Radiometric Dating is Flawed!! Really?? How Old IS the Earth?
Scientist Realizes Important Flaw in Radioactive Dating
5 Apr Just looking at this list, I can see that none of these are actually assumptions used by radioactive dating methods and/or they are known issues and compensated for. I guess we have to start at the top and work our way down sigh. So much for low hanging fruit. But I'd like you to note something here. They have worked out their geologic timescale based on this assumption. This timescale deliberately ignores the catastrophic effects of the Biblical Flood, which deposited the rocks very quickly. Return to text. This argument was used against creationist work that exposed problems with radiometric dating. Laboratory tests. 20 Jun We previously reported an event organized by the Adelaide, Australia, Chapter of Reasonable Faith where Dr Justin Payne, a lecturer within the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide, sought to 'disprove' objections to long-age radiometric dating. At their request, physicist.
Sign In Sign Up. Do you like this debate? Showing 1 through 10 records. Posted by snackshack79 2 years ago. You are not eligible to vote on this debate. This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters.
This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges. Pro Radiometric dating is the method for establishing the age of objects by measuring the go here of radioisotopes in the sample.
One example is carbon dating. Carbon 14 is created by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. It decays to nitrogen 14 with a half Are There Problems With Radiometric Dating of years.
C14 is continually being created and decaying, leading to an equilibrium state in the atmosphere. When the carbon dioxide, containing C14 as well as stable C12 and C13, is taken in by plants it is no longer exposed to the intense cosmic ray bombardment in the upper atmosphere, so the carbon 14 isotope decays without being replenished.
Measuring the ratio of C14 to C12 and C13 therefore dates the organic matter for periods back to about eight half-lives of the isotope, 45, years.
After a long enough time the minority isotope is in an amount too small to be measured. There are about two dozen decay pairs used for dating. Uranium decay to lead has a half-life of million years, so it is well suited to dating the http://24dating.me/c/things-to-talk-about-online-dating.php. Some radiometric dating methods depend upon knowing the initial amount of the isotope subject to decay.
For example, Are There Problems With Radiometric Dating C14 concentration in the atmosphere depends upon cosmic ray intensity. To take this into account, a calibration curve is developed using other dating methods to establish the C14 levels over time. Other methods do not require knowing the initial quantities. For example, potassium decays into two different isotopes of argon having different half-lives. It does not use the original amount of potassium.
Since carbon dating depends upon variable cosmic ray intensity, a calibration curve is assumed to be applied to account for that. There are three reasons why radiometric data is known to be accurate: It depends upon radioactive decay, which is known to be extremely stable, not influenced my chemical processes, and which can be measured quite accurately. Thus the physical principle of the method is well established.
The dates obtained by radiometric dating are verified by independent methods, including dendrochronology tree ringsvarve chronology sediment layersice cores, coral banding, speleotherms cave formationsfission track dating, and electron spin resonance dating.
The multiple checks verify that the rate of isotope decay does not change over time, and it verifies the accuracies of the methods. For dating back to about 35, years, sediment layers are precise. Sediments include different types of pollen depending upon the season. Consequently, individual years can be identified by season, so there is no possibility of layers being confused. Sediment columns giving an unbroken history for more than 25, years have been identified in about 30 locations around the world.
Coral growth patterns are also seasonal and provide a long independent date history.
The coral record verifies that radiometric methods are accurate. The data is presented in  below.
How to solve radiometric dating problems
The dates obtained by different radiometric isotope pairs cross-check each other. For the purposes of assessing accuracy, each of click methods is assumed to be applied in accordance with the established methods and technology.
By analogy, a stop watch will not keep accurate time if it is not wound, if it is not in good repair, or if the operator forgets to press the button. Methods are precise insofar as they are properly used. Anyone questioning the accuracy of radiometric methods is obliged to explain why the cross-checks to sediments, coral growth, tree rings, and other isotope pairs all have the same errors. Why would an error in radiometric dating correspond to errors in the other Are There Problems With Radiometric Dating so that they all track?
Assumptions of Radioactive Dating
In fact, they track because radiometric data is accurate. An expert scientist summarizes: Since then, geologists have made many tens of thousands of radiometric age determinations, and they have refined the earlier estimates.
A key point is that it is no longer necessary simply to accept one chemical determination of a rock's age.
Another is the assumption of uniformitarianism—in particular the assumption of uniformity of rate across time and space. Pro also resorted to special pleading when he said I sourced a "religious" journal. We are living in an atheistic and racist world.
Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs. Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other.
Every few years, new geologic time scales Are There Problems With Radiometric Dating published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable.
For example, it has been known since the s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years.
The resolution is affirmed. However, I want to be clear that my goal here is not to "prove" young earth creationism, but to simple show that radiometric dating of the age of the earth is unreliable.
The measurement of time by radioactive decay of a parent isotope is often compared to the measurement of time as sand grains fall in an hour glass: The sand grains fall from the upper chamber at a constant rate, said to be analogous to radioactive decay. If all the sand grains started in the upper chamber and then the number of sand grains were measured in the two chambers after some time elapsed, provided the rate at which the sand grains fall has been measured, simple mathematics can be used to calculate how long the hourglass has been in operation, and thus, the time when the process started.
When applied to the radioactive decay "clock," this starting time is when the rock formed and is, therefore, its calculated age. The number of atoms of the daughter isotope originally in the rock or mineral when it crystallized can be known. In other words, it is assumed that we can know the initial conditions when the rock or mineral formed. The number of atoms of the parent and daughter isotopes have not been altered since the rock or mineral crystallized, except for radioactive decay.
The rate of decay of the parent isotope is known accurately, and has not changed during the existence of the rock or mineral since it crystallized. Thus, it logically follows that read more assumptions are, strictly speaking, not provable.
Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Methods Both these methods suffer from the same problems, because they are both based on the radioactive decay of potassium K to argon Ara gas which does not bond with other elements.
As my opponent pointed out it is assumed the initial quantity of the daughter isotope Ar is not needed because it does not bond easily with other elements and, therefore, when the rock forms all the initial Ar would have escaped. In other words, it is assumed there was no initial Ar at the time of formation.
However, many cases have been documented of recent historic lava flows which yielded grossly incorrect K-Ar ages because of "excess argon. Helens a new lava dome began forming. Inless than ten years after it flowed and cooled, dacite lava from this dome was sampled and analyzed . Similarly, andesite from the lava flow from Mt. The diamonds could not be older than the earth itself! The obvious conclusion most investigators have reached is that excess argon had to be present and they did not Are There Problems With Radiometric Dating degas when these rocks and diamonds formed.
Even laboratory experiments have shown that argon can be retained in rocks and mineral at the time of formation . There is also much evidence for argon loss for the very fact Ar does not form chemical bonds with other atoms in a crystal lattice, but lack of space does not permit me go here go into detail [5, 6].
What exactly are we dating here? Sample contamination and general trustworthyness
Radiocarbon Dating Method There are two basic assumptions in C dating. First, the cosmic ray influx has to have been essentially constant my opponent already mentioned this and the C concentration in the carbon dioxide cycle must remain constant. To these two assumptions we can add the assumption of the constancy of the rate of decay of C, the assumption that dead organic matter is not later altered with respect to its carbon content by any biologic Are There Problems With Radiometric Dating other activity, the assumption that the carbon dioxide contents of the ocean and atmosphere has been constant with time, the assumption that the huge reservoir of oceanic carbon has not changed in size during the period of applicability of the method, and the assumption that the rate of formation and the rate of decay of radiocarbon atoms have been in equilibrium throughout the period of applicability.
A less than 10 year old sample should have no measurable Ar. Thus, any argon in the rock must have come from radioactive decay. The reliability of the dating is further enhanced by cross-checking in the same sample. Of course, that error estimate is complete nonsense. Universe by Design by Danny Faulkner Product in cart.
Nevertheless, it has been maintained that the method has been verified beyond any question by numerous correlations with known dates. However, closer investigation reveals that where historical dates are well established, back beyond about BC, the radiocarbon "dates" increasingly diverge, as they also do from tree-rings even though my opponent said they correlate with tree-rings . So the major assumptions in the method would, therefore, appear to be valid for only the period after BC.
Furthermore, my opponent asserted, regarding C dating, "After a long enough time the minority isotope is in an amount too small to be measured. My opponent, therefore, must explain the substantial amount of C found in coalfields that are millions of years old and diamonds that are billions of years old.
Recently, ten coal samples representative of the economic important coalfields of the United States, and five diamonds from African kimberlite pipes were analyzed .
Three of the coal samples check this out from Eocene seams, three from Cretaceous seams, Are There Problems With Radiometric Dating four from Pennsylvania seams Uniformitarian ages ranging from 40 Ma to Ma. Yet they all yielded dates around 50, years. The diamonds came from underground mines where contamination would be minimal.
However, diamonds are the hardest natural mineral and extremely resistant to contamination. These diamonds are considered to be billion years old according to uniformitarian geologists, so they should have been radiocarbon-dead. Nevertheless, they still contained significant levels of C Given the supposed antiquity of these diamonds, and their source deep inside the earth, one possible explanation for these detectable C levels is that the C is primordial. However, if this were the case, the apparent "age" of the earth Are There Problems With Radiometric Dating would only be about 45, years old according to my opponent!
The presence of detectable C in fossils, which according to the uniformitarian timescale should be entirely Cdead, has been reported from the earliest days of radiocarbon dating. For example, a published survey on all the dates reported in the journal "Radiocarbon" up to commented that for more than 15, samples reported: This data shows that radiometric dating is unreliable and questionable at best.
I have many more examples to share, but space does not permit. I will elaborate in further rounds and I hope to address Pros assertion that independent dating methods correlate with the radiometric dates.
Although, by showing that radiometric dating is unreliable on its own terms, any perceived correlation with independent dating methods means absolutely nothing.
My sources are in the comment section.