Radioactive dating flaws online dating gender ratio
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? " More like another example of a creationist who doesn't know what the fuck they're doing—or worse, know what they're doing and is being intentionally dishonest.—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.
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. For example, we read on Creation that: "[This finding] does discredit the C-14 dating of freshwater mussels, but that's about all.
(And I have to say, I'm excited about this project, because I finally have an opportunity to speak about dating and actually know what I'm talking about! these [radiometric dating] methods provide largely consistent results for the ages of various rock strata throughout the geologic column, which correlate well with non-radiometric dating methods, including cores, varves, dendrochronology, and others." — Allende by 2 laboratories, Guarena by 2 laboratories, and St Severin by four laboratories. the K-T impact produced tektites, which are small glass spherules that form from rock that is instantaneously melted by a large impact . Yet what we actually see is perfect consistency.—Given these facts, why do creationists distrust radiometric dating?
)—Before we jump into the specific arguments made by creationists, let's begin by first establishing the veracity of radiometric dating. This pretty much eliminates any significant laboratory biases or any major analytical mistakes. they all give the same result to within a few percent."". One reason is that the half-lives of some elements vary under certain circumstances.
Let's say the rock is 300 million years old and the trace argon makes it appear 301 million years old; relatively speaking, on a geological timescale, this difference is so minor as to be virtually inconsequential."Hey, you ready to start the lecture? Why not have a tortoise or a cockatoo just sort of hanging out on stage with you when you give your lecture? The model K-Ar ages for each of the samples ranged from 405.1±10 Ma to 2574.2±73 Ma. 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.
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."Once again, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this discrepancy, and this doesn't justify a wholesale dismissal of radiometric dating. Now you might be saying at this point: If we can't use these dating methods on certain types of rock or animal, it seems to me that they're just not trustworthy.As Adam Benton writes on Filthy Monkey Men.com,"First, the information on mammoth dates is presented in a table. Did somebody along the line misread this study, misrepresent its findings, and has this inaccuracy just been passed along from creationist to creationist like a game of telephone?Why is a person as prominent as Eric Hovind not making sure that his references actually support what he claims they do?The young-earth creationist belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old massively contradicts the scientific conclusion that it's actually 4.5 billion years old. Imagine, by analogy, that a murder suspect is being questioned by detectives.In order to maintain this belief of theirs, creationists obviously need to call into question the trustworthiness of the dating methods used by scientists to establish the age of the Earth. They say to him: "Look, the surveillance footage clearly shows you stabbing the guy.
Search for radioactive dating flaws:
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: ." 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! ", and the scientists are like: "Uh, we're actually well aware of this.