Re: Dating Old Rocks (was Dennett's bad word ...)

From: Richard Wein (tich@primex.co.uk)
Date: Thu Mar 23 2000 - 14:10:20 EST

  • Next message: MikeBGene@aol.com: "Re: Disbelieving Darwin and Feeling No Shame, by William Dembski"

    From: Steven M. Smith <smsmith@helios.cr.usgs.gov>

    >Since the average life expectancy of any radiometric isotope is on the
    order
    >of 10 times the half-life, we can reasonably infer that the elements of
    >which our earth is composed were created no less than about 1-7 billion
    >years ago.

    I don't know anything about radiometric dating, but this sounds odd to me.
    What do you mean by the "average life expectancy" of an isotope? After 10
    half-lives there should still be one thousandth of the original material
    left. Is this too small to detect? And anyway, your argument would give an
    *upper* limit of 7 BY.

    Shouldn't you be looking at the half-life of Sm-146 (70 MY), the longest
    lasting of the elements that *can't* be found? If the Earth is about 4.5 BY
    old, this is 64 half-lives, so only about 10^ -20 of the original material
    should be left. It sounds plausible that that would be too small to detect.

    Have I missed something?

    Richard Wein (Tich)
    See my web pages for various games at http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~tich/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 14:10:22 EST