Think, that could radiometric dating be wrong are

Here I want to concentrate on another source of error, namely, processes that take place within magma chambers. To me it has been a real eye opener to see all the processes that are taking place and their potential influence on radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is largely done on rock that has formed from solidified lava. Lava properly called magma before it erupts fills large underground chambers called magma chambers. Most people are not aware of the many processes that take place in lava before it erupts and as it solidifies, processes that can have a tremendous influence on daughter to parent ratios.

One reason is that the half-lives of some elements vary under certain circumstances. Important to understand, however, is that in almost all cases, to my knowledge, this variance is very minor and doesn't even apply to the elements used in radiometric dating -certainly not to a degree that calls into question its accuracy.

As Wikipedia writes. In 7Be, a difference of 0. And as we read on TalkOrigins. This is despite experiments that attempt to change decay rates.

Could radiometric dating be wrong

It's funny to watch creationists point out the variance of certain decay rates-as if they're the first ones to figure this out or something, as if the experts in the field who use these dating methods have never considered the possibility of variance or other sources of inaccuracy, and when the creationist points out this possibility, the scientists are just dumbstruck by the brilliance of this point.

No, nobody knows more about potential sources of error in radiometric dating than the people who regularly use these dating methods.

I always find it amusing when ignorant laymen try to lecture scientists about their own field of expertise. I'm reminded of a recent episode of Star Talk where they had a climatologist on as a guest. She noted that climate-change deniers will argue against global warming by pointing out that climate has varied in the past, and she was like: "Yeah, we know: We're the ones that told you this.

Something similar is going on here with radiometric dating: The experts who study this topic extensively point out that sometimes, slight variability is observed in the decay rates of certain elements; creationists seize upon this and they're like: "Aha!

What do ya think about this? In fact, that's actually my research that you're citing. Creationists will also argue that several scientific findings prove that radiometric dating is unreliable. One such finding is that the age of rocks known through observation doesn't actually match up with the radiometrically dated age of rocks. We're told the following in a YouTube video posted by Genesis Apologetics:.

Let us explain. Consider Mount St Helens: This volcano erupted in the s, giving scientists the opportunity to date the rocks that were formed from the eruption. The results? Five different ages, all betweenand 2. It sounds like pretty powerful evidence when you first hear about it, but the obvious question that needs to be asked is: How trustworthy is the science behind these findings?

It turns out that this research is deeply flawed. Kevin R. Henke published a devastating critique of this research on the aptly-named NoAnswersInGenesis. One crucial mistake that these creationists made was using the wrong equipment to date their sample.

As Henke writes. With less advanced equipment, 'memory effects' can be a problem with very young samples. That is, very tiny amounts of argon contaminants from previous analyses may remain within the equipment, which precludes accurate dates for very young samples. For older samples, which contain more 40Ar, the contamination is diluted and has insignificant effects. Because all but one of the dates [measured by Austin et al].

Henke points out that:. Austin's descriptions in the following statements clearly indicate that he FAILED to adequately separate the phenocrysts and possible xenocrysts from the volcanic glass. Austin admits:. So as we can see, there's no good reason to believe that this Mount St Helens rock-age data proves anything more than the incompetency of creationist researchers. I think I actually have an idea of what went wrong here: these creationists, at the outset of their study, had a very good plan in place for how to conduct rigorous analysis on this question; in the course of their research, however, they ended up dropping this plan into the volcanoso they just said "Fuck it" and decided to wing it from that point on.

More examples of similar such discrepancies are cited in a lecture given by creationist Andrew Snelling. During his lecture, he shows this slide which features five examples of the known ages of rocks not matching up with the dated ages of rocks.

Notice that four of the examples show a radiometric age of less than half a million years with the fifth example showing an age of about 1. These dates are perfectly in line with the dates we saw in the Mount St Helens study; so perhaps the explanation is, yet again, residual equipment contamination, or foreign rock intrusion?

Rather than the dating techniques being flawed, perhaps it's this research that's flawed? Snelling says the following in his lecture :. The answer is we can't. Or maybe we can if we simply use the correct equipment and remove foreign particles from the sample to minimize contamination? And recall that, as Henke pointed out, this problem of equipment contamination is unique to younger rocks; if we're dealing with rocks that are hundreds of millions of years old, the trace amounts of leftover argon adding a million years or so to the sample is going to have only the tiniest effect on the dated age of the rock.

Let's say the rock is million years old and the trace argon makes it appear million years old; relatively speaking, on a geological timescale, this difference is so minor as to be virtually inconsequential. By the way, I love the potted plants that Snelling has on stage in front of him.

I don't know why, but I kinda like it. It really livens the place up. And why just stop at plants, while we're at it? Why not have a tortoise or a cockatoo just sort of hanging out on stage with you when you give your lecture? This is the future of public speaking, ladies and gentlemen.

speaking, you should

The model K-Ar ages for each of the samples ranged from Furthermore, the seven samples from the small amphibolite unit near Clear Creek, which should all be the same age because they belong to the same metamorphosed basalt lava flow, yielded K-Ar model ages ranging from So basically, samples from one section of rock yielded wildly divergent results.

Greg Neyman of Old Earth Ministries-a Christian organization, I might add-points out the very simple problem underlying this study:.

No "Age-Meter"

So, what do the [creationist researchers do? So what the creationist is doing here is misapplying these dating techniques and then saying: "See! I told you we couldn't trust these dating techniques. I told you this stuff doesn't get you high. Try tearing out a page from your Bible and rolling a joint with that shit, and then come and talk to me. Creationists will also point to examples where freshly killed animals are carbon-dated as being thousands of years old-thus, we're told, these dating methods cannot be trusted.

For example, we read on CreationToday. A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1, years ago. Kieth and Anderson show considerable evidence that the mussels acquired much of their carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in and from some very old humus as well.

Carbon from these sources is very low in C because these sources are so old and have not been mixed with fresh carbon from the air. Thus, a freshly killed mussel has far less C than a freshly killed something else, which is why the C dating method makes freshwater mussels seem older than they really are.

When dating wood there is no such problem because wood gets its carbon straight from the air, complete with a full dose of C What about the freshly killed seal? As Talk Origins writes. The seals feed off of animals that live in a nutrient-rich upwelling zone.

The water that is upwelling has been traveling along the [ocean] bottom for a few thousand years before surfacing. The carbon dioxide in it came from the atmosphere before the water sank. Thus, the carbon in the sea water is a couple of thousand years 'old' from when it was in the atmosphere, and its radiocarbon content reflects this time.

In a supernova, the vast amount of energy released creates every known nuclide via atomic fusion and fission. Some of these nuclides are radioactive.

We can also detect the characteristic radiation signatures of radioactive decay in those nuclides. We can use that information to calculate the half-lives of those nuclides. In every case where this has been done, the measured radiation intensity and the calculated half-life of the nuclide from the supernova matches extremely well with measurements of that nuclide made here on Earth.

And when we look at a supernova in the Andromeda Galaxy, 2, years old, we see nuclides with the exact same half-lives as we see here on Earth. Not just one or two nuclides, but many. For these measurements to all be consistently wrong in exactly the same way, most scientists feel, is beyond the realm of possibility. What about nuclide ratios? Are they indeed constant?

Anyway, if isochrons producing meaningless ages can be produced by mixing, and this mixing cannot be detected if three (or maybe even two, with fractionation) sources are involved, and if mixing frequently occurs, and if simple parent-to-daughter dating also has severe problems, as mentioned earlier, then I would conclude that the reliability of radiometric dating is open to . Passionate Lola is sweet & very steamy entertainer whose seduction and energy will impress Could Radiometric Dating Be Wrong you. She is a true lady, loves to tease and flirt, and has an incredible butterfishny.com / Could Radiometric Dating Be Wrong promptness! NOTE: You Could Radiometric Dating Be Wrong have 24 hours from your requested appt time to pay the cancellation fee OR you will be PERMANENTLY BLOCKED & NOT CONSIDERED FOR APPTS IN THE FUTURE/

The chemical behavior of an element depends on its size and the number of electrons in its outer shell.

This is the foundation of the periodic table of the elements, a basic part of chemistry that has stood without challenge for a hundred and fifty years. The shell structure depends only on the number of electrons the nuclide has, which is the same as the number of protons in its nucleus. K39 is chemically identical to K40; the only way we can distinguish between them is to use a nonchemical technique like mass spectrometry. Water molecules containing oxygen are lighter and therefore evaporate faster than water molecules with oxygen However, as far as is known such fractionation occurs only with light nuclides: oxygen, hydrogen, carbon.

Sr86 atoms and Sr87 atoms behave identically when they bond with other atoms to form a mineral molecule. If there are ten Sr86 atoms for every Sr87 atom in the original magma melt, there will be ten Sr86 atoms for every Sr87 atom in the minerals that crystallize from that melt. Option 2: Criticize the Techniques. The only other possible source of error is in laboratory technique.

Creationists will also argue that several scientific findings prove that radiometric dating is unreliable. One such finding is that the age of rocks known through observation doesn't actually match up with the radiometrically dated age of rocks. We're told the following in a YouTube video posted by Genesis Apologetics. Radiometric Dating Is Not Inaccurate. Perhaps a good place to start this article would be to affirm that radiometric dating is not inaccurate. It is certainly incorrect, and it is certainly based on wrong assumptions, but it is not inaccurate. What do I mean? How can something be accurate and yet wrong? Oct 27,   Radiometric dating has been demonstrated to give wrong age estimates on rocks whose age is known. Yet, secularists continue to assume that it gives correct age estimates on rocks of unknown age.

To translate theory into useful measurements, the lab procedures must be accurate. A contaminated rock sample is useless for dating. A sample that is taken from the surface, where atoms could get in and out easily, is also useless.

Samples must be taken by coring, from deep within a rock mass. To date a rock, chemists must break it down into its component elements using any of several methods, then analyze nuclide ratios using a mass spectrometer. But we can try to minimize error. And when we do, the dates produced can be accepted as accurate. When samples taken from different parts of a given igneous rock formation are dated by different people at different labs over many years, the possibility that all those measurements could be wrong is vanishingly small.

Some may well be wrong.

pity, that can

If nine analyses agree, and a tenth produces radically different results, the odd-man-out is usually considered a result of some kind of error and discarded. And some radiometric techniques have a much better success ratio than that.

Creationist objections to radiometric dating techniques basically fall into three categories:. The assumptions that are used in radiometric dating techniques are perfectly justified given current physics.

Creationist geologist John Woodmorappe is the best known of the creationists who attempt this approach.

sounds tempting

Based on this, he claims that radiometric dating methods don't produce consistent results, that geologists conceal radiometric dates which don't match what's expected, and that therefore the whole methodology of radiometric dating is worthless. In an article for the creationist journal Creation Science Research QuarterlyWoodmorappe listed odd aberrant dates, and claimed that there are many, many more.

What he did not say is that those were winnowed out of tens of thousands of radiometric dates which do give more reasonable results. But if we run dating tests on 10, samples and get aberrant results 3.

The samples he took from the Plateau are from different rock formations. For any type of radiometric dating to work properly, all samples must come from the same formation.

But we have more than that. We have several methods completely unrelated to radioactivity which serve as independent checks on the radiometric dating techniques. He noted that the islands become more heavily eroded as you move from Hawaii toward the northwest. He interpreted this to mean that the islands become older as you move northwest along the chain. The islands do indeed become older as you move northwest.

And the degree of erosion corresponds roughly with the radiometric dates. No island in the chain is dated as being significantly older than the erosion rate implies, nor is any island in the chain dated as being significantly younger than the erosion rate indicates. Both modern corals and fossil corals deposit daily and annual growth bands.

By careful analysis of these bands, we can tell how many days there were in a year when the coral was growing. For modern corals, this technique yields day-bands per year, more or less, just as it should. For corals that grew in formations identified as Early Devonian, the technique shows a little over day-bands per year.

Assuming the rate of slowing has remained constant, a day-count of days per year indicates an age of roughly million years. And when Early Devonian rocks are dated radiometricallywe get dates of roughly million years.

Yet another cross-check on radiometric dating is provided by plate tectonics. There are several ways of measuring this movement that themselves have nothing to do with radiometric dating. The plate that forms the Pacific Ocean basin is moving northwest at at a known rate.

The Pacific Plate is moving; the hot spot remains fixed; and the result is a series of volcanic islands growing upward over the hot spot. Between Hawaii and Midway Island km northwest of Hawaii are some thirty volcanoes, active and extinct. Many of these volcanoes have had lava flows dated by the potassium-argon method.

In all these cases, the radiometric date agrees substantially with the date derived from extrapolation of plate motion. Particularly striking is the correlation for Midway Island itself. By drift rate it should be about 27 million years old.

By K- Ar dating, the volcanic rock that forms Midway's core is Two other island chains that are located over Pacific Plate hot spots show substantially similar patterns of motion to the Hawaiian Islands.

And their radiometric dates match as well. Three independent methods of dating these islands, and they all agree within acceptable ranges of error. What are the chances of all three being wrong in such ways as to produce the same wrong answer? One more example, just to wrap things up.

touching phrase

Olduvai Gorge is famous as one of the best sites in the world for early hominid fossils. They called this reversal the Olduvai Event.

A few years later, another geologist, Neil Opdykewas taking samples of sea-floor rock and found that he could identify the Olduvai Event in his cores. Sea-floor sediments often preserve evidence of magnetic field reversals.

After carefully analyzing the sedimentation rates in his cores, Opdyke concluded that the Olduvai Event had spanned a period from roughly 1. This tuff occurs near the bottom of the Olduvai Event. It was dated in using the potassium-argon method. The date produced was approximately 1. Far from being rickety constructs full of sources of error and ubutterfishny.comoven assumptions, radiometric dating techniques are actually on a very sound theoretical and procedural basis. To destroy that basis, creationists would have to destroy much of chemistry and a lot of atomic physics too.

The periodic table is the bedrock on which modern chemistry is built. The constancy of radioactive decay rates follows from quantum mechanics, which has also passed every test physicists can create. In short, everything we know in chemistry and in physics points to radiometric dating as being a viable and valuable method of calculating the ages of igneous and metamorphosed igneous rocks.

To question it seems to be beyond the bounds of reason. To charge thousands of chemists all over the world with mass incompetence also seems to be beyond the bounds of reason.

Why Carbon Dating Might Be in Danger

Radiometric dating has been used ever more widely for the past forty years. The dates produced have gotten steadily more precise as lab techniques and instrumentation has been improved. There is simply no logical reason to throw this entire field of science out the window. There is no reason to believe the theory is faulty, or to believe that thousands of different chemists could be so consistently wrong in the face of every conceivable test.

Further, radiometric dates can be checked by other dating techniques. When they are, the dates almost always agree within the range of expected error.

Creationists are forced to challenge radiometric dating because it stands as the most powerful and most damning evidence against their idea of a young Earth. But in the end, they are reduced to saying that "radiometric dating must be wrong, because we know it happened this way. If theory says it happened this way and evidence says it happened that way, theory must be revised to fit the evidence.

Nightfall, Inc. To answer this question, several creation geologists and physicists came together to form the RATE research initiative R adioisotopes and the A ge of T he E arth. This multi-year research project engaged in several different avenues of study, and found some fascinating results.

As mentioned above, the isochron method uses some mathematical techniques in an attempt to estimate the initial conditions and assess the closed-ness of the system.

However, neither it nor the model-age method allow for the possibility that radioactive decay might have occurred at a different rate in the past. In other words, all radiometric dating methods assume that the half-life of any given radioactive element has always been the same as it is today. If that assumption is false, then all radiometric age estimates will be unreliable.

commit error. Let's

As it turns out, there is compelling evidence that the half-lives of certain slow-decaying radioactive elements were much smaller in the past. This may be the main reason why radiometric dating often gives vastly inflated age estimates. First, a bit of background information is in order. Most physicists had assumed that radioactive half-lives have always been what they are today.

Many experiments have confirmed that most forms of radioactive decay are independent of temperature, pressure, external environment, etc. In other words, the half-life of carbon is years, and there is nothing you can do to change it. Given the impossibility of altering these half-lives in a laboratory, it made sense for scientists to assume that such half-lives have always been the same throughout earth history. But we now know that this is wrong. In fact, it is very wrong. More recently, scientists have been able to change the half-lives of some forms of radioactive decay in a laboratory by drastic amounts.

However, by ionizing the Rhenium removing all its electronsscientists were able to reduce the half-life to only 33 years!

In other words, the Rhenium decays over 1 billion times faster under such conditions. Thus, any age estimates based on Rhenium-Osmium decay may be vastly inflated. The RATE research initiative found compelling evidence that other radioactive elements also had much shorter half-lives in the past. Several lines of evidence suggest this. But for brevity and clarity, I will mention only one. This involves the decay of uranium into lead Unlike the potassium-argon decay, the uranium-lead decay is not a one-step process.

Rather, it is a step process. Uranium decays into thorium, which is also radioactive and decays into polonium, which decays into uranium, and so on, eventually resulting in lead, which is stable. Eight of these fourteen decays release an alpha-particle: the nucleus of a helium atom which consists of two protons and two neutrons. The helium nucleus quickly attracts a couple of electrons from the environment to become a neutral helium atom.

So, for every one atom of uranium that converts into lead, eight helium atoms are produced. Helium gas is therefore a byproduct of uranium decay. And since helium is a gas, it can leak through the rocks and will eventually escape into the atmosphere.

The RATE scientists measured the rate at which helium escapes, and it is fairly high. Therefore, if the rocks were billions of years old, the helium would have had plenty of time to escape, and there would be very little helium in the rocks.

However, the RATE team found that rocks have a great deal of helium within them. In fact, the amount of helium in the rocks is perfectly consistent with their biblical age of a few thousand years!

It is wildly inconsistent with billions of years. But the fact that such helium is present also indicates that a great deal of radioactive decay has happened; a lot of uranium atoms have decayed into lead, producing the helium.

Radiometric Dating - Is It Accurate?

At the current half-life of uranium, this would take billions of years. But if it actually took billions of years, then the helium would have escaped the rocks. The only reasonable explanation that fits all the data is that the half-life of uranium was much smaller in the past. That is, in the past, uranium transformed into lead much faster than it does today. The RATE team found similar evidence for other forms of radioactive decay. Apparently, during the creation week and possibly during the year of the global flood, radioactive decay rates were much faster than they are today.

The RATE team also found that the acceleration of radioactive decay was greater for elements with longer half-lives, and less for elements with shorter half-lives. All radiometric dating methods used on rocks assume that the half-life of the decay has always been what it is today. But we now have compelling evidence that this assumption is false. And since the decay rate was much faster in the past, those who do not compensate for this will end up with age-estimates that are vastly inflated from the true age of the rock.

This of course is exactly what we observe. We already knew that radiometric dating tends to give ages that are much older than the true age. Now we know why. For whatever reason, many people have the false impression that carbon dating is what secular scientists use to estimate the age of earth rocks at billions of years. Carbon dating is not used on rocks, because rocks do not have much carbon in them. And with a half-life of only years, carbon does not last long enough to give an age estimate if something were truly millions of years old.

more detail can

All the carbon would be gone after one million years. To estimate the ages of rocks, secular scientists use elements with much longer half-lives, such as uranium, potassium, and rubidium Animals and plants contain abundant carbon. Carbon dating is therefore used most frequently on animal or plant remains.

The method gives an estimation of how long ago the organism died. Most carbon is c; the nucleus contains six protons and six neutrons. Carbon is stable. A small fraction of carbon is c, which contains eight neutrons rather than six. Carbon is produced in the upper atmosphere when cosmic rays produce neutrons that interact with nitrogen atoms, converting them to c The c naturally decays back into nitrogen with a half-life of years.

Animals then eat the plants, by which c is integrated into their body. So all plants, animals, and people have a small, but measurable quantity of c in their body. That c is slowly but continually decaying into nitrogen. But, while alive, plants and animals replenish the c by taking in additional carbon from their environment.

Therefore, the ratio of c to c in a living animal or plant is roughly the same as it is in the atmosphere. But when an organism dies, it ceases to replenish its supply of c The c simply decays, and therefore the c to c ratio in a dead organism will be somewhat less than that of the atmosphere.

The older the organism, the lower the ratio. So, the ratio of c to c in animal or plant remains serves as a proxy for age, and can be used to estimate how long ago the organism died.

Unlike rock-dating methods, carbon-dating tends to give the correct answer when tested on material whose age is known. We therefore have more confidence in carbon-dating methods than we do in these other methods, though none are perfect of course.

Je suis un retraite confortable, en Could Radiometric Dating Be Wrong tres bonne sante et au physique svelte et sportif, 1. 76 m pour 75kgs. Je suis un Could Radiometric Dating Be Wrong sportif reel aux Could Radiometric Dating Be Wrong gouts eclectiques. J'espere de ma compagne, un physique et des aptitudes en harmonie avec les miennes / Creationists are forced to challenge radiometric dating because it stands as the most powerful and most damning evidence against their idea of a young Earth. But in the end, they are reduced to saying that "radiometric dating must be wrong, because we know it happened this way." And that is not a scientific position. Oct 01,   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 butterfishny.com: Dr. Andrew A. Snelling.

Interestingly, many fossils of plants and animals often contain some of the original material of the organism - including carbon. When this occurs, we can measure the ratio of c to c in these remains, and estimate the age. And what do we find? Very consistently, carbon-dating gives ages that confirm the biblical timescale of thousands of years. Even when we test specimens that evolutionists believe to be millions of years old, such as coal beds, carbon-dating consistently reveals age estimates of a few thousand years.

Yes, there are measurable levels of c in coal, which would be utterly impossible if coal were millions of years old.



Facebook twitter google_plus reddit linkedin

1 thoughts on “Could radiometric dating be wrong

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *