Comparing Relative And Radiometric Dating
When most people hear the term fossil dating, two things come to mind, one being, “Is that what you’re grandparents do?” (Valls, biology class) and two, “what is that?”. By using either relative or radioactive dating methods, most geologists have the ability to tell how old a single fossil is. As always though, we are left with the question of which is better? Delve deeper to understand the comparisons and contrasts of Relative and Radiometric dating, as well as further information on both topics individually.
Relative Dating
Relative dating is not the term used to describe what rednecks do on the weekend. (Get it Mr. Valls?) Relative dating is the ability to put a series of events or objects, rock layers for example, into chronological …show more content…
order, but not actually including numerical dates for said rock layers. Most relative dating is done on sedimentary rock, and the study of the order of when fossils appear and disappear through time is called biostratigraphy.(www.sciencelearn.org) Relative dating also is a little less accurate than most, merely for the fact that it does not give an exact date, and sometimes not even an exact year. Relative dating is usually used by scientists who gather other elements, such as rocks, or even other fossils, around the area of the original fossil, and use those elements to try to help track a fossil back to a certain time period. 2
The Three Principles. When understanding relative dating, there are three principles that will help tremendously with the ability to grasp relative dating:
(1)The Principle of Superposition, which states that rock layers are layered in a sequence, with the oldest on the bottom, while the newer layers are found at the top. (2) The Principle of Horizontality, which, in summary, says that layers are level when layered and laid out, meaning there are little to no huge hills or obvious elevation changes in each layer. (3) The Principle of Continuity, which, in short, states that even if layers of rock are split in half and separated, they will still line up with one another, due to the fact that they stated in the same order.
Radiometric Dating
Radiometric dating is a diverse but still somewhat similar way of dating fossils. It is the method of measurements relating to the radioactivity of the atoms in a fossil or artifact. (http://scientia-discipulus.blogspot.com) When a plant or animal begins to fossilize, the raw, soft materials of that organism starts to decay. The decay is what needs to occur in order to get a change in radioactive levels within the deceased organism. As the organism decays, the atom begins to achieve stability by transforming into an entirely new element. When the material decays, that means that C-14, carbon, atoms are present, and the material is organic, and normal within nature. Scientists then use their knowledge of carbon decay to be able to roughly factor how old the fossil or artifact is. When an inorganic artifact, such as a rock statue, or stone tablet, needs to be dated, scientists look for the radioactive isotope, uranium. Then, very similarly to the way they date organic materials with the C-14 decay, they use uranium’s decay rate to figure the age of the inorganic things. So to put this into a simpler and more understanding way. When 3
attempting to date organic, or once living, material, one must rely on the materials C-14, or carbon, percentages. Then they must know the rate at which carbon decays, enabling them to be able to work out the equation and figure out the most accurate approximated date possible. Comparing the Two
Tracking the age of fossils, or even just layers of rock, when really getting the details, one must go to great lengths in order to securely be able to prove that their calculations are accurate.
This task would go by a lot quicker if all fossils came with a time stamp. But when it comes down to it, two fossil dating techniques seem to unmask themselves as accurate ways of dating fossil and or other elements. Relative and radiometric dating are both extremely effective, although they vary in techniques.They do have some similarities. A few similarities between the two would include the fact that they are, obviously, both able to approximate an age for organic and non-organic elements. They both have the ability to find the ages on organic and non-organic elements using predetermined knowledge of the world around those elements. Both exercise the brain’s ability to work out difficult scientific and mathematic equations. As far as similarities go, the list has all in all come up short, but the differences are drastic. Some differences between relative and radiometric dating are the fact that while relative dating uses linear sedimentary rocks and stratigraphy to estimate the age of the element, radiometric dating uses the decaying of isotopes in organic and non-organic elements to be able to calculate an almost exact ago on the fossil or artifact. Personally I think that’s totally rad. They also vary in dependability. Relative dating has multiple outlying, constantly changing variables, as well as not very liable information. It is subsequently just a somewhat accurate observation/guessing game. While radiometric dating derives from basic elemental make up itself. Radiometric dating is said to
be 4
consistent and anchored, to where the variables are very unlikely to change. When it comes to comparing and contrasting however, no one is picking favorites, as both have a significant share of pros and cons, that directly connect to their similarities and differences.
Conclusion
In conclusion, both relative and radiometric dating are highly advanced and extremely helpful in the geological world. However, when asked the question you were previously asked in the introduction, “which is better?” It is very clear that radiometric dating reigns superior. Its use of decaying isotopic ratios and rates, as well as its ability to almost exactly pinpoint an element’s age, with minimal room for controversy, makes it the obvious choice for those willing to take extra time to solve their problem.
Relative Dating
Relative dating is not the term used to describe what rednecks do on the weekend. (Get it Mr. Valls?) Relative dating is the ability to put a series of events or objects, rock layers for example, into chronological …show more content…
order, but not actually including numerical dates for said rock layers. Most relative dating is done on sedimentary rock, and the study of the order of when fossils appear and disappear through time is called biostratigraphy.(www.sciencelearn.org) Relative dating also is a little less accurate than most, merely for the fact that it does not give an exact date, and sometimes not even an exact year. Relative dating is usually used by scientists who gather other elements, such as rocks, or even other fossils, around the area of the original fossil, and use those elements to try to help track a fossil back to a certain time period. 2
The Three Principles. When understanding relative dating, there are three principles that will help tremendously with the ability to grasp relative dating:
(1)The Principle of Superposition, which states that rock layers are layered in a sequence, with the oldest on the bottom, while the newer layers are found at the top. (2) The Principle of Horizontality, which, in summary, says that layers are level when layered and laid out, meaning there are little to no huge hills or obvious elevation changes in each layer. (3) The Principle of Continuity, which, in short, states that even if layers of rock are split in half and separated, they will still line up with one another, due to the fact that they stated in the same order.
Radiometric Dating
Radiometric dating is a diverse but still somewhat similar way of dating fossils. It is the method of measurements relating to the radioactivity of the atoms in a fossil or artifact. (http://scientia-discipulus.blogspot.com) When a plant or animal begins to fossilize, the raw, soft materials of that organism starts to decay. The decay is what needs to occur in order to get a change in radioactive levels within the deceased organism. As the organism decays, the atom begins to achieve stability by transforming into an entirely new element. When the material decays, that means that C-14, carbon, atoms are present, and the material is organic, and normal within nature. Scientists then use their knowledge of carbon decay to be able to roughly factor how old the fossil or artifact is. When an inorganic artifact, such as a rock statue, or stone tablet, needs to be dated, scientists look for the radioactive isotope, uranium. Then, very similarly to the way they date organic materials with the C-14 decay, they use uranium’s decay rate to figure the age of the inorganic things. So to put this into a simpler and more understanding way. When 3
attempting to date organic, or once living, material, one must rely on the materials C-14, or carbon, percentages. Then they must know the rate at which carbon decays, enabling them to be able to work out the equation and figure out the most accurate approximated date possible. Comparing the Two
Tracking the age of fossils, or even just layers of rock, when really getting the details, one must go to great lengths in order to securely be able to prove that their calculations are accurate.
This task would go by a lot quicker if all fossils came with a time stamp. But when it comes down to it, two fossil dating techniques seem to unmask themselves as accurate ways of dating fossil and or other elements. Relative and radiometric dating are both extremely effective, although they vary in techniques.They do have some similarities. A few similarities between the two would include the fact that they are, obviously, both able to approximate an age for organic and non-organic elements. They both have the ability to find the ages on organic and non-organic elements using predetermined knowledge of the world around those elements. Both exercise the brain’s ability to work out difficult scientific and mathematic equations. As far as similarities go, the list has all in all come up short, but the differences are drastic. Some differences between relative and radiometric dating are the fact that while relative dating uses linear sedimentary rocks and stratigraphy to estimate the age of the element, radiometric dating uses the decaying of isotopes in organic and non-organic elements to be able to calculate an almost exact ago on the fossil or artifact. Personally I think that’s totally rad. They also vary in dependability. Relative dating has multiple outlying, constantly changing variables, as well as not very liable information. It is subsequently just a somewhat accurate observation/guessing game. While radiometric dating derives from basic elemental make up itself. Radiometric dating is said to
be 4
consistent and anchored, to where the variables are very unlikely to change. When it comes to comparing and contrasting however, no one is picking favorites, as both have a significant share of pros and cons, that directly connect to their similarities and differences.
Conclusion
In conclusion, both relative and radiometric dating are highly advanced and extremely helpful in the geological world. However, when asked the question you were previously asked in the introduction, “which is better?” It is very clear that radiometric dating reigns superior. Its use of decaying isotopic ratios and rates, as well as its ability to almost exactly pinpoint an element’s age, with minimal room for controversy, makes it the obvious choice for those willing to take extra time to solve their problem.