I don’t get the 2nd method. You stated that we have an exact number for how long certain elements take to decay (like Carbon in your example), but isn’t it known that decay depends on the environments (like whether it’s dry or humid)? This can determine whether bones decay over a few years vs over thousands of years according to google. Please explain.
its governed by quantum mechanics. not environment. radioactive decay is constant. how bones decay is different thing. radioactive carbon decay is another.
I have a huge problem with relative dating and argon potassium dating. Just because the rock/dirtv s next to the fossil, does not make them the same age. It only means they were deposited in that spot at the same time. The rock was likely formed much earlier
Well no, fossils can only be found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rocks are formed by a bunch of layers of sand or other material being stacked on top of each other. The pressure of all these layers compresses the lowers layers and creates stone. So when a dinosaur dies and decomposes and there is left are bones and layers and layers of sand are being laid on top of these bones eventually when the stone is formed the bones will be ingrained in the stone. And there for the fossil and the rocks in or around it will be around the same age.
@@benjones5799they are wrong, and will not admit they are wrong. They claim agates are formed in a volcanic tube or void, this is not entirely true. Agates are from biological origins. Every agate is biology turned to stone just like petrified wood. And most rocks are also from a biological origin other than volcanic rocks. The rest were once living organisms turned to stone. Even meteors are from biological origins.
5:55 (I'm just curious not judging guys) How you can estimate a bone's age by estimating the age of rock besides it, that rock doesn't belong to the bone sir, and even you suggesting that the particles of rock or bone got under the influence of rock molecules or particals, the outcome or estimation still come for a rock not a bone.🦴
Yes we are assuming the rock layer was undisturbed when it was formed so therefore the fossil is approximately the same age as the rock surrounding it that was dated numerically. It would be the same as your laundry that is next to other clothes in the laundry basket all having been placed there approximately the same time, oldest on bottom and youngest on top.
@@lisashoaf7163 @lisashoaf7163 Thanks for answering the question but dear mam, what if somehow someone disturbed the laundry clothes and somehow bottom clothes and upper layer of clothes get upside down, no-one witnessed it, that's same applies on the fossils like if there is some kind of natural disaster like earthquake happen there or anything and rocks along with fossils got upside down somehow, and that's how we're no more able to assuming that the rock state is never disturbed, now my same old statement coperate the question here. And we're again on same question mam.
Um... neutrons are in the nucleus of an atom, and electrons are outside the nucleus. The visualization of carbon's isotopes makes it look like the neutrons are outside...
Incase you dont know still, they are fossils of organisms that only existed in a short amount of time and were abundant, they are used in relative dating to find out which period an animal lved in
Turn to our lord and saviour Jesus so you can enter his kingdom of God and change your and others lives and souls in Jesus precious and almighty name amen❤❤❤❤
There are assumptions in the approach of radioactive dating that need to be admitted and addressed, but we’re not mentioned here. We assume we know the rock’s initial conditions and what percentage has decayed. We assume no outside circumstances that could contaminate any test occurred between the formation of the rocks and our dating. And we assume the rate of decay has remained constant throughout time. We do not know any of these things definitively and we were not there in the beginning or throughout time. How are these assumptions addressed?
@@ProfessorGunkhe is asking how do they know carbon 14 turns to nitrogen 14 in 5000 years and potassium argon 4.5 billion years or whatever what is the scientific proof of that
The half-life (t₁/₂) of a radioactive isotope can be calculated using the formula: \[ N_t = N_0 \left( \frac{1}{2} ight)^\frac{t}{t_{1/2}} \] Where: - \( N_t \) is the quantity of the substance that still remains after time \( t \), - \( N_0 \) is the initial quantity of the substance, - \( t \) is the elapsed time, and - \( t_{1/2} \) is the half-life. Let's rearrange the formula to solve for \( t_{1/2} \): \[ \left( \frac{1}{2} ight)^\frac{t}{t_{1/2}} = \frac{N_t}{N_0} \] Taking the natural logarithm (ln) of both sides: \[ \frac{t}{t_{1/2}} \cdot \ln\left(\frac{1}{2} ight) = \ln\left(\frac{N_t}{N_0} ight) \] Now, solve for \( t_{1/2} \): \[ t_{1/2} = \frac{t}{\ln\left(\frac{1}{2} ight)} \cdot \ln\left(\frac{N_t}{N_0} ight) \] For potassium-40, with a half-life of about 1.3 billion years, you can plug in the values to calculate the specific time.
I tried my best to figure out if there is any truth for scientists to accurately predict how old fossils are, and I still find it hard to believe if any fossil is millions of years old. To be honest, the scientific process in explaining things that are millions of years old sounds very fishy to me. In 200 years, most things vanish or go out of existence...
Fossils are clearly NOT millions of years old. We found soft pliable tissue in T-rex bones in the year 1995, and tissue in hydrosaur bones in the year 2009!
it was pliable after spending weeks in chemical solutions. finding soft tissue in fossils is very rare and it does not affect how old they are either way. it only shows that sometimes soft tissue can fossilize in unique conditions that are not yet entirely understood.
@@frankieRandle8779no, it should not be totally gone. but the amount left would be so small that you cant do any dating with it learn what half-life is.
@@spatrk6634 the obvious conclusion to draw is that the fossils are not as old as claimed. What you’re doing is moving the goal posts, it’s confirmation bias, ie we will only accept data that confirms what we already believe and reject any that doesn’t.
Oh My God I didn't know this , this is such bullshit, so you are telling me if we found a dinosaur bone randomly there is actually no way of knowing how old it is the makes me lose faith in this whole thing.
