Radiometric age dating flaws

Rated 3.92/5 based on 779 customer reviews

Where are the data and age calculations that result in a consistent set of ages for all rocks on earth, as well as those from the moon and the meteorites, no greater than 10 000 years? Second, it is an approach doomed to failure at the outset.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.Of course, there are many problems with such dating methods, such as parent or daughter substances entering or leaving the rock, as well as daughter product being present at the beginning.Here I want to concentrate on another source of error, namely, processes that take place within magma chambers.Only rarely does a creationist actually find an incorrect radiometric result (Austin 1996; Rugg and Austin 1998) that has not already been revealed and discussed in the scientific literature.The creationist approach of focusing on examples where radiometric dating yields incorrect results is a curious one for two reasons.Radiometric 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.Some so-called creation scientists have attempted to show that radiometric dating does not work on theoretical grounds (for example, Arndts and Overn 1981; Gill 1996) but such attempts invariably have fatal flaws (see Dalrymple 1984; York and Dalrymple 2000).

radiometric age dating flaws-71

radiometric age dating flaws-72

radiometric age dating flaws-62

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.I want to know of any circumstances in which Radiometric Dating would be flawed.I specifically want to know if there is a slight chance that Radiometric Dating could be flawed since scientists eliminate any dates not in accordance to their pre-established ages for the geologic column. I want to know of any circumstances in which Radiometric Dating would be flawed.Another pertinent thing that's also ignored, minimized, or scoffed at are the numerous other scientific methods of dating the earth, solar system, and or universe that yield much younger ages than 500 million years (max). When a rock crystallises, the crystals of the minerals in the rock often enclose minute grains of other minerals which contain uranium and thorium.With the exception of Carbon-14, radiometric dating is used to date either igneous or metamorphic rocks that contain radioactive elements such as uranium. Now when the uranium or thorium disintegrates, the alpha particles which are emitted are slowed down by the crystals in which the grains of the uranium- or thorium-bearing minerals are embedded.

Leave a Reply