Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions | Answers in
What are some problems with radiometric dating methods
the k-t tektites were ejected into the atmosphere and deposited some distance away. they know that when they look at the andromeda galaxy, they are seeing it as it was 2. when scientists first began to compare carbon dating data to data from tree rings, they found carbon dating provided "too-young" estimates of artifact age. for example, if they believed it would take 200 million years for an ammonite (somehow) to turn gradually into say a dog, then all rocks containing fossil ammonites (the “index fossil”) would be given an “age” 200 million years older than rocks containing fossils of dogs:“… the geological column and approximate ages of all the fossil-bearing strata were all worked out long before anyone ever heard or thought about radioactive dating … there are so many sources of possible error or misinterpretation in radiometric dating that most such dates are discarded and never used at all, notably whenever they disagree with the previously agreed-on [index fossil] dates. i appreciate your patience and gracious replies to some of the posts here.. woodmorappe, the mythology of modern dating methods (san diego, ca: institute for creation research, 1999). if this occurs, initial volcanic eruptions would have a preponderance of daughter products relative to the parent isotopes. clearly, it is important to have a good understanding of these processes in order to evaluate the reliability of radiometric dating. the irony is joseph stalin of soviet union fame decided mendelian/darwinian theory had to replaced with something else, because the christian west (usa, great britain, etc. yet there are no very old, widely expanded (stage 3) snrs, and few moderately old (stage 1) ones in our galaxy, the milky way, or in its satellite galaxies, the magellanic clouds. beware of the conclusions of secular scientists who reject the truth of god’s word and lean to their own understanding. third, the radiometric ages agree, within analytical error, with the relative positions of the dated ash beds as determined by the geologic mapping and the fossil assemblages; that is, the ages get older from top to bottom as they should. for example:As you say, these are arguments, not measurements, as is every age calculation. this would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. all reptiles grow from the time they are born till the time they die,meaning reptiles would have been much greater in size do to there age. illustrates the whole problem with the radioactive dating of geological events. me a break, i’ll comment on your post:The article you rely on and your own ‘education’ and ‘reasoning’ are laughable to begin with.- here somethings that always bothered me… if evolution were true wouldn’t our brains be just the right size or maybe slightly less than we currently need? all age results using isotopes and other scientific methods only make observations in the present and are based on assumptions. we don’t live in the year 2 billion and something. these methods provide valuable and valid age data in most instances, although there is a small percentage of cases in which even these generally reliable methods yield incorrect results. amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere affects the amount of 14c produced and therefore dating the system. usually determinations of age are repeated to avoid laboratory errors, are obtained on more than one rock unit or more than one mineral from a rock unit in order to provide a cross-check, or are evaluated using other geologic information that can be used to test and corroborate the radiometric ages.), fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are. after this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1. and anyway, each tree covers just a hundred years or so, which means that the log samples are first ordered by carbon dating.’s three independent ways now we can test radiometric decay, and all of them involve human observers and eliminate your objections. so they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4. this is a little off topic but just wanted to share that. we can see that many varieties of minerals are produced from the same magma by the different processes of crystallization, and these different minerals may have very different compositions. that solar eclipses are some magical revelation that has meaning beyond what it really is. 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. it comes to measuring the ages of things, we are told that there are a dozen different radioactive dating methods and that they all give the same answer.
What are two problems with radiocarbon dating
although both parties are very talented at proving ones own theory by disproving the oppostion, as is always the case in politics and science, no side of the argument is capable of denying the other with irrefutable evidence! so geologists research how other geologists have interpreted the other rocks in the area in order to find out what sort of dates they would expect. a number of processes could cause the parent substance to be depleted at the top of the magma chamber, or the daughter product to be enriched, both of which would cause the lava erupting earlier to appear very old according to radiometric dating, and lava erupting later to appear younger. radioactive dating results are reported all the time and, on their own, there is no way of knowing what they mean. radiocarbon dating only can go back 50,000yrs, there are many other dating methods used. are many arguments which are obviously on very shaky ground. are actually proving my point: that no scientist will accept any age if it disagrees with what he thinks it should be. perhaps those that spend so much time and effort coming up with all sorts of arguments to prove the bible wrong and that god doesn’t exist - (which thereby does free them to do whatever they want but also takes away any real hope for a future except death) - perhaps those should put some equal time into studying what the scriptures really say and all the evidence for a loving and intelligent creator. is it possible that, in fact, you merely believe things that were written in a book somewhere by someone you have never met who claims to have been an eyewitness to a rock as it exists today, despite not being an eyewitness to that rock a billion years ago.: it would be nice if you could present some evidence or reason for your opinion. in their minds, the key is the way the results are interpreted. snelling, “the failure of u-th-pb 'dating' at koongarra, australia,” cen technical journal, 1995, 9(1):71-92. 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. i will guess you are not trained in watch technology and used some other source for your information. we know the exact day of this eruption because pliny the younger carefully recorded the event. as i am sure you are aware radioactive carbon 14 is formed by the action of solar radiation on nitrogen in the atmosphere. made me think of another possibility that i thought i might share. are matters of history such as origins open to scientific 'proof? did the disagreement cause the researchers to doubt the dating methods? any radiometric dates that show a supposedly “old” rock to be young are rejected for no other reason:“few people realize that the index fossil dating system, despite its poor assumptions and many problems, is actually the primary dating tool for geologic time.. hunziker, editors, lectures in isotope geology, “u-th-pb dating of minerals,” by d. as i have said in past postings, radiometric dating is supported by multiple measures (multiple times of the same and different elements). one rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14c, or radiocarbon. in most instances, these efforts are flawed because the authors have misunderstood or misrepresented the data they attempt to analyze (for example, woodmorappe 1979; morris hm 1985; morris jd 1994).. “after carefully collecting and preparing the rock samples the geologist sends them to various laboratories for analysis. in fact, those who use carbon-14 for dating things know that assumption is not true, so they have developed ‘calibration’ curves using other ‘dating’ methods. we end up with part of an entire generation who fall behind their peers, are largely mocked by less ignorant cultures and contribute to the growing mediocrity of the u. it is used to refine and radiocarbon dating up to that amount of time. 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. there even a single dating method that shows the earth is 6000 years old? another issue, one of the biggest problem for creationists is that radiocarbon data agrees with tree-ring data (and ‘absolute’method of dating) well back to 10,000 years ago, so nullifying all arguments that radio-carbon dating is fundamentally flawed. in our search for truth we need to understand where we came from and why we are here. radiocarbon dating is not infallible, but dendrochronology is extremely reliable and dates back 8,000yrs in the southwest and in europe it has been used up to 10,000yrs.
More Bad News for Radiometric Dating
The Radiometric Dating Game
ash beds from each of these coals have been dated by 40ar/39ar, k-ar, rb-sr, and u-pb methods in several laboratories in the us and canada. these long time periods are computed by measuring the ratio of daughter to parent substance in a rock, and inferring an age based on this ratio. and when it is tested there are often problems and historical dates always have precedence over carbon ‘dates’. 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. scientists have concluded that it is not; it is instead a consequence of the fact that radiometric dating actually works and works quite well. it is, in fact, becoming more dangerous to do so as parents with errant beliefs and a distrust of science are passing this ignorance along to their children. these problems are discussed in this response to roger wiens. i missed someone’s comments to this effect please accept my apologies… i couldn’t stomach reading everything above. they said the different ages are because the huge pluton cooled slowly over millions of years and the different minerals were affected in different ways. i can recall us students being somewhat stunned and no one had any come-back questions or debated the issue with him, as he is a geologist with extensive practical experience. would you doubt that tree rings evidence convergence with radiometrics can be disputed by claiming the tree rings don’t represent seasonality. however, with radiometric dating, the different techniques often give quite different results. anti-creationists, if you think that the bible and the people who follow it are so stupid and uneducated, then why do you argue with them? and the events in the bible read like they are accurately recorded because they record the heroes of the faith “warts and all”. carbon dating would be more like a runner running in a straight line. but even if it is true that older radiometric dates are found lower down in the geologic column (which is open to question), this can potentially be explained by processes occurring in magma chambers which cause the lava erupting earlier to appear older than the lava erupting later. the second thing is that some of the results have been repeated using the same technique, which is another check against analytical errors. as for me i firmly believe that carbon dating is untrustworthy as their assumptions are laughable. you follow some of the links you will see that these effects have not been ignored.” the mere use of this phrase implies the lack of understanding of the processes involved when dealing with various methods of direct dating. as a result, this method is not used except in rare and highly specialized applications. all dating methods that support this theory are embraced, while any evidence to the contrary, e. but they omit discussion of the basic flaw in the method: you cannot measure the age of a rock using radioactive dating because you were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and you did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history. witness accounts are essential to recording credible evidence of history. are 3 important things to know about the ages in table 1. a straight line is drawn through these points, representing the ratio of the parent:daughter, from which a date is calculated. 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). the replies from some of the commentators have been … disappointing. of these methods are accurate only back to the last global catastrophe (i. 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. the 40ar/39ar technique, which is now used instead of k-ar methods for most studies, has the capability of automatically detecting, and in many instances correcting for, the presence of excess 40ar, should it be present. christian geologists have shown that mainstream geology evolution/geologicial column subscibers support data, theories & methods etc that are questionable to say the least and not water tight. “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.
Absolute dating - Wikipedia
Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating | The Institute for Creation
and fractionation issues are frankly acknowledged by the geologic community. 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. in practice, geologists carefully select what rocks they will date, and have many explanations for discordant dates, so it's not clear how such a study could be done, but it might be a good project for creationists. their admissions of no eyewitnesses are enough to lead one to presume that these stories have been embellished. are soon outmatched and respond by condemning everyone to hell. have explained why there is a coherent story; the final step in the dating methods involves “explain how your results are consistent with all previous work”. dating tells us that the sun is billions of years old. other testimony that these are eyewitness accounts are by paul (1 cor 15:5–9), peter (1 peter 1:16–18), and john (1 john 1:1–2). your arguments have no research, you have a biased opinion because of your faith, and are not willing to look at the truth, only your version of it. the dna science that is used to convict or exonerate someone in a court of law is the same science used to track the changes in dna in humans over time. other methods scientists use include counting rock layers and tree rings. summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. god was creating the universe and earth is it not possible that the universe was very small, at least compared to what we see now? are many arguments which are obviously on very shaky ground. 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. also many people are familiar with sayings such as ‘in my fathers day’. furthermore, sometimes when we produce a series of articles or reports, we briefly summarize or recap the preceeding ones at the beginning of the new section, to tie them together in correct order. some are from primitive asteroids whose material is little modified since they formed from the early solar nebula. so much of modern life has been made possible through science, of which we are all beneficiaries., carbon dating can be tested against historical artifacts, but we don’t have reliably dated artifacts beyond about 2½ to 3½ thousand years ago. and yet the results are the same within analytical error. carbon dating is not like a clock, and nowhere in the laws of physics does it say that it is impossible to measure time without knowing the start time. its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. the half-life of carbon-14 makes it unreliable for dating fossils over about 50,000 years old, there are other isotopes scientists use to date older artifacts. are many other flaws in the arguments, but these are the most obvious. all they indicate is that the methods are not infallible. radioactive dating results are reported all the time and, on their own, there is no way of knowing what they mean.. “when enough dates have been recorded in the pre-conceived time frame these are calculated & assigned a certain date +/- an acceptable degree of error (e. if we have been around for more years than the bible says then we are a pretty stupid race judging by what has happened in the past 100 years. are various other radiometric dating methods used today to give ages of millions or billions of years for rocks. because of their importance, meteorites have been extensively dated radiometrically; the vast majority appear to be 4. those of us who have developed and used dating techniques to solve scientific problems are well aware that the systems are not perfect; we ourselves have provided numerous examples of instances in which the techniques fail. you look at both sides of this argument they are both to the extreme.
How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods
Radiometric Dating | The Institute for Creation Research
the topic of radiometric dating always seems to stir up a lively emotional debate. 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. presumably, the laboratories know that anomalous dates are common, so they need some check on whether they have obtained a “good” date. two extensive studies done more than 25 years ago involved analyzing the isotopic composition of argon in such flows to determine if the source of the argon was atmospheric, as must be assumed in k-ar dating (dalrymple 1969, 26 flows; krummenacher 1970, 19 flows). if you turn around i can say it teleported somewhere else. dating cannot be used on most fossils, not only because they are almost always allegedly too old, but also because they rarely contain the original carbon of the organism that has been fossilized. results that lie on the concordia curve have the same age according to the two lead series and are called “concordant. 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. ever talk to one of your old friends about something that happened in your childhoods, but you both remember completely differently? that is, they are made to agree with the prevailing big-picture story. although the half-life of some of them are more consistent with the evolutionary worldview of millions to billions of years, the assumptions used in radiometric dating put the results of all radiometric dating methods in doubt.. is a meteorologist and creationist scientist who writes, and when it comes to dating any individual rock today, the resulting “date” is forced to conform to predetermined evolutionist “dates” based on these imaginary 19th century index-fossil “dates”. your “search for truth” comment in an earlier post are you open and willing to except the possibility that there is no god or intelligent designer? such failures may be due to laboratory errors (mistakes happen), unrecognized geologic factors (nature sometimes fools us), or misapplication of the techniques (no one is perfect). who ask about carbon-14 (14c) dating usually want to know about the radiometric dating methods that are claimed to give millions and billions of years—carbon dating can only give thousands of years. yes, believing in a young earth sometimes takes faith but not near as much faith as it takes to believe in evolution. when you say they are “obviously on shaky ground” i simply take that as code for, “i don’t agree with the assumptions. there are so many complicated phenomena to consider like this that it calls the whole radiometric dating scheme into question. if any one of them were wrong, then all are wrong. some meteorites, because of their mineralogy, can be dated by more than one radiometric dating technique, which provides scientists with a powerful check of the validity of the results. not to mention that all “facts” about astronomy are derived from equations based on observations and extrapolations. this would make things look much older than they really are when current rates of decay are applied to dating. i think what tas was trying to get accross is all of our guesswork on the history of the universe is based on assumptions - no one was there to witness it … therefore there’s reason enough to question the status quo of geological history / scientific methods, which is very much embedded in society & educational standards. some use the term ‘radio-metric dating’ but i don’t like it because, as the article explains, the method is not measuring age. other creationists have focused on instances in which radiometric dating seems to yield incorrect results. the short half-life of carbon-14 means it cannot be used to date fossils that are allegedly extremely old, e. creationist geologists consider that the bible records the true history of the earth and that the rocks are less than 6,000 years old. did this cause the researchers to doubt the radioactive dating methods? in 1997 a team of scientists from the berkeley geochronology center and the university of naples decided to see if the40ar/39ar method of radiometric dating could accurately measure the age of this very young (by geological standards) volcanic material. the common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. other ways are postulating different methods of formation of the moons and different histories. the fallout from this enormous impact, including shocked quartz and high concentrations of the element iridium, has been found in sedimentary rocks at more than 100 locations worldwide at the precise stratigraphic location of the cretaceous-tertiary (k-t) boundary (alvarez and asaro 1990; alvarez 1998). measuring the age of this impact event independently of the stratigraphic evidence is an obvious test for radiometric methods, and a number of scientists in laboratories around the world set to work.
Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale
these isotopes have longer half-lives and so are found in greater abundance in older fossils. on the inaccuracies found using the Carbon-14 dating method, and the various other radioactive dating methods. henry morris as follows:“index fossils” are types of fossil (such as ammonites and coelacanths) that 19th century european evolutionists of the victorian era claimed lived and died out many millions of years ago. certainly, you are free to pick and choose what you want to believe, but simply choosing what fits your beliefs doesn’t make you any less ignorant of reality. bottom line is if the creationists are right then all of science is wrong. so that even children who have been stultified by their parents will recognize that these are not reasons at all. blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized! 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). when the results for a number of rock samples are plotted on a graph and form a straight line, the researcher can calculate an age for the samples. important factor in radiometric dating is the concept that we have all these various elements for radiometric dating and why can’t they be used to validate one another? i think the evidence for catastrophe is overwhelming, but you can’t definitely prove the biblical worldview from the evidence because there are so many possibilities. possible confounding variables are the mechanisms that can alter daughter-to-parent ratios. if the earth were only 6000–10 000 years old, then surely there should be some scientific evidence to confirm that hypothesis; yet the creationists have produced not a shred of it so far. can take a sample of air, count how many 12c atoms there are for every 14c atom, and calculate the 14c/12c ratio. scientists who use radiometric dating typically use every means at their disposal to check, recheck, and verify their results, and the more important the results the more they are apt to be checked and rechecked by others. the assumptions are similar to the assumptions used in carbon dating. other words, the fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past.. the global flood of 2,348 bc) as global catastrophes reset all the radiometric/atomic “clocks” by invalidating the evolutionist’s main dating assumption that there have never been any global catastrophes. confounding factors such as contamination and fractionation issues are frankly acknowledged by the geologic community, but are not taken into consideration when the accuracy and validity of these dating methods are examined.”) you should be able to see where these assumptions are being made (see dating secrets). if the physics behind radiometric dating didn’t work, you wouldn’t be reading these words on a computer screen or smart phone right now. various other attempts were made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. are many examples where the dating methods give “dates” that are wrong for rocks of known age. oddly enough, if we were originally designed to live forever (the genesis account) we would need some place extraordinary to store all of those memories. how could all of this be so if the 40ar/39ar dating technique did not work? is not the only dating study to be done on an historic lava flow. 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. who do not like these young-age results will argue against the assumptions, which of course is arguing about something that can never be checked. 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. australia, some wood found the tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be seen from the charring. of course can only be used on geologically more recent items (the last few tens of thousands of years), but here’s the thing: we can use carbon dating on items which also have reliable historical dates from human history! luke the doctor carefully studied the events (luke 1:1–4), checking with eyewitnesses. biblical geology and uniformitarian geology are both based on assumptions about the past.
Radiometric Dating Does Work! | NCSE
strongly disagree with the “eye witnesses are the only reliable source” argument. walker responds: hi jaime, the article applies to all methods of dating, not just to carbon dating. 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. dating is used to determine the age of biological artifacts up to 50,000 years old. this age is computed under the assumption that the parent substance (say, uranium) gradually decays to the daughter substance (say, lead), so the higher the ratio of lead to uranium, the older the rock must be. as a result, it is nearly impossible to be completely fooled by a good set of radiometric age data collected as part of a well-designed experiment. illustration i use to explain the assumptions made in terms of the age of the earth:Imagine i take a jug to fill a glass of water, and somebody enters the room just as the last few drops fall into the glass. is rare for a study involving radiometric dating to contain a single determination of age. you found a very primitive little hut made of sticks constructed in the middle of what you thought was an uninhabited island you would conclude that some intelligent being had constructed it - you would not ever think that the sticks came together and were tied together with vines to form a roof and walls by coincidence from the wind! lowe, “problems associated with the use of coal as a source of 14c free background material,” radiocarbon, 1989, 31:117-120. the general public i say: don’t be afraid of considering alternatives to what is taught in school on these matters … as we can see, there’s two sides to the story and the alternatives are more logical and scientific than you may have originally thought possible! the first is that each meteorite was dated by more than one laboratory — allende by 2 laboratories, guarena by 2 laboratories, and st severin by four laboratories. as for radiometric dating,you only assume that there exists a constant half life, and that there have been no flux in the atoms of daughter or parent atoms. there could be some vital bit of yet undiscovered information that changes everything, requiring theories to be revised or replaced. as always although it is neccessary to have an opposing stance in terms of the hegelian concepts and to prevent a galileo senario, i feel that belief systems on both side of the fence always seem to ‘get in the way’ of positive collaboration of reviewing and revising on methods, so called facts, scales and times etc. 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. if we reverse the process to find the age of an alleged rock, the geologist takes his rock to the paleontologist, and the paleontologist goes to the same exact chart and looks for the “index fossil(s)” that normally are found in those rock layers. since no one was around for the creation and all dating methods rely on a degree of assumption, none would not satisfy the evidence standard in a court of law. results of the manson impact/pierre shale dating study (izett and others 1998) are shown in figure 1. other words, there is a good case that the biblical record of historical events is vastly more reliable than the speculations of modern academics who were not there to see what happened and whose conclusions are driven by their secular ideology. you are going to use that argument how would you be able to understand anything that was written in the past? for other systems the isotopic proportions are definitely not reset. they are correct or wrong about the age of earth conforming to their religeous beliefs, christian geologists have shown many anomolies, contradictions and innacuracies in the methods and concepts that evolutionary geologists widely accept as fact and have used to support their theories! dating of rocks and minerals using naturally occurring, long-lived radioactive isotopes is troublesome for young-earth creationists because the techniques have provided overwhelming evidence of the antiquity of the earth and life. whether you choose to believe in the latest estimates of science or in the story recorded in the bible you are accepting some things on faith. it is called “interpreting the results” and involves changing ones assumptions about the past until all the results are consistent. 79 ce mt vesuvius flow, the dating of which is described above, also contained excess 40ar. curiously, rings formed by polonium decay are often found embedded in crystals without the parent uranium halos. radiometric dating is generally restricted to cases where rocks have been melted and reformed (e. because the bible is reliable and historically verifiable, we consider it scientifically valid to interpret the radioactive dating results within the biblical scenario. where did you get the idea that they are based on oral tradition? the dating is calibrated against how long the carbon 14 takes to decay in a certain known period. 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.
Carbon-14, Radiometric Dating - CSI
Radioactivity - Is it a problem with radiometric dating that carbon 14 is
i’m not sure whether all scientists (or adherents to their theories) would admit to it, but they too are putting their faith, so to speak, in incomplete facts and theory to some degree. find it odd that you are perfectly happy to utilize the science that was necessary to create the watch you describe, but just as happy to discard the science used to determine the age of the earth. 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. the problems inherent in radiometric dating often cause them to be so unreliable that they contradict one another rather than validating each other. numerous thin beds of volcanic ash occur within these coals just centimeters above the k-t boundary, and some of these ash beds contain minerals that can be dated radiometrically. if you blindly accept the theory of evolution, you are in danger of believing a fairytale for grownups called the theory of evolution. this rules out carbon dating for most aquatic organisms, because they often obtain at least some of their carbon from dissolved carbonate rock. also, many fossils are contaminated with carbon from the environment during collection or preservation procedures. (which by the way if they read their bibles at all instead of spouting whatever nonsense some fire and brimstone preacher told them they would know they cannot and should not do). control leader margaret sanger: darwinist, racist and eugenicistthe age of the jenolan caves, australiaa challenge to traditional cultural anthropology more…. is no different from the ‘criticism’ you apply to radiometric dating. this human nuclear activity will make precise dating of fossils from our lifetime very difficult due to contamination of the normal radioisotope composition of the earth with addition artificially produced radioactive atoms. the chemistry and physics that cause the changes in the dna of a virus, bacteria, fly, toad, human or blue whale are the same. understand that we can measure whether stars are moving towards us or away from us, but can we measure whether the light from those stars is moving towards us or away from us? “when the geologist wants to study and date a particular rock strata they first go to the relevant geological map to find what date has been assigned to the area under study. dating in many cases seriously embarrasses evolutionists by giving ages that are much younger than those expected from their model of early history. this is extremely powerful verification of the validity of both the theory and practice of radiometric dating. accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. stated previously, carbon dating cannot be used on artifacts over about 50,000 years old. wood from a quarry near the town of banbury, england, some 80 miles north-west of london, was dated using the carbon-14 method. isochron dating, which specifically eliminates the need to know the original ratio of parent and daughter products in a rock. but i do agree with the creationists in this case because radiometric dating is seemingly unreliable. it is far more “rational” to believe that all the order that we see around us was created than to believe that somehow the random chaotic nothingness magically produced it — by itself, even though it was nothingness and random chaos. or are we just smart apes that look different and have completely different make up to the others? creationists seem to think that a few examples of incorrect radiometric ages invalidate all of the results of radiometric dating, but such a conclusion is illogical. it is possible that the ratio of daughter to parent substances for radiometric dating could differ in the different minerals. all bases must be covered if we are going to accurately time the race., 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. after all the bible claims things that are impossible (according to physics). message is - the evidence is clear that radio metrics are a reliable and objective measure … unless you are proposing that scientists cheat or that “the devil” makes the radiometrics coincide. the bottom line is if the creationists are right then all of science is wrong. second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (k-ar and 40ar/39ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. while there are many problems with such dating methods, such as parent or daughter substances entering or leaving the rock, e.
When to meet the parents dating
Carbon Dating: Why you cant trust it or other radiometric dating
since then i must confess i’ve read things that are hard to accept and or understand but never a contradiction or untruth. the dating methods are an objective and reliable means of determining ages, they should agree. i prefer the term ‘radioactive dating’ because people have an impression of what that is. the filling in of these forms are compulsory for radiometric testing to be carried out. every child today knows that when they look at the stars they are seeing them as they were when those particular photons first started propagating across the universe. they have no problems with these facts because they are simply data. it is these studies, and the many more like them documented in the scientific literature, that the creationists need to address before they can discredit radiometric dating. theories and opinions are designed to shackle people to an ancient theory that has long been proven incorrect. even though modern physics and logic suggest things that happened in the bible are impossible, i happen to believe that they did indeed happen the way bible said they did. dating is used on organic objects only, so the fact that your whole example is based on inorganic rocks and radio carbon dating only suggests that you do not know with any detail or understanding the topic that you are discussing. previous commenters like steve have already pointed out, both evolutionist and creationist scientists aren’t very effective when it comes to dating things. for since the creation of the world god's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. it is also common to sometimes put our names near the begging of a business letter or a book, in the letterhead or the cover or front pages of a book. we learned the assumptions, theories and principles behind the varied radiometric dating methods and the mathematics behind these calculations. in order to accomplish their goal of discrediting radiometric dating, however, creationists are faced with the daunting task of showing that a preponderance of radiometric ages are wrong — that the methods are untrustworthy most of the time. 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. would you doubt that tree rings evidence convergence with radiometrics can be disputed by claiming the tree rings don’t represent seasonality. radioactive dating results are reported all the time and, on their own, there is no way of knowing what they mean. example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of australopithecus ramidus fossils. they call eyewitnesses who are required to report what they saw and heard and not what they think or suppose or what someone else thought. interesting insights are likely to come from such a group. creationists who wants to dispute the conclusion that primitive meteorites, and therefore the solar system, are about 4. 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 completely wrong because you are using a strawmans arguement. using mother daughter methods it is possible to date rocks that solidified out of their molten state billions of years ago. for example, after extensive testing over many years, it was concluded that uranium-helium dating is highly unreliable because the small helium atom diffuses easily out of minerals over geologic time. a scenario does not answer all of the questions or solve all of the problems that radiometric dating poses for those who believe the genesis account of creation and the flood. in reality, all dating methods, including those that point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions. whatever process was responsible for the halos could be a key also to understanding radiometric dating. other dating techniques, like k-ar (potassium-argon and its more recent variant 40ar/39ar), rb-sr (rubidium-strontium), sm-nd (samarium-neodynium), lu-hf (lutetium-hafnium), and u-pb (uranium-lead and its variant pb-pb), have all stood the test of time. get the impression that you are just inventing ideas with a view to preserving the concept of millions-of-years. can identify those systems that have come into existence through intelligent design and those that are the product of natural processes. tektites are easily recognizable and form in no other way, so the discovery of a sedimentary bed (the beloc formation) in haiti that contained tektites and that, from fossil evidence, coincided with the k-t boundary provided an obvious candidate for dating.