Here after King Crocoduck (famous RU-vid atheist and creation debunker) debated Devid McQueen (Geology Professor at the Institute for Creation Research) about the reliability of radiometric dating techniques
Just finished a project on magmatic differentiation and mineral fractionation for my geochemistry class. This would have been a cool video to watch at study sessions with my friends 😂
I am a computer scientist predominantly but I do have my masters in physics and almost did geophysics instead. This is so fascinating it makes me wish I had. As an aside to Professor Dave, I recently learned about something called the Bolton Strid from a friend in the UK. The geology of the region makes the river turn sideways and makes it a literal death trap! Would you do an episode on it?
Ophiolites can also be found in the exotic terrains of California, the Pacific NW, B.C. and Alaska. The Macquarie Islands, between New Zealand and Antarctica, are almost entirely mantle rock as well.
Prof Dave - off topic of this video - but I am interested in learning more about radiometric dating, as always had an issue with dating system, and when items are dated to certain ages. My biggest problem with it, is the idea of - you test the half-life decay of an atom, now that states when that atom was created and began to decay - wouldn't that off been in the previous star's supernova? not when a structure was created? Same with the samples brought back from the Moon, and samples used on Earth. I.E. the Moon sample, were tested and stated to be approx. 4.5billion years old, therefore the Moon was there 4.5billion years ago - but this is my problem, would all the dating methods just tell you how old those atoms are - not the formation - so if the test state it is 4.53BYO - then should it be fair to think the actual moon was ''created/formed'' much later than that. I fully accept my issue with radiometric dating, can (and most likely) are from a lack of knowledge of how it is done - therefore my question (as I have looked for books on the subject, and usually end up with a list of creationist BS) can you recommend a book or author for me to read up on the different testing methods, how and why each is used, and what the data and results imply. My problem is getting past the creation of atoms within a star, and subsequent supernova - at which point over vast time scales said dust collapses into planets - but wouldn't any half-life decay test show the period at which the Star exploded in a supernova, creating the heavy elements for these tests - therefore shouldn't every test give the same answer?? I really want to know more about this subject as it is a major hurdle for me.
This is a great question. If you think about the overall bulk of the data from the dated mineral, I think the scientists looked at the ratio between outliers in the total bulk composition. If you dated a rock and the result spit out mostly 4000 years old and very few 10,000 years. You would probably go with the 4000 years old because this is a new atom that formed. Moreover, if the majority of your data from asteroids and rocks correlate and give you mostly 4.5 billion years old, then you would go with that number. A 6 billion year old interstellar asteroid could end up in our solar system, and if we dated it and it give us mostly 6 billion years, then its safe to assume its a 6 billion year old asteroid that is not from our solar system. Of course this sound simple, but there are rigorous process sciencetists go through before accepting the dated value. you also have to think about the rock cycle where mineral gets destroyed, create and deposit and repeat over and over.
geology is so interesting to me… too bad i took all these classes during the covid era and learned next to nothing about it so i’m glad these videos exist
Here is your engagement commit, with all seriousness, thank you for the time you give us for our entertainment. You don't have to, but you pour you time into this anyway.
