Arguments against relative dating

Rated 4.18/5 based on 822 customer reviews

Chamberlain (1899) pointed out that Kelvin's calculations were only as good as the assumptions on which they were based."The fascinating impressiveness of rigorous mathematical analyses, with its atmosphere of precision and elegance, should not blind us to the defects of the premises that condition the whole process.Interweaving the relative time scale with the atomic time scale poses certain problems because only certain types of rocks, chiefly the igneous variety, can be dated directly by radiometric methods; but these rocks do not ordinarily contain fossils.Some, like Robert Gentry, have even argued that Radio-halos from rapidly decaying radioactive isotopes in granite seem to indicate that the granites were formed almost instantly.He believed this even though he did admit that some heat might be generated by the tidal forces or by chemical action.

The isochron dating method theoretically overcomes the need to know the initial ratio of parent and daughter isotopes. For now, we will look at those methods that do fall under the above assumptions.Of course, the detected variation is no more than 0.2% of the published rates, but this paper is still quite interesting since such a correlation was never suspected before.If magnetic fluxuations or other influencing forces are strong enough, radiometric decay rates could be much more significantly effected.Other factors and basic assumptions must also be considered.Of course, Kelvin formed his estimates of the age of the Sun without the knowledge of fusion as the true energy source of the Sun.

Leave a Reply