radiometric dating is least useful for dating ____ rocks?
830840
Sedimentary rocks ... As QFL 24-7 said you would be dating the formation of the rocks which formed the particles of the rock you are trying to determine its age .. so you will get an older age ...
311743
Certain substances have a radioactive halflife.  That means it takes a certain amount of time for that substance to decay so far.  Carbon dating is the process of observing the decay of the carbon present in an object to determine its age.\n\nLike any scientific property, there is always error.  The equation and theory models very close to reality but never exactly.  And there are so many other things that could've assisted in the decay which result in incorrect data.\n\nWhich is why whenever you want to make a scientific claim about certain fossils containing carbon for example, you will take many samples from various objects within a certain layer of the soil, then take the average age of them all, giving a rough estimate of the age of that particular layer of soil.\n\nIs carbon dating perfect?  No.  No scientific method is without errors.  But if done intelligently it can give reliable statistics about the age of objects.\n\nMost of the people who are wholly against carbon dating point out errors and flaws with it that any reasonable scientist is fully aware of and they pretend that it's a profound problem which invalidates the whole process.  The majority of Carbon Dating critics are coming from the religious front, who oppose it because it disproves their beliefs.\n\nUltimately though, if done by a careful scientist with lots of samples, then averaged, carbon dating is generally reliable.
1186362
False. Scientists realize that radioactive decay happens at a steady rate which can be measured by radio-carbon dating. Through countless tests over many years, the consistent measurements so far have indicated that the Earth is about 4 billion years old.
526654
It would help to find useful archaeologists if you tell where you found those slate stones. While I know a couple of archaeologists, they are specialized on Aegean Bronze Age or Viking Age rather than Stone Age Britain, which wouldn't be too helpful.
233804
#        The earth is 6,000 years old position. The date 4004 B.C. is found in the marginal notes (Genesis one) of many King James Versions. This date was first placed in the King James Version by James Ussher in 1701. He arrived at this date by adding the lengths of the lives of the patriarchs as given in Genesis 5 and 11. In reality, this dating method is not infallible for a number of possible reasons. As far as the Bible is concerned, we can not date the earth with accuracy. It must be remembered that Genesis presents the earth as being created mature or aged (Gen. 1: 20 ff.).  \n\n#     The earth is 4.7 billions years old view. Scientists have employed a number of methods in trying to arrive at the age of the earth. The rate of erosion, rate of salt accumulation in the ocean, and the rate of decay of certain elements such as uranium, thorium, potassium, and rubidium. All of these methods including the "ore method," "meteorite method," and the dating of fossil remains are unreliable and contain many attendant variables.\n\n#     There are a growing number of scientists who are concluding the earth is actually relatively young. They have studied population growth, the amount of meteoric dust on the earth's surface, the quantity of nickel in the oceans, and carbon-14 build up. Many of these scientists believe the earth is more in the range of 7, 000 years old. "Beloved, one thing we do know is life begets life and creation implies a Creator: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1: 1). In all honesty, there are matters scientists and theologians do not definitively know as to the age of the earth. True science and the Bible, though, do not conflict.
671187
The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.\n\nUnfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface.\n\nThe oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.\n\nWhile these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.
769135
There is now a whole subspecialty of paleomagnetism and archaeology called archaeomagnetism that utilizes the phenomenon you are talking about in the study of archaeological sites. Kilns and hearths have been especially useful in this field, as they were regularly heated to fairly high temperatures, which did allow for realignment of microscopic magnetic particles such as hematite and magnetite with lines of flux in the magnetic field of the earth. By recording the orientations of the particles in old kilns etc, which have been accurately dated by other methods, dating scales of magnetic orientations have been  developed.(last 2 sentences paraphrased from last url on list bleow, which has a nice virtual tour of the application an archaeomagnetism study at an archaeological site.\nI'm directing you to a few informative sites:\nhttp://www.u.arizona.edu/~slengyel/amag2_new-sw_002.htm\nhttp://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/dating/dat_mag.html\nhttp://www.bradford.ac.uk/acad/archsci/depart/resgrp/archmag/menu.php?2\nhttp://www.meteo.be/CPG/aarch.net/onlytxt/no.frame.html\nhttp://farahsouth.cgu.edu/tour/archaeomagnetism/
153391
I'm assuming that that refers to giving the age of two things relative to one another, rather than identifying the absolute ages of things.  For instance, when you take two trees that lived in similar times and places, you can look at the width of the tree rings to get an idea as to the conditions (especially moisture) during a given year.  If you have two such wood samples, you should be able to see a pattern between the two.  Using taht information, you could count rings and figure out how much older one piece of wood was relative to the other.  But without knowing the year the trees dies, or without knowing the particular calendar years behind the droughts, you wouldn't know that absolute age of either.  I'd imagine that there are similar things with radioisotope dating if you have a reason to think that the atmospheric conditions creating certain isotopes might change, but not knowing the exact concentrations at the time an organism lived.
955868
No. The basic geological column was first realised by creationists such as Rev. Sedgewick and William Smith, following logical rules such as the principle of superposition (sediments were deposited on top of older sediments). They observed that layers of different ages contained some different fossils which could aid in recognising the layers, without always having to physically trace them along. This was well before the Origin of Species.\n\nNowdays, the geological column is dated by absolute radiometric methods (eg. Uranium-Lead and Potassium-Argon dating). There are hundreds of radiometrically-dated tie-points in the geological column. Index fossils, along with other methods such as magnetostratigraphy, are used to correlate, relatively, between different locations, and to the radiometrically-determined time scale.
757722
Well you can date in-situ rocks relative to others by a few basic principles such as fossil evidence and sequence stratigraphy (if one rock is 'cut' by another then the it is older).\nIf you have an entire sequence of rocks right up to the present time the you could use deposition rates to calculate age but I wouldn't rely on it.\n\nTo calculate the age of a single sample of rock that is not in-situ I don't think is possible.  We use radioactivity because we know the rate at which it changes over time.  We understand the passing of time because things change.  If you were put to sleep in a dark room with no contact with the outside world then after about 1 week you would have no idea how much time had passed when you woke because you wouldn't have a point of reference.
1156152
There was a Bishop Ussher who, by following the time line of the Bible genealogies, determined that the earth to be about 10,000 years of age.  What you are taught in school is a point of interest.  The age of rocks are determined by the types of bones found in them.  The age of the bones by the rocks they are found in.  Who was there in the beginning in order to give the first age.  Modern ages are all guesses.  Yours is probably better than theirs - can't be worse.
181093
Archaeologists use the term BP to mean "years Before the Present", which avoids the whole philosophical debate about AD and BC versus CE and BCE. The only trouble is, the Present, of course, changes every year. Since the BP designation was at least originally associated with radiocarbon dating, archaeologists chose the year 1950 as 'the present'. Radiocarbon dating was invented in the late 1940s, and, also, atmospheric nuclear testing was begun in the 1940s, which makes, at least the theory goes, radiocarbon dates after 1950 virtually useless, anyway. \n\nGenerally CE (for Common Era or AD) and BCE (for Before the Common Era or BC) are more acceptable.
941865
It is quite reliable when properly applied.  It can't be trusted when:\n\n(1) it is applied so far in the past that it is extreme extrapolation of limited data.\n\n(2) the sample and its food source were radiation-protected.\n\n(3) the sample came from a situation or time where the C14/C12 ratio was different from what it is today, or is unknown.\n\nFor all these reasons, the farther back in time you try to read, the less reliable the dating.
125981
Relative Dating:\n1. Stratigraphic chronology using key horizon's (and Principle of Superposition.\n2. Biologic succession (fossils in rock)\n2 1/2. Magnetic Reversals\n\nAbsolute Dating:\n1. Radioactive Dating (Carbon, K-Ar, Th...etc))\n2. Fission Track Dating
650039
what a troubling Q: but i agree with that 6k yrs of this planet... the carbon dating is nothing but a paleontological gibberish... the world is not a million or so yrs old... mybe they just need a lil more tyme checking the computations... one million yr wud mean a day or a week in the christian "dating" watdayathink?? (,"}
664010
carbon dating cannot be used for very old fossils. Radioactive dating is a better method used extensively by geologists. Carbon 14 is fairly reliable for fossils that are not too old.
1129623
Pardon? Did you mean radiometric dating? That's where they take the known have life of an isotope (most commonly a carbon isotope) and count backwards to when it started in an attempt to find the date of origin. Otherwise, I'd guess it's some sort of Superhero Dating Service. I mean, where else is the Toxic Avenger going to find a girl?