Skip to comments.Radiometric Dating: Back to Basics (does it really prove the Earth is millions of years old?)
Posted on 06/18/2009 8:48:47 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Radiometric dating is often used to prove rocks are millions of years old. Once you understand the basic science, however, you can see how wrong assumptions lead to incorrect dates.
Most people think that radioactive dating has proven the earth is billions of years old. After all, textbooks, media, and museums glibly present ages of millions of years as fact.
Yet few people know how radiometric dating works or bother to ask what assumptions drive the conclusions. So lets take a closer look and see how reliable this dating method really is...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
I do need a good laugh..
All of metrology uses certain assumptions. It is a field bound by limitations on methodolgy and accuracy. When used as a tool to “prove” something it will frequently be misused. Fact is the data are the data ——interpretation is everything
As soon as you show us **exactly**, with verified peer-reviewed physical evidence, where on planet earth is (or was).
Thanks for the daily laugh!
And I assume, of course, that you don’t have a smoke detector in your house. Who would trust their well being to the flaky, unpredictable nature of radioactive decay?
Not a valid dating method- too manyvariables must be taken into account- too many suppositions
Up to 10000 years tops
Radiometric Dating Methods
problems with radiometic http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html
Obsidian Hydration Dating
Many obsidians are crowded with microlites and crystallines (gobulites and trichites), and these form fission-track-like etch pits following etching with hydrofluoric acid. The etch pits of the microlites and crystallines are difficult to separate from real fission tracks formed from the spontaneous decay of 238U, and accordingly, calculated ages based on counts including the microlite and crystalline etch pits are not reliable.
Very little info on this method
Luminescence Dating Methods
Amino Acid Racemization
At best- the two methods above are only accurate to about 11,000 years due to numerous conditions and environmental uncertainties
Highly unreliable- you’d need constant temps to maintaIN reliable growth pattersn http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/coral_reef.asp
Known times only throuhg analysis of the patina
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio
Electron Spin Resonance
Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating
Closely related to the buggiest dating methods of Carbon dating
When discussing evolution, they argue that speciation cannot be assumed because no one has ever verified that change happened.
When discussing radiometrics they argue that decay rates cannot be assumed to be constant because no can verify that change has not happened.
Can’t wait—this will be amusing. Can you post the bibliography that the author has provided so we can do some advance reading?
The entire series has been peer reviewed, right?
I would like to see the what if held up to the same observation and testing standards.
Thanks for the additional links, CottShop!
But it’s such an awesome plot device!
“I would like to see the what if held up to the same observation and testing standards.”
My son is a Nuke on a US Navy submarine. If the decay rate of the uranium in it’s reactor core ever changes significantly he’s dead meat. If it slows down, they’re left without power. If it speeds up it will melt the containment. Should I tell him to get the hell off that boat?
Radiometric dating is geological Cachexia.
> The entire series has been peer reviewed, right?
Do you mean like Global Warming and Piltdown Man?
No, because radioactive decay can only change when it is required to bolster a theological argument.
To begin with, radiometric dating isn't as a method - rather, it's a whole slew of methods, which in many cases can be used to corroborate each other. (E.g. the obsidian hydration analysis of a stone tool might comport well with the Carbon-14 dating of the wooden heft the obsidian was attached to.
Secondly, some of the techniques referred to here (dendrochronology, etc.) are NOT radiometric in nature, but rather are based upon entirely different principles.
The Earth is Billions of years old.