Indeed. So we cannot date the rocks fossils are found in? by your last statement?First of all, rock from volcanic eruption has been in the Earth for a very long time. It hasn’t had the chance to release argon since it went below the surface, likely near Earth’s birth. Second, we don’t measure volcanic rock for Earth’s age, we measure meteors. They’ve been in existence since the solar system formed, without a chance for outgassing.
Most fossils are found in sedimentary rocks. These are rapidly buried in sediments as a result of a water event.No, we can. Don’t know where you got that idea. Say we find a T. Rex skull and want to date it. First, scientists look for volcanic rock in the same layer of sediment as the bone. Then, they date that rock. When the volcanic rocks were exposed, way back in the cretaceous period, they outgassed all their argon-40. When they got buried again, though, along with the bones, they stopped outgassing and the ratio of potassium and argon we see gives us the age of the rock’s burial. That’s how bones from ancient fossils are generally dated, although other radioactive isotopes may be used.
Your claim is now going to be all sediments contain igneous rocks?Yes, and that’s why we look for igneous rock to date the sediment.
Dinosaur has been coined in the last few hundred years. Dragons is what thy were known as.Speaking of dragons along with dinosaurs,
So as we move along we are understanding we can only mathematically estimate the age based on some base assumptions.Some do. Some contain other radioactive minerals. Some layers don’t have any at all, but we can infer their age by looking at other layer arrangements and their ages in other places across Earth. Some layers like the K-T line are ubiquitous and so they’re a worldwide benchmark for radioactive dating.
Which is your base assumption.mean, I’m not even sure that is worth addressing because I’m not sure if that’s even possible.
I will reframe. Which is more reliable? C14 dating or Pot-Arg?You’re asking me to answer a question based on what could be an impossible premise. I’m not sure what you want to accomplish here.
They are both reliable within their frame of reference. You can question the process of dating all day if you’d like but they have also cross referenced the various dating methods with other methods that overlap the timeframe. Many have been verified by ice cores and tree rings for C14. They match up quite well. I’m not sure how many dating methods exist now but they keep verifying them and are accurate enough.I will reframe. Which is more reliable? C14 dating or Pot-Arg?
If we find an object in pot-argon rocks estimated to be1 billion years, that C14 dates to 10,000 years ago, which do we pick?They are both reliable within their frame of reference.
C14 is for organic material. Dating rocks wouldn’t use C14 just as they wouldn’t use K Argon to date wood. They pick the appropriate dating method for the material.If we find an object in pot-argon rocks estimated to be1 billion years, that C14 dates to 10,000 years ago, which do we pick?
Yes dating organic material - but everyone is avoiding the question they know I am asking. (I used the word object in my question)C14 is for organic material.