Relative age dating vs radiometric age dating, what is radiocarbon dating?
After study and discussion of this question, I now believe that the claimed accuracy of radiometric dating methods is a result of a great misunderstanding of the data, and that the various methods hardly ever agree with each other, and often do not agree with the assumed ages of the rocks in which they are found.
The biostrategraphic limits issue The issue about igneous bodies may need additional clarification. And Harold Coffin's book Creation by Design lists a study showing that Rb-Sr dates are often inherited from the magma.
So it is difficult to know what would be a reasonable test for whether radiometric dating is reliable or not. These will be discussed in the next section. I believe that all parent substances are water soluble, and many of the daughter products as well.
As discussed above in the section on Rb-Sr dating the simplest form of Rb-Sr dating i.
Dating Dinosaur Fossils
Since even rocks with old K-Ar dates still absorb more argon from the atmosphere in short time periods, it follows that rocks should absorb quite a bit of argon over long time periods, especially at higher pressures.
Even though the various minerals will incorporate different amounts of Sr as they cool and form, the Sr isotopic composition will be the same because natural processes do not significantly fractionate isotopes with so little mass difference as 87Sr and 86Sr.
It is also possible that each crater gives a scatter of dates, and the best ones were selected.
My answer is that it is similar to believing in other things of the past. And quite a few other dates are often much, much farther off.
We must conclude that all evidence points towards unchanging radioactive half-lives. It is important to understand that a very large number of accurate dates covering the pastyears has been obtained from many other methods besides radiometric dating. This lava will take longer to cool down, giving more opportunity for enclosed argon to escape and leading to younger radiometric ages.
This would also make deeper rocks tend to have older radiometric ages. The seasonal differences consist of a visual differences caused by increased bubbles and larger crystal size from summer ice compared to winter ice, b dust layers deposited each summer, c nitric acid concentrations, measured by electrical conductivity of the ice, d chemistry of contaminants in the ice, and e seasonal variations in the relative amounts of heavy hydrogen deuterium and heavy oxygen oxygen in the ice.
Now, there is probably not much argon in a rock to start with. This it can do by following the path of the ancient lava flow itself, coming up along the path of the magma.
If one predicts a carbon age assuming that the ratio of carbon to carbon in the air has stayed constant, there is a slight error because this ratio has changed slightly.
Concerning K-Ar anomalies, here is a quote from Woodmorappe's paper cited above, p. Although there were attempts to make relative age estimates, no direct dating method was available until the twentieth century.
Unlike the radioactive isotopes discussed above, these isotopes are constantly being replenished in small amounts in one of two ways. Here is another Sermons on dating boundaries from Woodmorappe about isochrons, since some people think that mixing scenarios or other age-altering scenarios are unlikely: His result was in close agreement with Relative age dating vs radiometric age dating estimate of the age of the earth.
What change does this have on uncalibrated carbon ages? The result of the reaction depends on the properties of the target isotope and on the energy of the penetrating neutron. So the natural response from a young-Earth perspective is to claim that radiometric dating is inaccurate or untrustworthy.
I would like to know what is the exact or approximate information content of this assertion, and whether it could be or has been tested statistically. A second advantage of the isochron method is that it contains internal checks on reliability.
Recently, absolute ages have been determined to 75, years for at least one location using cosmogenic radionuclides chlorine and beryllium G.
The earth is supposed to be nearly 5 billion years old, and some of these methods seem to verify ancient dates for many of earth's igneous rocks. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude e.
A Response to “Scientific” Creationism
The different types of layers are summarized in Table III. But how can we know that this claim is true, without knowing the history of rocks and knowing whether they have in fact experienced later heating or leaching?
They also pointed out that for the anomalies to be accounted for by excess argon, unreasonably high partial pressures of Ar during crystallization would have to be required.