water may have mixed isotopes into the rock so its should not believe because there is a possibility that is not true.
ReplyDeleteI consider that they should not trust the claimed radioactive "ages" of countless million of years because like i said in the last paragraph that is not precise because rock may have been contaminated when they moved during other rocks to the current location or in flowing water may have mixed isotopes into the rock so its should not believe because their is a possibility that is not true.
ReplyDeleteJohn Vincent Lunar STEM-Salem
ReplyDeleteI think scientists shall find another way of dating an organism, substance etc. that can truly identify the age of that organism, substance etc. Because radioactive dating shows inconsistency based on the findings above.
Royce Dannrhey Balmas
ReplyDeleteShiloh-12
Absolute
I think they should not trust it. Because it gives the scientist a confused vision of what is happening inside a rock. The scientists should find an alternative way to indicate on how many claimed radioactive ages of countless millions of years.
ReplyDeleteCompared to other methods, radiometric dating is not that accurate and less effective because it only measures rock but not directly the age.
ReplyDeleteCompared to other methods, radiometric dating is not that accurate and less effective because it only measures rocks but not directly the ages.
ReplyDeleteI think radiometric dating is not as absolute as we think because it can happen that the other data gathered by this method is unreliable and faulty.
ReplyDeleteI think radiometric dating is not as absolute as we think because it can happen that the other data gathered by this method is unreliable and faulty.
ReplyDeleteI think that Conditions at Time Zero it is value of an evolving variable at some point in time designated as the initial time but it is hard to know because it is start in zero/.And No Contamination is not a presence of an unwanted constituent, contaminant or impurity in a material, physical body, natural environment, workplace, etc. Then Constant Decay Rate is depends on the decay constant. The time required for half of the original population of radioactive atoms to decay is called the half-life.
ReplyDeleteJohn Aldrin Beringuela
STEM_Salem
They should not promote or trust these clocks because the evidence are served and said to be unreliable.
ReplyDeleteFor me, scientist should not trust and use radiometric dating because based on the information here,radiometric dating shows different results. Based on its results I could say that radiometric dating is ineffective when it comes to measuring ages.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea that scientists shouldn't trust nor promote no more the claimed radioactive ages because of the faulty and unreliable results.
ReplyDeleteDennis Adrian Cabaltea
ReplyDeleteStem-Salem
No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotopes. For example, with regard to the volcanic lavas that erupted, flowed, and cooled to form rocks in the unobserved past, evolutionary geologists simply assume that none of the daughter argon-40 atoms was in the lava rocks.
After the explanation above I was convinced not to trust radioactive dating of rocks to know the age of a specific rock. The article and the author is very convincing with those faulty assumptions thus it lead me to think that there's somthing wrong in this kind of dating therefore for me it's not absolute and must not use as much as possible to avoid wrong estimation. Especiall when one at the top and one at the bottom of the Canyon had the same age because the younger one inherited the isotopes of the source. In this way scientists should be careful in this method or else they need to undergo more research or study just to know the ages of rock.
ReplyDeleteAfter the explanation above I was convinced not to trust radioactive dating of rocks to know the age of a specific rock. The article and the author is very convincing with those faulty assumptions thus it lead me to think that there's somthing wrong in this kind of dating therefore for me it's not absolute and must not use as much as possible to avoid wrong estimation. Especiall when one at the top and one at the bottom of the Canyon had the same age because the younger one inherited the isotopes of the source. In this way scientists should be careful in this method or else they need to undergo more research or study just to know the ages of rock.
ReplyDeleteyes, indeed that they should not promote or trust the radioactive "ages" as it was a lot of factor to deal with and also because it may cause confusions and miscalculation of ages of organi sm.
ReplyDeleteThere is a possibility that rocks may have inherited or daughter isotopes came from other organisms. Rocks are not only stayed on one place, sometimes they carried by water, by air or maybe by soil and there are possibilities in flowing water that there are other isotopes mixed into rocks or maybe small mixtures mixed into the rocks, and it causes the radioactive decay rate to become not unstable. And because it is not stable, scientist should not trust radioactive ages.
ReplyDeleteThere is a possibility that rocks may have inherited or daughter isotopes came from other organisms. Rocks are not only stayed on one place, sometimes they carried by water, by air or maybe by soil and there are possibilities in flowing water that there are other isotopes mixed into rocks or maybe small mixtures mixed into the rocks, and it causes the radioactive decay rate to become not unstable. And because it is not stable, scientist should not trust radioactive ages.
ReplyDeleteNot absolute at some organism . Some organisms died and their remains may absorb more radioactive decays or carbon in the process of it being a fossil that will affect the dating results and eventually give a bigger number of "ages" . I think the solution is scientist should solve for the time of the radioactive decay or carbon timeline in a specific organism that they will date and then try to get results from the fossil that's been found and formed naturally.
ReplyDeleteRoyce Dannrhey Balmas
ReplyDeleteShiloh-12
Radiometric dating of rocks is not a perfect absolute beacause we didn't know the real age of a rock and we can't say if the radiometric is correct or not although the result is small deference of the true age of rocks.
Yes, They don't have any proof that will testify their explanation. They should not promote or trust radioactive "ages" because it may cause miscalculation the ages of dead organism.
ReplyDeleteJohn Lord Ortillada
12- Shechem
Scientist should not trust the radioactive ages because there is a possibility that rocks may have inherited isotopes from other organisms. The rocks are carried by air, water or soil that some are mixed with other isoptopes from other organism.
ReplyDeleteQuiz 3:
ReplyDeleteSo if these clocks are based on faulty assumptions and yield unreliable results, then scientists should not trust or promote the claimed radioactive “ages” of countless millions of years.
What do YOU Think ?
Most people think that radioactive dating has proven the earth is billions of years old. Yet this view is based on a misunderstanding of how radiometric dating works.
Based on my research, The known rate of radioactive decay, they estimate the time it has taken for the daughter isotope to accumulate in the rock. However, unlike the hourglass whose accuracy can be tested by turning it upside down and comparing it to trustworthy clocks, the reliability of the radioactive “clock” is subject to three unprovable assumptions.
Palaganas, Jeffrey Vidad
Grade 12 - Shechem
I think radiometric method is the Most absolute dates. These use radioactive minerals in rocks as geological clocks.
ReplyDeleteQuiz 3:
ReplyDeleteSo if these clocks are based on faulty assumptions and yield unreliable results, then scientists should not trust or promote the claimed radioactive “ages” of countless millions of years.
What do YOU Think ?
Most people think that radioactive dating has proven the earth is billions of years old. Yet this view is based on a misunderstanding of how radiometric dating works.
Based on my research, The known rate of radioactive decay, they estimate the time it has taken for the daughter isotope to accumulate in the rock. However, unlike the hourglass whose accuracy can be tested by turning it upside down and comparing it to trustworthy clocks, the reliability of the radioactive “clock” is subject to three unprovable assumptions.
PALAGANAS JEFFREY VIDAD
GRADE 12 - SHECHEM
Visitacion,Darrel S.
ReplyDeleteSTEM-SHECHEM
No, Because even that this is not very accurate it could be use as reference and basis on the outcoming results
Scientists should not trust radioactive ages because rocks has a possibility to have a mixture of isotope from other dead organisms and it has also a possibility that is taken away by floods, soil, air into other places
ReplyDeletei think it depends on the people if they will trust and if they will believe on it. because no one will prove that everything is real and it happened this things on exact years.
ReplyDeletepeople in the past millions of years is one dead now and we do not know what happened to those human who were past. depending on whether these people had left true letters and ancestors who have been up to now lives and passes to be a history of this event over the last few years.
Radiometric dating must be studied furtherly before it can be trusted 100% effective because there are some cases that radiometric dating will fail to prove the exact year because it possible to mix with isotope of other dead organism and can be taken awy by flood that causes to mislead the exact time
ReplyDeleteI think this study has no evidence to prove that it is factual, in their experiments the results are all bad results, and it states that we should not be based in this study.
ReplyDeleteScientists should not trust radioactive ages because rocks has a possibility to have a mixture of isotope from other dead organisms and it has also a possibility that rocks are not only stayed on one place, sometimes they carried by water, by air, by flood, by soil into other places.
ReplyDeleteRivera, Eleuterio Jay S,(12- SHECHEM)
Eventhough it is based on faulty assumptions and unreliable results I think that the scientist can promote the radioactive ages but not fully or not for too long bacause new generation scientists can make a reliable result that have evidences. In the information that has been given, I think that the scientist before is working hard to come up with the evidence to promote the radioactive ages or decays but because of lack of information no one can really know if they can trust or promote the radioactive ages. But I think that through the help of the previous information that has been given by the scientists before it can help the new generations scientist to know if they can really promote the radioactive ages.
ReplyDeleteI believe in radioactive clocks because it can tell the age of the fossils by the atom because atom has been in existence by knowing the rate, and calculating how much is left and how long it will take to decay it. Also radioactive clock can know the half-life of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known.
ReplyDeleteJennidean Kate P. Tanghal
XII-Shechem
Renzsky Enriquez
ReplyDeleteGrade 12 Shechems
Radiometric dating of rocks is not absolute but scientists have to use this assumptions to merely or somehow nearly find out our history more because it is vital for mankinds to know the ages, to somehow connect it to how things originates. Scientists are seeking ways and evidences to find the truth about how things in this world originates so they are using this assumptions to know it, it's not accurate but somehow, scientifically it is nearly accurate.
Zulueta, Jenilyn C.
ReplyDeleteSTEM SHECHEM
We have to use this assumptions to find out our history because it is vital for mankinds to know the ages, and maybe to connect it to how things originates.
Zulueta, Jenilyn C.
ReplyDeleteSTEM SHECHEM
We have to use this assumptions to find out our history because it is vital for mankinds to know the ages, and maybe to connect it to how things originates.
We still have to use radioactive dating, As long as there's no tool that we can use in dating the age of rock.I think scientists and people are not contented on the knowledge that they had,they want to explore more,so that scientists will invent and innovate to have a better tool to use in dating the age of a rock that it will be accurate.
ReplyDeleteArlyn Agno
12 Shechem
KIMBIERLY JONES A. BORROMEO
ReplyDeleteSTEM-SAMARIA
For me, if radioactive dating causes faulty assumptions maybe we shouldn't be using it. We may have wrong assumptions on the actual ages of the rocks, bput we are just using it to have an idea on the ages of the rocks but not the exact age of the rocks.
These assumptions are important because it form much of the basis for how we interact with the world and each other every day but the scientific method cannot disprove the general existence of supernatural effects or the existence of a God.
ReplyDeleteJozel Mae B. Jamilla
STEM-Shechem
Until scientists can't find any other more reliable way to know the true ages of rocks then I think as of now we still have to use the scientists assumptions to somehow find connections between the rocks and help complete our world history's events and other importamt stuffs that may help us in the future
ReplyDelete(Maria Sophia Mojica - Shechem)
VIA CRIS D. ECHAVEZ
ReplyDeleteSTEM-SHECHEM
For me, radioactive dating is not accurate because it causes faulty assumptions on dating rocks. Maybe we shouldn't be using it, but we can use it to have an idea on the ages of rocks but not their exact ages.
According to their calculations which frequently have the wrong answer, I cannot asure that this type of method in dating is accurate and even be correct. Those wrong answers that they themselves produced is the evidence itself that the method is cannot be or must be not believed a hundred percent. Deep or Wide calculations and research is needed.
ReplyDeleteMost absolute dates for rocks are obtained with radiometric methods. These use radioactive minerals in rocks as geological clocks.
ReplyDeleteThe atoms of some chemical elements have different forms, called isotopes. These break down over time in a process scientists call radioactive decay. Each original isotope, called the parent, gradually decays to form a new isotope, called the daughter. Each isotope is identified with what is called a ‘mass number’. When ‘parent’ uranium-238 decays, for example, it produces subatomic particles, energy and ‘daughter’ lead-206.
According to their calculations which frequently have the wrong answer, I cannot asure that this type of method in dating is accurate and even be correct. Those wrong answers that they themselves produced is the evidence itself that the method is cannot be or must be not believed a hundred percent. Deep or Wide calculations and research is needed.
ReplyDeleteBejenia, Kim C.
ReplyDeleteSTEM- Shiloh
I believe in radioactive clocks because it can tell the age of the fossils by the atom because atom has been in existence by knowing the rate, and calculating how much is left and how long it will take to decay it. Also radioactive clock can know the half-life of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known.
Casas, Mark Joseph.
ReplyDeleteSTEM-Shiloh
For me I believe in radioactive clocks because the clock will tell the age of the fossils by the atom because atom has been in existence by knowing the rate, and calculating how much is left and how long it will take to decay it. Also radioactive clock can know the half-life of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known.
Angelo Leon Aurelio
ReplyDeleteShechem
-In my opinion this assumpstions may still be helpful for the dating of the rocks because using this assumptions there have been many connections made between the history of our world and other related things about it.
Using these assumptions will lead scientists to closer factual evidences so that we can know more about history of ages of things in earth.
ReplyDeleteJoshua Racelis
ReplyDeleteShechem
- Mm, these assumptions still will be a great help for us to have the knowledge about how long things exist before and how many years have past starting from before at the present day even though it is not that accurate.
It may be a scientist faulty assumptions and yield unreliable results but it can be a big help for the further research or studys near future. This assumptions we called it today as a theory -- a theoritical assumption or study ...
ReplyDeleteI believe in radioactive clocks because it can tell the age of the fossils by the atom because atom has been in existence by knowing the rate, and calculating how much is left and how long it will take to decay it. Also radioactive clock can know the half-life of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known.
ReplyDeleteFrancisco S. Tan Shechem
Good, because IF THESE CLOCKS ARE BASED ON FAULTY ASSUMPTIONS AND YIELD UNRELIABLE RESULTS, THEN SCIENTISTS SHOULD NOT TRUST OR PROMOTE THE CLAIMED RADIOACTIVE “AGES.”
ReplyDeleteGood, Because IF THESE CLOCKS ARE BASED ON FAULTY ASSUMPTIONS AND YIELD UNRELIABLE RESULTS, THEN SCIENTISTS SHOULD NOT TRUST OR PROMOTE THE CLAIMED RADIOACTIVE “AGES.”
ReplyDeleteThese assumptions are important because it form much of the basis for how we interact with the world and each other every day but the scientific method cannot disprove the general existence of supernatural effects or the existence of a God.
ReplyDeleteLyka Marie Casuyon
12-Shechem
Even they are faulty assumptions, we need to promote it because maybe it will be fact.
ReplyDeleteMark Deniel Esporlas
12-SMYRNA
If those are inacurate, then they should stop it or continue further studies, furthermore they (scientists) should develop other assumptions.
ReplyDeleteFaulty Assumption,maybe it has a connection in our history,even it is unreliable results. we need to promote it.
ReplyDeleteAife Joy Annedhie Armas
12-Shechem
For me, for educational purpose it can be applied like in biology class but professors must note that it is not very reliable since many faulty assumption is obvious. It can be a basis for us to somehow trace back our past to prepare more to our future eventhough it is not very accurate. just like our teacher said. the significance of this study is to know the fault of the past so we may prevent the danger of the future.
ReplyDeleteZapanta Shan Kyle STEM-SHECHEM p.s. :sir nakaabot ako sa oras inulit kolang to nakalimutan ko kasi kung nalagyan ko ng pangalan ung napublish ko eh.
ReplyDeleteFor me, for educational purpose it can be applied like in biology class but professors must note that it is not very reliable since many faulty assumption is obvious. It can be a basis for us to somehow trace back our past to prepare more to our future eventhough it is not very accurate. just like our teacher said. the significance of this study is to know the fault of the past so we may prevent the danger of the future
Barrientos Jhonnie STEM-SHECHEM
ReplyDeleteFor me it is not reliable because even scientist admit that there are alot of faulty assumptions so why we need to believe in this method full of errors?
The assumptions above have significance, nowadays, because through this it becomes the basis for how we interact to the world and to other but the scientific method cannot explain the specific existence of supernatural effects or the existence of the Lord.
ReplyDeleteSHEM JEZREEL S. ARIZO
GRADE 12-SHECHEM
wilfredo c. tapat jr
ReplyDeletestem smyrna
i think that scientist should promote the radioactive dating. here in earth, we have limited resources so we can rather trust the radioactive dating purpose to be able to date what time the rock or organism existed
Nicolejay Ramirez STEM-Sinai
ReplyDeleteFor me it is not good to take this method because it is full of faulty assumptions because there are a lot of factors that can alter the result of the dating.
Jhonnie barrientos STEM-SHECHEM
ReplyDeleteFor me no one should use this method because it's just a lie and no method is accurate. this can only be applied to bio class and reference purpose not by scientist
Gelmore Laguio
ReplyDeleteStem Salem
I think that the earth has a very limited resources to be able to date a certain age of fossil or organism. scientist should promote using this kind of methodology to be able to gain more knowledge in the past
Mark Casas STEM-Shiloh
ReplyDeleteFor me this is far a good method to use. I mean no method is accurate enough to miss only a few years in computation so when we use this method lets take the reality that theres no accurate method but at least we found a way to ease our greedy brains to have a knowledge about the past
Janine Ramos stem-shiloh
ReplyDeletefor me, no one should rely on this mehthod since many scientist honestly stated that there are alot of faulty assumption using this method. but in the other side it is the best tool to somehow trace back our past.
Seeing as though the assumptions are faulty and do not seem to be getting any better, Scientists must create a more accurate and consistent method of determining Radioactive Ages.
ReplyDeleteIf the problem was due to the other rocks surrounding the volcano, adding and or contaminating the lava, making it difficult to compute an accurate age then it would be highly unlikely that results would be promising unless Scientists would somehow magically scrape off the different forms and kinds of rock.
We need to use this assumptions to easily or somehow nearly find out our history more because it is vital for mankinds to know the ages.
ReplyDeleteThe entire article misrepresents science. Just as I did for the homology article, I will answer the main points of this article:
ReplyDelete1. Lava that is "older" than it should be
- All scientific instruments need to be used properly. For instance, K-Ar dating is only appropriate for samples that are too young because not enough Ar-40 would have been created to be statistically meaningful or quantifiable. Recall from Khan Academy's videos how K-40 decay works: Every 2.4B years, 50% of the sample will decay, and that 50% has an 11% CHANCE to decay into Ar-40. This results in a high margin of error for any sample younger than ~10,000 years.
- The Mt St Helens crater was only ~10 years old when it was analyzed. It was scientifically meaningless to perform K-Ar dating in this case. Unsurprisingly, the study is not taken seriously by mainstream science, nor has it been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
2. Contamination
- Contamination is a common problem, which is why geologists take great care to ensure that their samples are pure. However it does not invalidate radiometric dating. If it did, then radiometric dating should show that different samples from the same lava flow of Mt Ngaruhoe have the same age. However, this was not the observation.
- The most common solution geologists use is isochronic dating, wherein they plot the amounts of parent and daughter samples.
3. Is decay rate constant?
- Yes: https://journals.aps.org/prc/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevC.74.064610
- The Oklo reactor allows us to measure Sommerfeld's constant from almost 2 billions years ago. There has been no change in the decay rate for at least over 160000 years, well over the creationist's 6000 years.
This is a broad and complex subject. Being a grade 12 student I am certainly not an expert, and most likely neither is anyone reading this. But the biologists, geologists, and physicists who use radiometric dating are experts who know what they're doing. The weight of probable truth leans heavily on them.
"When the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain. When they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert. When they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment."
- Bertrand Russell
Jericho V. Argarin
ReplyDeleteSTEM 12-Samaria
Quiz 3:
So if these clocks are based on faulty assumptions and yield unreliable results, then scientists should not trust or promote the claimed radioactive “ages” of countless millions of years. What do YOU think?
- Yes, I think scientists shouldn't trust this faulty assumptions and as said in this article, rocks may have inherited parent and daughter isotopes from their sources, or they may have been contaminated when they moved through other rocks to their current locations, so it's not right for scientists to believe in this kind of "assumption".
Since there is already a research about the reliability of radiometric dating, then it can still be used. Radiometric dating already undergo a lot of process, and so if there is a chance on unreliability of radiometric dating, it would be less because a lot have used this process already. But scientist should have more further studies for it to be 100% accurate.
ReplyDeleteI agree, scientists should rather use other dating methods instead of radiometric methods in measuring the ages of rock. They might use: Relative dating methods, wherein it uses the principle of stratigraphy, which place events recorded in rocks from oldest to youngest. After determining the chronological order of events, they might use absolute dating, wherein after the rocks formed; the main purpose of this method is to measure the radioactive decay of isotopes or the effects of radiation on the crystal structure of minerals. Lastly, they might use paleomagnetism, with the main purpose of measuring the ancient orientation of the Earth's magnetic field to help determine the age of rocks.
ReplyDeleteassumption make us alerts
ReplyDeleteJohn Paul Magana
Stem-sinai
Dannielle Olivarez
ReplyDelete12-Shechem
Regardless of these confinements, radiocarbon dating will regularly get you a respectable ballpark figure. While different strategies for dating objects exist, radiocarbon dating has stayed essential for generally archeologists. For instance, it makes it conceivable to think about the periods of articles on an overall scale, taking into consideration essential examinations over the globe.