How do we know radiometric dating is accurate

Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods

How do we know radiometric dating is accurate

gentry has researched radiohalos for many years, and published his results in leading scientific journals.., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14c in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the “clock” is possible. humphreys, “reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the genesis flood,” proc. but these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists. in order to calculate the age of the rock, we need three other pieces of information:We need to know how fast the u-238 turns into pb-206. amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere affects the amount of 14c produced and therefore dating the system. krummenacher, “isotopic composition of argon in modern surface rocks,” earth and planetary science letters, 1969, 6:47-55. a straight line is drawn through these points, representing the ratio of the parent:daughter, from which a date is calculated.. russell humphreys gives other processes inconsistent with billions of years in the pamphlet evidence for a young world. nguaruhoe, new zealand, and the implications for potassium-argon 'dating,'” proc. familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in “lead” pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. should remember god's admonition to job, “where were you when i laid the foundations of the earth? so what do the observational scientists in the radiometric dating lab do? the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth, 90 percent point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists.. (2005), radioisotopes and the age of the earth, volume 2, (california: institute for creation research), pages 25-100. woodmorappe, the mythology of modern dating methods, for one such thorough evaluation.

Do you believe radiometric dating is an accurate way to date the

How do we know radiometric dating is reliable

the rubidium-strontium isochron technique suggested that the recent lava flow was 270 ma older than the basalts beneath the grand canyon—an impossibility. snelling, “the failure of u-th-pb 'dating' at koongarra, australia,” cen technical journal, 1995, 9(1):71-92. the above assumptions, it is calculated that the zircon crystals have an age of about 1. the secular scientific literature lists many examples of excess argon causing dates of millions of years in rocks of known historical age. remember that we have already said that these experimenters are highly skilled. we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the data to get what they want? total 14c is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12c, 14c is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). this gives a maximum age of the moon, not the actual age. ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow, but this depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood (from long dead trees) using carbon-14 dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards. evolutionists often misunderstand the method, assuming it gives a definite age for tested samples. is an unsolved mystery to evolutionists as to why coal has 14c in it,[25], or wood supposedly millions of years old still has 14c present, but it makes perfect sense in a creationist world view. scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely accurately. because 14c is so well mixed up with 12c, we expect to find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body. this happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it has not had time to escape—certainly not billions of years. the dating methods are an objective and reliable means of determining ages, they should agree. it decays by a 14-step process into lead-206, which is stable.

How do we know radiocarbon dating is accurate

understand the limitations of dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use processes observed in the present to “prove” that the earth is billions of years old. are various other radiometric dating methods used today to give ages of millions or billions of years for rocks. it is certainly incorrect, and it is certainly based on wrong assumptions, but it is not inaccurate. again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.[11] this started with an initial 212 to 230 ma, which, according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans “weren't around then").[39] cook noted that, in ores from the katanga mine, for example, there was an abundance of lead-208, a stable isotope, but no thorium-232 as a source for lead-208. whatever caused such elevated rates of decay may also have been responsible for the lead isotope conversions claimed by cook (above). williams, “long-age isotope dating short on credibility,” cen technical journal, 1992, 6(1):2-5. therefore, the 14c/12c ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.[41] viewed in cross-section with a microscope, these spheres appear as rings called radiohalos. rate of decay of 14c is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14n in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). it is therefore unlikely that the laboratory technicians have made a mistake in their measurements of u-238 or pb-206. billion years in no way negates the idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old. the paradigm, or belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is so strongly entrenched it is not questioned—it is a “fact. the latter figures are significant because thorium-derived dates should be the more reliable, since thorium is less mobile than the uranium minerals that are the parents of the lead isotopes in lead-lead system. if the techniques were absolutely objective and reliable, such information would not be necessary.

How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods

that measure 14c would like a source of organic material with zero 14c to use as a blank to check that their lab procedures do not add 14c. carbon (12c)is found in the carbon dioxide (co2) in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. the total amount in the atmosphere is 1/2000th of that expected if the universe is really billions of years old. again, the stories are evaluated according to their own success in agreeing with the existing long ages belief system.[22] the “zero” ages in this case are consistent with the bible. the common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. for example, if element aa had a half-life of 1 day and we had 1,000 lbs. they rely more on dating methods that link into historical records. a good place to start this article would be to affirm that radiometric dating is not inaccurate. then cross-matching of ring patterns is used to calibrate the carbon “clock”—a somewhat circular process which does not give an independent calibration of the carbon dating system. creationists also often misunderstand it, claiming that the process is inaccurate.[12] john woodmorappe has produced an incisive critique of these dating methods. to derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there). of the intermediate decay products—such as the polonium isotopes—have very short half-lives (they decay quickly). were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.. humphreys, “the sea's missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists,” proc.

Radiometric Dating Does Work! | NCSE

this will make old things look older than they really are. individual atom has a chance of decaying by this process. to understand this point, we need to understand what exactly is being measured during a radiometric dating test. the long-age dating techniques were really objective means of finding the ages of rocks, they should work in situations where we know the age. this would make things look much older than they really are when current rates of decay are applied to dating.. provine admitted:“most of what i learned of the field [evolutionary biology] in graduate (1964-68) school is either wrong or significantly changed. overall, the energy of the earth's magnetic field has been decreasing,[5] so more 14c is being produced now than in the past. however, the “age” is calculated using assumptions about the past that cannot be proven. whatever process was responsible for the halos could be a key also to understanding radiometric dating. correcting the dates increased the number to a more realistic 1.. woodmorappe, the mythology of modern dating methods (san diego, ca: institute for creation research, 1999).[38] however, such exercises in story-telling can hardly be considered as objective science that proves an old earth.” so, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. to answer this question, it is necessary to scrutinize further the experimental results from the various dating techniques, the interpretations made on the basis of the results and the assumptions underlying those interpretations. must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present. Evolutionists often misunderstand the method, assuming it gives a definite age for tested samples.

Radiometric dating still reliable (again), research shows

[43] there have been many attempts, because the orphan halos speak of conditions in the past, either at creation or after, perhaps even during the flood, which do not fit with the uniformitarian view of the past, which is the basis of the radiometric dating systems.[24] the accompanying checks showed that the 14c date was not due to contamination and that the “date” was valid, within the standard (long ages) understanding of this dating system., the genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. billion years to reach its present distance from the earth. the method involves dividing both the parent and daughter concentrations by the concentration of a similar stable isotope—in this case, strontium-86. claus and christian kids – what’s a parent to do? that is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. this is because they believe that this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which bears the evidence within it that it is the word of god, and therefore totally reliable and error-free. earth's magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old., the amount of helium in zircons from hot rock is also much more consistent with a young earth (helium derives from the decay of radioactive elements)., “ecological and temporal placement of early pliocene hominids at aramis, ethiopia,” nature, 1994, 371:330-333. techniques that give results that can be dismissed just because they don't agree with what we already believe cannot be considered objective.[40] the amount of lead may be consistent with current rates of decay over millions of years, but it would have diffused out of the crystals in that time. is no “age-meter” that you can plug into a rock, giving an immediate read-out of the rock’s age. humphreys has suggested that this may have occurred during creation week and the flood.. gunst, “an analysis of the earth's magnetic field from 1835 to 1965,” essa technical report ier 46-ies, 1965, u.

How do we know radiometric dating is accurate-The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating | NCSE

are many examples where the dating methods give “dates” that are wrong for rocks of known age. after this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1. it is also much younger than the radiometric “dates” assigned to moon rocks. since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism (see noah's flood…, how did animals get from the ark to isolated places? thorium has a long half-life (decays very slowly) and is not easily moved out of the rock, so if the lead-208 came from thorium decay, some thorium should still be there. known as the rate (radioisotopes and the age of the earth) group, it combines the skills of various physicists and geologists to enable a multi-disciplinary approach to the subject. one example is k-ar “dating” of five historical andesite lava flows from mount nguaruhoe in new zealand. andrew snelling worked on “dating the koongarra uranium deposits in the northern territory of australia, primarily using the uranium-thorium-lead (u-th-pb) method.. hunziker, editors, lectures in isotope geology, “u-th-pb dating of minerals,” by d. in reality, all dating methods, including those that point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions. it does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood. the other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them.” a study of pig fossils in africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull was much younger. this would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. we don't have all the answers, but we do have the sure testimony of the word of god to the true history of the world. even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could not be more than 62 ma years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by the evolutionists.

Radiometric Dating — Is It Accurate? | Creation Today

example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of australopithecus ramidus fossils., using hindsight, it is argued that “excess” argon from the magma (molten rock) was retained in the rock when it solidified. ma was settled upon because of the agreement between several different published studies (although the studies involved selection of “good” from “bad” results, just like australopithecus ramidus, above).” however, the results from zircons (a type of gemstone), for example, generally lie off the concordia curve—they are discordant. when the isotope concentrations are adjusted for such conversions, the ages calculated are reduced from some 600 ma to recent. again, the only way to know if an isochron is “good” is by comparing the result with what is already believed. this is far too young for evolutionists who claim the moon is 4. isochron dating technique was thought to be infallible because it supposedly covered the assumptions about starting conditions and closed systems. this is true of both creationist and evolutionist scientific arguments—evolutionists have had to abandon many “proofs” for evolution just as creationists have also had to modify their arguments. geologist john woodmorappe, in his devastating critique of radioactive dating,[8] points out that there are other large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with radioactive decay. zheng wrote:Some of the basic assumptions of the conventional rb-sr [rubidium-strontium] isochron method have to be modified and an observed isochron does not certainly define valid age information for a geological system, even if a goodness of fit of the experimental results is obtained in plotting 87sr/86sr. is entering the sea much faster than it is escaping. the half-life gives us this value, provided the half-life has never altered during the lifetime of the zircon crystal. it turns out that this rate of diffusion of helium is compatible with the crystals being about 5,000 years old, not 1. given that lead compounds are fairly soluble in water, this is something that we cannot be very sure of. similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as knm-er 1470.

Andrew Snelling proves the accuracy of radiometric dating in one

although we cannot determine what will happen to an individual atom, we can determine what will happen to a few million atoms. historical science is not capable of repetition, checking or peer—˜review. however, with radiometric dating, the different techniques often give quite different results., there are factors other than age responsible for the straight lines obtained from graphing isotope ratios. lowe, “problems associated with the use of coal as a source of 14c free background material,” radiocarbon, 1989, 31:117-120. need to know how much pb-206 there was in the original rock. this problem cannot be overlooked, especially in evaluating the numerical time scale. dating in many cases seriously embarrasses evolutionists by giving ages that are much younger than those expected from their model of early history. these displaced neutrons, now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14n) at lower altitudes, converting it into 14c. however, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14c dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies.-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. historical science is concerned with trying to work out what may have happened in a one-off event in the past. moon is slowly receding for the earth at about 4 centimeters (1. this is just what we would expect for “young” galaxies that have not existed long enough for wide expansion. people wonder how millions of years could be squeezed into the biblical account of history., lowering the total 12c in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb co2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation).

Reliability of Geologic Dating

Radiometric dating - Wikipedia

is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not measuring millions of years. some of the evidences are: lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by many millions of years; lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (worms, roots, etc. isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. snelling has suggested that fractionation (sorting) of elements in the molten state in the earth's mantle could be a significant factor in explaining the ratios of isotope concentrations which are interpreted as ages. are many lines of evidence that the radiometric dates are not the objective evidence for an old earth that many claim, and that the world is really only thousands of years old.[18] again, all sorts of reasons can be suggested for the “bad” dates, but this is again posterior reasoning. long ago as 1966, nobel prize nominee melvin cook, professor of metallurgy at the university of utah, pointed out evidence that lead isotope ratios, for example, may involve alteration by important factors other than radioactive decay. however, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14c atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14c in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. the level of proof demanded for such stories seems to be much less than for studies in the empirical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, molecular biology, physiology, etc.[20] this contrasts with an age of 1550-1650 ma based on other isotope ratios,[21] and ages of 275, 61, 0,0,and 0 ma for thorium/lead (232th/208pb) ratios in five uraninite grains. robert gentry has pointed out that the amount of helium and lead in zircons from deep bores is not consistent with an evolutionary age of 1,500 ma for the granite rocks in which they are found. the wood was “dated” by radiocarbon (14c) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was “dated” by potassium-argon method at 45 million years old! decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. if a chemist were measuring the sugar content of blood, all valid methods for the determination would give the same answer (within the limits of experimental error). we cannot tell what number we will roll in any one shake, but if we rolled 6,000 dice, the chances are very high that 1,000 of them would have landed on a six.” creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but not by millions of years.

How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods

Doesn't Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible? | Answers in Genesis

the age of a rock sample falls under the heading of historical science, not observational science. zheng, “influence of the nature of initial rb-sr system on isochron validity,” chemical geology, 1989, 80:1-16 (p. who ask about carbon-14 (14c) dating usually want to know about the radiometric[1] dating methods that are claimed to give millions and billions of years—carbon dating can only give thousands of years. if you were able to examine just one atom, you would not know whether or not it would decay. then there was a rise in 14co2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s. similar questions can also arise in applying sm-nd [samarium-neodymium] and u-pb [uranium-lead] isochron methods. supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. will deal with carbon dating first and then with the other dating methods. international team of creationist scientists is actively pursuing a creationist understanding of radioisotope dating.. / authors: ken ham, jonathan sarfati, and carl wieland, adapted from the revised & expanded answers book (master books, 2000).. maas, “nd-sr isotope constraints on the age and origin of unconformity-type uranium deposits in the alligator rivers uranium field, northern territory, australia, economic geology, 1989, 84:64-90. wood found in “upper permian” rock that is supposedly 250 ma old still contained 14c. this is consistent with a young world—the argon has had too little time to escape. unconsciously, the researchers, who are supposedly “objective scientists” in the eyes of the public, select the observations to fit the basic belief system. with sloth cave dung, standard carbon dates of the lower layers suggested less than 2 pellets per year were produced by the sloths. although assumptions 2 and 3 are not provable, they actually seem very likely in this particular example.

Q: How is radiometric dating reliable? Why is it that one random

this is a theoretical calculation, and we can therefore determine that the half-life of u-238 is 4. the do the radiometric dates of millions of years mean, if they are not true ages?, such huge time periods cannot be fitted into the bible without compromising what the bible says about the goodness of god and the origin of sin, death and suffering—the reason jesus came into the world (see six days? he found that even highly weathered soil samples from the area, which are definitely not closed systems, gave apparently valid “isochron” lines with “ages” of up to 1,445 ma. sarfati, “blowing old-earth belief away: helium gives evidence that the earth is young,” creation, 1998, 20(3):19-21., an expert in the environmental fate of radioactive elements, identified 17 flaws in the isotope dating reported in just three widely respected seminal papers that supposedly established the age of the earth at 4. the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14c "clock is not possible., a stable carbon isotope, 13c , is measured as an indication of the level of discrimination against 14c.. fisher, “excess rare gases in a subaerial basalt in nigeria,” nature, 1970, 232:60-61. one thing that is not being directly measured is the actual age of the sample. a speck of radioactive element such as uranium-238, for example, will leave a sphere of discoloration of characteristically different radius for each element it produces in its decay chain to lead-206. presumably, the laboratories know that anomalous dates are common, so they need some check on whether they have obtained a “good” date. unlike common carbon (12c), 14c is unstable and slowly decays, changing it back to nitrogen and releasing energy. it is usually assumed, without justification, that the original quantity of pb-206 in the rock was zero. to complete the subscription process, please click the link in the email we just sent you.[6] such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for example, very discordant “dates” for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.

Radiometric Dating | Answers in Genesis

the chance of it decaying is not definite, by human standards, and is similar to the chance of rolling a particular number on a dice. these techniques, unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains. “false isochrons” are so common that a whole terminology has grown up to describe them, such as apparent isochron, mantle isochron, pseudoisochron, secondary isochron, inherited isochron, erupted isochron, mixing line and mixing isochron. that is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are.[15] this excess appears to have come from the upper mantle, below the earth's crust. involved with unrecorded history gather information in the present and construct stories about the past. only makes sense with a time-line beginning with the creation week thousands of years ago. the concentration of a parent radioactive isotope, such as rubidium-87, is graphed against the concentration of a daughter isotope, such as strontium-87, for all the samples. isochron technique involves collecting a number of rock samples from different parts of the rock unit being dated. in the same way, one u-238 atom is unpredictable, but a sample containing many millions of u-238 atoms will be very predictable. happens statistically is that half of the available atoms will have decayed in a given period, specific to each radioactive species, called the half-life.[3] this would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age. observing how fast u-238 decays into lead-206, we can calculate the half-life of u-238. it is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today. forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for submission with samples to be dated commonly ask how old the sample is expected to be. this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.

More Bad News for Radiometric Dating

if we look at some of the very small zircon crystals in granite, we can accurately measure how much u-238 and pb-206 the crystal contains. this effectively combines the two uranium-lead decay series into one diagram. ultimately date the earth historically using the chronology of the bible. it is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. coal is an obvious candidate because the youngest coal is supposed to be millions of years old, and most of it is supposed to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old. now the polonium has to get into the rock before the rock solidifies, but it cannot derive a from a uranium speck in the solid rock, otherwise there would be a uranium halo. so, we have a “clock” which starts ticking the moment something dies. it is for this reason that creationists question radiometric dating methods and do not accept their results. techniques, such as the use of isochrons,[17] make different assumptions about starting conditions, but there is a growing recognition that such “foolproof” techniques can also give “bad” dates. cannot prove the age of the earth using a particular scientific method, any more than evolutionists can. accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. on the inaccuracies found using the Carbon-14 dating method, and the various other radioactive dating methods. isotopes are unstable and will decay into more stable isotopes of other elements. the only possible conclusion, therefore, is that the half-life of u-238 has not been constant throughout the lifetime of the granite and its zircon crystals. the sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. he lives in pensacola, florida with his wife tanya and three children and remains excited about the tremendous opportunity to lead an apologetics ministry in the war against evolution and humanism.

На главную страницу Sitemap