KESKUSTELU

Mitä ajoitusmenetelmiä siellä evotieteessä käyteään silloin, kun fossiilin oletetaan olevan yli 50 000 vuotta mutta alle 230 000 vuotta?

Riippuu fossiilista, varmasti ei raamatun sukutauluja. Mahdollisesti K-Ar -menetelmää. Puoliintumisajat ovat niin suuria, että ollaan mittaustarkkuuden rajoilla.

Kysymyksessä minua ihmetyttää vain se, että tähän asti kysyjä on aika hyvin ollut perillä siitä mitä vastapuoli väittää, mutta nyt hän kysyy asiaa, johon vastaus löytynee nykyään jo lukion oppikirjoista.

Tuomo

Se on jälleen joku nerokas ansa.

Ei se ole ansa. Se tarkoittaa tietenkin sitä, että kyseisen aikavälin ajoituksessa on TJT:llä jokin ongelma, jota hän ei saa itse ratkaistua. Siksi hän kyselee apua asiaa paremmin tuntevilta. Sen sijaan kyseisen aikajakson ulkopuolisissa ajoituksissa ei ole mitään ongelmaa. TJT hyväksyy ilmeisesti tieteen tulokset näiltä osin.

Mitä ajoitusmenetelmiä siellä evotieteessä käyteään silloin, kun fossiilin oletetaan olevan yli 50 000 vuotta mutta alle 230 000 vuotta?

Evolutionistien ajanmääritystapa on se, että ensin päätetään kuinka vanhan kohteen on oltava, että se olisi sopusoinnussa evoluutio-opin kanssa. Sen jälkeen valitaan sellainen mittausmenetelmä, jolla haluttu tulos saavutetaan. Jos tulos ei ole evoluutio-opin mukainen, vaihdetaan mittausmenetelmää ja jatketaan mittausten tekemistä niin monta kertaa, että saadaan "hovikelpoinen" tulos.

Nicolas Steno (17th century) was one of the first Western naturalists to appreciate the connection between fossil remains and strata.[11] His observations led him to formulate important stratigraphic concepts (i.e., the "law of superposition" and the "principle of original horizontality").[16] In the 1790s, the British naturalist William Smith hypothesized that if two layers of rock at widely differing locations contained similar fossils, then it was very plausible that the layers were the same age.[17] William Smith's nephew and student, John Phillips, later calculated by such means that Earth was about 96 million years old.[18]

Although Boltwood published his paper in a prominent geological journal, the geological community had little interest in radioactivity. Boltwood gave up work on radiometric dating and went on to investigate other decay series. Rutherford remained mildly curious about the issue of the age of Earth but did little work on it.

Robert Strutt tinkered with Rutherford's helium method until 1910 and then ceased. However, Strutt's student Arthur Holmes became interested in radiometric dating and continued to work on it after everyone else had given up. Holmes focused on lead dating, because he regarded the helium method as unpromising. He performed measurements on rock samples and concluded in 1911 that the oldest (a sample from Ceylon) was about 1.6 billion years old.[20]:74 These calculations were not particularly trustworthy. For example, he assumed that the samples had contained only uranium and no lead when they were formed.

Holmes's persistence finally began to pay off in 1921, when the speakers at the yearly meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science came to a rough consensus that Earth was a few billion years old, and that radiometric dating was credible. Holmes published The Age of the Earth, an Introduction to Geological Ideas in 1927 in which he presented a range of 1.6 to 3.0 billion years.[20]:77–78 No great push to embrace radiometric dating followed, however, and the die-hards in the geological community stubbornly resisted. They had never cared for attempts by physicists to intrude in their domain, and had successfully ignored them so far. The growing weight of evidence finally tilted the balance in 1931, when the National Research Council of the US National Academy of Sciences finally decided to resolve the question of the age of Earth by appointing a committee to investigate. Holmes, being one of the few people on Earth who was trained in radiometric dating techniques, was a committee member, and in fact wrote most of the final report.[20]:77–78

The report concluded that radioactive dating was the only reliable means of pinning down geological time scales. Questions of bias were deflected by the great and exacting detail of the report. It described the methods used, the care with which measurements were made, and their error bars and limitations.

Radiometric dating continues to be the predominant way scientists date geologic timescales. Techniques for radioactive dating have been tested and fine tuned for the past 50+ years. Forty or so different dating techniques are utilized to date a wide variety of materials, and dates for the same sample using these techniques are in very close agreement on the age of the material.

Possible contamination problems do exist, but they have been studied and dealt with by careful investigation, leading to sample preparation procedures being minimized to limit the chance of contamination. Hundreds to thousands of measurements are done daily with excellent precision and accurate results. Even so, research continues to refine and improve radiometric dating to this day.

Today's accepted age of Earth of 4.55 billion years was determined by C.C. Patterson using uranium-lead isotope dating (specifically lead-lead dating) on several meteorites including the Canyon Diablo meteorite and published in 1956.[25]

Haiskahtaa tämä Sakarja TJT:n alter egolta...

Evolutionistien ajanmääritystapa on se, että ensin päätetään kuinka vanhan kohteen on oltava, että se olisi sopusoinnussa evoluutio-opin kanssa. Sen jälkeen valitaan sellainen mittausmenetelmä, jolla haluttu tulos saavutetaan. Jos tulos ei ole evoluutio-opin mukainen, vaihdetaan mittausmenetelmää ja jatketaan mittausten tekemistä niin monta kertaa, että saadaan "hovikelpoinen" tulos.