Reliability of radioactive dating
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.
", "Yeah, hang on: Let me just get my five potted plants to bring out in front of me."I don't know why, but I kinda like it. This is the future of public speaking, ladies and gentlemen.—Further evidence of radiometric dating's unreliability is presented by potted-plant aficionado Andrew Snelling in an article entitled "Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology." There, he writes the following: . 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 1060.4±28 Ma to 2574.2±73 Ma."So basically, samples from one section of rock yielded wildly divergent results. the dates for the Brahma come from the overlying and underlying formations because the dates for the Brahma formation are unreliable . Carbon from these sources is very low in C-14 because these sources are so old and have not been mixed with fresh carbon from the air.
Greg Neyman of Old Earth Ministries—a Christian organization, I might add—points out the very simple problem underlying this study:". Thus, a freshly killed mussel has far less C-14 than a freshly killed something else, which is why the C-14 dating method makes freshwater mussels seem older than they really are. The seals feed off of animals that live in a nutrient-rich upwelling zone.
When dating wood there is no such problem because wood gets its carbon straight from the air, complete with a full dose of C-14.""This is the well-known reservoir effect . The water that is upwelling has been traveling along the [ocean] bottom for a few thousand years before surfacing.
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?
—Arguably the magnum opus of creationist efforts to refute radiometric dating is what's known as the RATE project, short for Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth.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? I told you this stuff doesn't get you high." No, the only reason it's not getting you high is because you're not using it correctly.Rather than the dating techniques being flawed, perhaps it's "If a recent lava flow, a recent eruption, where we know the true age of the rock from observation or historical evidence gets the answer wrong using the Potassium-Argon method, how can we trust them on ancient rocks when we don't have the historical documentation? Try tearing out a page from your Bible and rolling a joint with that shit, and then come and talk to me."Another Devastating Failure For Long-Age Geology?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."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.
Search for reliability of radioactive dating:
" 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? One crucial mistake that these creationists made was using the wrong equipment to date their sample. 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 , so they just said "Fuck it" and decided to wing it from that point on.